I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
Part of the problem is the BBC is a bit like Brexit, in that there is probably a small majority who want significant change, but they are not united as to what that change should be. Some want a subscription service, some want it gone, some want it funded from taxation, some want it to focus on whatever they use it for, some want it funded by advertising and so on.
I would try something like phasing the license fee out over 5-8 years, to be replaced by a subscription service but with govt backstop funding, kicking in only if subscriptions are too low during the transition period (given rivals like Amazon, Netflix and Disney will run their services at a cash loss to kill off competitors this safety net is important). News and education divisions should be state funded ongoing.
Interesting idea, yes. There is an uneasy juxta between a forced LF and big bucks salaries to high profile presenters. I understand why that irritates.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
We already have a sportsman's bet about the date, I believe. You are on 21 June for pubs opening, I am on 2 April.
I'm happy with my bet – I think beer gardens will be back open by Easter and then pubs open with fewer restrictions by May.
I don't deny that some of your points are valid: some people (especially on PB!) are overly sanguine about lockdowns, which are a modern nightmare – an inhumane horror.
But you take things way too far with your hyperbole, just undermines your arguments.
I've come to the conclusion that ending lockdown will be like bankruptcy. Gradually until it happens suddenly.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
We already have a sportsman's bet about the date, I believe. You are on 21 June for pubs opening, I am on 2 April.
I'm happy with my bet – I think beer gardens will be back open by Easter and then pubs open with fewer restrictions by May.
I don't deny that some of your points are valid: some people (especially on PB!) are overly sanguine about lockdowns, which are a modern nightmare – an inhumane horror.
But you take things way too far with your hyperbole, just undermines your arguments.
Actually, you have a point. I am wrong. We will get out of this, one day.
There is a determined attempt to discredit the Astra vaccine, both in the press and in the scientific community, however.
There's definitely an awful lot of negative stories going round about the AZ vaccine, which don't necessarily match up to the findings of the official trials in many countries.
If I were a real cynic, I might suggest that the fact it costs $3, keeps in a fridge and is being produced on a non-profit basis might have a lot to do with it.
It's the winning vaccine, and all the losers are upset.
Also a group of embarrassed nations would rather spread muck about a cheap, reliable, easy to distribute vaccine that they didn't invest in soon enough so they're at the back of the queue for doses, rather than admit that maybe the screwed up the investment and procurement.
But I wouldn't call Pfizer etc losers either. They're going to make billions in sales and their technology will be adapted further in the future. The muck seems to be coming from those who should know better, rather than actually the rivals.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
The point is the game has moved on...Netflix is HBO on steroids. The big daddy Disney now going to throw eye watering sums of money at new content (I have forgotten how many new Star Wars shows are coming in the next 2 years alone, I think it is 7-8) And Sky are also investing heavily in original content.
And all this new content, will be yearly seasons, 10-20 episodes per season.
Where as the BBC will say, but we have Peaky Blinders, if you wait another 2 years for 6hrs of content.
Another comparison....Doctor Who, putting aside how woke it has gone, the special effects are just laughably bad. In comparison, I can watch Disney+ and see movie quality special effects in 4k / HDR. via the Mandalorian.
The BBC just can't compete with this level of technology these days. Watch any show that needs VFX / SFX work and it is massively inferior to the show on Netflix. And Disney will just absolutely kill everybody on this front.
On the drama front, the UK might take a look at the S. Korean industry. Absolutely astonishing results for content in a language spoken by a minute fraction of the world's population, and it doesn't depend on massive investment. And FX is overrated compared to good writing.
My point is these days FX isn't what you think it is. It is used as a standard technique in basically every show that has some sort of quality to it. When you watch the showreels of some of the top companies who do this, there is only a limited amount of what we would think of as "FX" i.e. explosions or aliens.
It is as much efficiency and cost saying, as it is to wow you.
People don't realise how few naked flames there are on a set these days (e.g. candles). It's almost all physical lighting, grading, and CG.
Here is a good example of the sort of work that has nothing to do with Baby Yodas that all high quality movies and tv shows do. And most of it is about efficiency.
youtube.com/watch?v=J3tfIem4ckE
That's very cool, thanks for posting. Amazing to see how quickly that technology has come on, and how widely it's now in use. Must save an absolute fortune from production budgets.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
Public support for lockdown is like a patient's support for a particularly nasty treatment for a malady. They hate it but support it as necessary - like a cast for a broken bone or chemo for cancer. Once numbers reach a certain point people will start to chafe increasingly as they wonder why they have to keep undergoing the treatment for a "cured" illness. But there is no date on that. The public will support it for as long as it takes to get better.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
How much would it cost you to watch all 58 episodes of Boardwalk Empire?
It's available on NowTV so not very much.
Ha dammit. So what's that? A tenner a month for Boardwalk Empire. And we already have prime and netflix. On prime, for example, it would cost you £100 for all five seasons of Boardwalk empire.
So now we're at £9.99 (Now), £9.99 (Netflix), £7.99 (Prime) = £336/yr.
Plus Sky Sports = another £120?
And so for those who say "but prime can do that" re the BBC - can it? Plus how many don't buy extra stuff that is not included in prime?
Sky sports for £120?! If you find that offer let me know. It's about £200 per year at the moment through NowTV and entertainment/boxsets is about £80 if you pay annually plus I have Prime for the delivery. The TV part of it is just a bonus and I pay annualy.
It works out to £20 per year for Netflix, £60 for D+, £660 for Sky (with Sports, movies and boxsets) and £175 for the licence fee.
I think this is the last year I have Sky, I think I'm going to get NowTV entertainment and sports which is about £300 per year together. If I could pay £10 per month for BBC Drama and Documentaries (under your variable subscription model) which gave me full access to the archive of BBC Drama and Documentaries I'd have that instead of the licence fee. As it stands we'll go all online and get our content through IPTV and stop paying the licence fee, I'm not that fussed about MOTD.
The other thing Topping neglects is there really is no need to go watch boardwalk empire unless you really want to. All the streaming services have more tv than you could watch in a lifetime even if you just stick to things you like. It is not like it was in the broadcast only days where you had to buy video's for when there was nothing worth watching on
People are paying a huge premium to watch prime, netflix and have sky sports.
So no of course you don't need to watch boardwalk empire. Unless you want to watch boardwalk empire. In which case you will have to pay for it one way or another.
Not so It's a Sin, as an example.
You can watch "It's a Sin" without paying a subscription fee? How?
And how and where will that be available to watch in a few years time? Boardwalk Empire was on first air from 2010 to 2014 and is still available to stream today as part of my subscription at no extra cost. How does that work with stuff the BBC produced from 2010 to 2014 for example?
We watched it from Spain this week - the whole thing.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
The point is the game has moved on...Netflix is HBO on steroids. The big daddy Disney now going to throw eye watering sums of money at new content (I have forgotten how many new Star Wars shows are coming in the next 2 years alone, I think it is 7-8) And Sky are also investing heavily in original content.
And all this new content, will be yearly seasons, 10-20 episodes per season.
Where as the BBC will say, but we have Peaky Blinders, if you wait another 2 years for 6hrs of content.
Another comparison....Doctor Who, putting aside how woke it has gone, the special effects are just laughably bad. In comparison, I can watch Disney+ and see movie quality special effects in 4k / HDR. via the Mandalorian.
The BBC just can't compete with this level of technology these days. Watch any show that needs VFX / SFX work and it is massively inferior to the show on Netflix. And Disney will just absolutely kill everybody on this front.
On the drama front, the UK might take a look at the S. Korean industry. Absolutely astonishing results for content in a language spoken by a minute fraction of the world's population, and it doesn't depend on massive investment. And FX is overrated compared to good writing.
My point is these days FX isn't what you think it is. It is used as a standard technique in basically every show that has some sort of quality to it. When you watch the showreels of some of the top companies who do this, there is only a limited amount of what we would think of as "FX" i.e. explosions or aliens.
It is as much efficiency and cost saying, as it is to wow you.
People don't realise how few naked flames there are on a set these days (e.g. candles). It's almost all physical lighting, grading, and CG.
Here is a good example of the sort of work that has nothing to do with Baby Yodas that all high quality movies and tv shows do. And most of it is about efficiency.
youtube.com/watch?v=J3tfIem4ckE
That's very cool, thanks for posting. Amazing to see how quickly that technology has come on, and how widely it's now in use. Must save an absolute fortune from production budgets.
There is that and then there is Disney / ILM tech....
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
The point is the game has moved on...Netflix is HBO on steroids. The big daddy Disney now going to throw eye watering sums of money at new content (I have forgotten how many new Star Wars shows are coming in the next 2 years alone, I think it is 7-8) And Sky are also investing heavily in original content.
And all this new content, will be yearly seasons, 10-20 episodes per season.
Where as the BBC will say, but we have Peaky Blinders, if you wait another 2 years for 6hrs of content.
Another comparison....Doctor Who, putting aside how woke it has gone, the special effects are just laughably bad. In comparison, I can watch Disney+ and see movie quality special effects in 4k / HDR. via the Mandalorian.
The BBC just can't compete with this level of technology these days. Watch any show that needs VFX / SFX work and it is massively inferior to the show on Netflix. And Disney will just absolutely kill everybody on this front.
On the drama front, the UK might take a look at the S. Korean industry. Absolutely astonishing results for content in a language spoken by a minute fraction of the world's population, and it doesn't depend on massive investment. And FX is overrated compared to good writing.
My point is these days FX isn't what you think it is. It is used as a standard technique in basically every show that has some sort of quality to it. When you watch the showreels of some of the top companies who do this, there is only a limited amount of what we would think of as "FX" i.e. explosions or aliens.
It is as much efficiency and cost saying, as it is to wow you.
People don't realise how few naked flames there are on a set these days (e.g. candles). It's almost all physical lighting, grading, and CG.
Here is a good example of the sort of work that has nothing to do with Baby Yodas that all high quality movies and tv shows do. And most of it is about efficiency.
youtube.com/watch?v=J3tfIem4ckE
That's very cool, thanks for posting. Amazing to see how quickly that technology has come on, and how widely it's now in use. Must save an absolute fortune from production budgets.
Its also why production quality now has come along so much and that is increasingly taken for granted.
Even relatively recent shows can already seem quite dated in their quality sometimes.
Two updates from Guernsey - confirmation that the latest outbreak is driven by B117 - in all 4 of the initial cases - which accounts for the rapid spread through households not seen in the first outbreak. It’s also got into a second care home - where all had already been vaccinated 3 weeks ago - only one staff member tested positive, none of the others, staff or patients did. The first Care home outbreak only has two cases and they are very mild. Care Homes accounted for all of the deaths in the first wave.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
I have a feeling he won't be as chipper as previous weeks.
Why do you think that?
The idea that 2021 "will be like 2020" is utterly unacceptable.
If we can't rid ourselves of harm from this thing by the spring, we need to accept it and live with it. Those at high risk can voluntarily shield.
Many PBers seem sanguine about endless lockdowns.
I am not. They must end forever this spring.
I guess it depends what you mean by "end". I think there will continue to be widespread mask use which I would be relaxed about, for instance.
I`ve banged on enough about my concern - and yours - that the narrative of "the vaccine will save us" will change to "the vaccines are great but there is still risk so let`s keep x shut and restrict y and Sunak must continue to financially support z and what about mutant variants etc etc etc". Populist government = the public has got to want things to return to normal and there is insufficient evidence in the polling of this at the moment.
Masks in supermarkets I can live with for a while. But no to masks in pubs and restaurants and anywhere where the primary function is meeting each other.
Someone needs to get in front of this, and lay out a roadmap for exit. I believe that has been promised for 22 Feb.
Other than the crazies (doing more harm than good) it seems to me that the only cohort pushing this is some Tory MPs. I think the LibDems should be vocal on this too. Was it 22 Feb or 29 Feb, I forget?
Pretty sure it was 22 Feb, I heard that on the news yesterday.
I'd like to see both the Liberals and the liberal wing of Labour challenge lockdownism from the left. I have only read Zoe Williams and one or two others do so publicly among the latter's journalistic outriders.
I was thinking about this this morning.
All through the nineteenth and early 20 century the labour party's forbears campaigned tirelessly and ceaselessly to get all children educated. To get rid of child labour, child exploitation, ignorance and early death and to give every kid some sort of chance in life. Whatever disease or affliction ravaged the land.
What would those campaigners say today, when labour is behind a 'no schooling' policy that consigns all to ignorance, but poor children more than anyone?
Agreed. It's not sustainable and is incongruous with Labour's worldview.
But it is congruent with Labour's strategy to date, namely to lay every casualty of the pandemic at Boris' door. So if they now call for a national reopening before it's absolutely and perfectly safe to do so, their own words damn them. Oops.
Two updates from Guernsey - confirmation that the latest outbreak is driven by B117 - in all 4 of the initial cases - which accounts for the rapid spread through households not seen in the first outbreak. It’s also got into a second care home - where all had already been vaccinated 3 weeks ago - only one staff member tested positive, none of the others, staff or patients did. The first Care home outbreak only has two cases and they are very mild. Care Homes accounted for all of the deaths in the first wave.
That bodes well for the efficacy of the vaccine (I think)?
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
Can I ask how/why it barely affects you? Do you never visit pubs, museums, restaurants, theatres, or go on holiday? Do you have no schoolage children or niblings?
Pretty much that. Very much a house mouse. Did go on holiday 4 years ago but that was the first time in 15 years.
I did visit Parliament in 2019. Good times. Would like the cinema back.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
I would rather be technically correct than technically wrong.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
I would rather be technically correct than technically wrong.
You?
Big picture, Philip. Big picture. I can't be obsessing about every brushstroke.
I think the BBC's great. Things I've loved over the last year either live or on iPlayer - Spiral, Normal People, Peaky Blinders, The Serpent, Mrs America, and lots more. Radio news (1pm and 5pm) much better than most others. Quite a lot of good plays on R4, and good analysis on things like More or Less. Just a Minute. And of course The Archers. I could go on and on.
The idea that the BBC doesn't produce good stuff is absurd - of course they do.
Peaky Blinders is a great example of what is wrong with the BBC in the modern era.
They have a hit, a big hit....and in 8 years they have made 30 episodes.
Big shows now regularly have between 10 and 20 episodes per season and they make a season every year.
Now you could argue, but the quality, what about quality, it slips if you do too many etc. Can be true, but people are now conditioned to binge watch things, they want content, 30 episodes in 8 years isn't enough.
Lets compare a similar show, Boardwalk Empire on HBO. 4 years, 58 episodes. That has even higher production values, a top quality show, I don't think doing 12 episodes a year reduced its quality.
Very well said and frankly I doubt the quality of Peaky Blinders is any better than that of Boardwalk Empire.
Plus HBO of course don't rest on their laurels of having done Boardwalk Empire, they move onto other quality projects.
The volume and quality of the BBC compared to HBO etc is just embarrassing, it is really poor.
30 episode in eight years isn't something to live off.
The point is the game has moved on...Netflix is HBO on steroids. The big daddy Disney now going to throw eye watering sums of money at new content (I have forgotten how many new Star Wars shows are coming in the next 2 years alone, I think it is 7-8) And Sky are also investing heavily in original content.
And all this new content, will be yearly seasons, 10-20 episodes per season.
Where as the BBC will say, but we have Peaky Blinders, if you wait another 2 years for 6hrs of content.
Another comparison....Doctor Who, putting aside how woke it has gone, the special effects are just laughably bad. In comparison, I can watch Disney+ and see movie quality special effects in 4k / HDR. via the Mandalorian.
The BBC just can't compete with this level of technology these days. Watch any show that needs VFX / SFX work and it is massively inferior to the show on Netflix. And Disney will just absolutely kill everybody on this front.
On the drama front, the UK might take a look at the S. Korean industry. Absolutely astonishing results for content in a language spoken by a minute fraction of the world's population, and it doesn't depend on massive investment. And FX is overrated compared to good writing.
My point is these days FX isn't what you think it is. It is used as a standard technique in basically every show that has some sort of quality to it. When you watch the showreels of some of the top companies who do this, there is only a limited amount of what we would think of as "FX" i.e. explosions or aliens.
It is as much efficiency and cost saying, as it is to wow you.
People don't realise how few naked flames there are on a set these days (e.g. candles). It's almost all physical lighting, grading, and CG.
Here is a good example of the sort of work that has nothing to do with Baby Yodas that all high quality movies and tv shows do. And most of it is about efficiency.
youtube.com/watch?v=J3tfIem4ckE
That's very cool, thanks for posting. Amazing to see how quickly that technology has come on, and how widely it's now in use. Must save an absolute fortune from production budgets.
youtu.be/hfBLOOXUceQ
Here's the latest generation, fresh from CES. I'm told it's rolling out to backlots across the world right now.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
Agreed, there's something crass about it. What's wrong with 'inoculated'?
Hell yeah to the main news though. The new target seems to assume no increase - indeed a decrease - in the supply available for first doses, but with luck that'll turn out to be an under-promise.
(Not sure how much is 'AI' as we'd think of it and how much simpler models). Same concerns as in the article for me. These systems are trained and so will pick up attributes that match candidates who did well in the past not necessarily those who would do well now. So if your past recruitment was biased or your past progression was biased so e.g. white men did well, then it's quite likely you algorithm will favour people who behave in the tests as white men would behave.
Of course, human recruiters suck too. We recently shortlisted and interviewed. Only one person fit the bill and took a different position, so we re-advertised and shortlisted (second time) someone we'd rejected at shortlisting stage first time. Was still a borderline decision whether to include him second time. At interview, he was way above anyone else. Great candidate, came across well, passed our tests with flying colours. And yet we rejected him once and only just included him a second time.
The 'AI' tests are also very gameable, unless done on-site, and generic ones can have limited relevance. My wife had English and Maths online tests, pre-interview, for her last job. We did them together. I'm probably better at the maths tests like that then her and maybe a bit more chilled under time pressure (both deliberately didn't give you enough time). She still had to prove herself at interview, and did, but could she have been rejected by the daft online test? Maybe.
I would prefer to work for a smaller firm and coincidentally they, at least in my experience, are less likely to deploy such "AI" measures.
That said I know half the battle is luck: right place, right time, striking a chord with the shortlisters, interviewers, or assessors, on a particular day at a particular time. That sort of thing.
Or you can try being a qualified Physics teacher. I was the only candidate called for interview for both of the schools I have worked at.
The down side is that you have to teach Physics.
Downside? It's so not a downside! Teaching biology because the school has to run on the basis of generic science teachers, that's more of an issue. Biology is full of gross stuff.
I have been teaching since the early nineties and have yet to have to teach either biology or chemistry; indeed when I was looking for a job at the start not having to teach "science" was high on my list of priorities.
Speaking of which, my next lesson is about to start...
Even at KS3?
Even KS3: I was teaching one of my Y9 Physics sets this morning.
Well done to all involved, though think the target for the next group should be earlier than end of April, mid April should be do-able if not earlier still.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
I think it's a bit like Harry Potter, LOTR, perhaps The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Genuinely (and literally) fantastic. If you are a child.
Here is a good example of the sort of work that has nothing to do with Baby Yodas that all high quality movies and tv shows do. And most of it is about efficiency.
Zodiac is a good example of a film which has a huge amount of CGI for a drama set in the 1970s. Almost every shot with a skyline in it has CGI. Almost all the shots that look like a crane or helicopter might have been used instead use CGI. Many of the apparently large sets are extended using CGI. I doubt that the average viewer would notice even 10% of the effects shots in the film.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
So your entertainment should be funded out of my taxes and I should have to pay for mine.....wow and you accuse me of being selfish
I have no problem with tax revenues funding things which you would not choose to fund given pure personal choice. Same for those things I would opt out of if I could.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
Part of the problem is the BBC is a bit like Brexit, in that there is probably a small majority who want significant change, but they are not united as to what that change should be. Some want a subscription service, some want it gone, some want it funded from taxation, some want it to focus on whatever they use it for, some want it funded by advertising and so on.
I would try something like phasing the license fee out over 5-8 years, to be replaced by a subscription service but with govt backstop funding, kicking in only if subscriptions are too low during the transition period (given rivals like Amazon, Netflix and Disney will run their services at a cash loss to kill off competitors this safety net is important). News and education divisions should be state funded ongoing.
Interesting idea, yes. There is an uneasy juxta between a forced LF and big bucks salaries to high profile presenters. I understand why that irritates.
Lineker is the most ridiculous example. You could find better hosts who will do it for free, as the role gives them such a profile they can make millions elsewhere anyway.
Paying for top acting or musical talent is one thing, paying someone millions for an hour a week to say here is Man Utd v Leicester and ask Ian Wright if he thinks its a penalty is a clear misuse of public funds imo.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
Things can get confusing these days. Saw some teen fantasy type thing on Netflix which was tagged as Italian TV. Its all in English, filmed in Ireland with British and Irish actors, but it's based off a cartoon produced by an Italian company.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
The GoT production base is located in the UK, receiving very considerable UK tax rebates (not EU), these same rebates help networks decide production location (interestingly, £12.49 was generated for the British economy for every £1 of tax relief given by the UK government) and while some of the non-UK location scenes require local crew, the senior production staff are all British
Well done to all involved, though think the target for the next group should be earlier than end of April, mid April should be do-able if not earlier still.
I hope so though its worth noting the target keeps edging forwards which is refreshing, normally these things slip the other direction. Only a few days ago May was beaking spoken about.
Also worth noting that there will be increasing amounts of second doses due by the end of this month onwards. So keeping first doses going while not falling behind on second doses will require continued ramping up of capacity.
I'd like to see a target for all adults to be vaccinated. Be good to get that by July IMO. Definitely before the schools reopen.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
So your entertainment should be funded out of my taxes and I should have to pay for mine.....wow and you accuse me of being selfish
I have no problem with tax revenues funding things which you would not choose to fund given pure personal choice. Same for those things I would opt out of if I could.
I agree for essential public services, your entertainment is not an essential service however
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
I think it's a bit like Harry Potter, LOTR, perhaps The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Genuinely (and literally) fantastic. If you are a child.
..and waits..
Quite. I am not into sword and sorcery stuff (no offence to anyone who is) when the woman laid a dragon, it was a 'No' from me at that point.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
An American production company (HBO) using British talent to film in Britain.
Its as British as Nissan's manufactured in the UK are British.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
I think it's a bit like Harry Potter, LOTR, perhaps The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Genuinely (and literally) fantastic. If you are a child.
..and waits..
Quite. I am not into sword and sorcery stuff (no offence to anyone who is) when the woman laid a dragon, it was a 'No' from me at that point.
It's fine for people not into that kind of stuff. I know people who liked it and the books on the grounds it 'wasnt really fantasy' which is nonsense but what people say when they like something but are embarrassed they do (or embarrassed to be in it). It's just that there need not be offence to people who do like that stuff.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
An American production company (HBO) using British talent to film in Britain.
Its as British as Nissan's manufactured in the UK are British.
I would concur. Nissan is a Japanese car firm. Some of the vehicles are produced in the UK, and I am pleased and grateful for that inward investment, but I'm not going to call it a British car.
Well done to all involved, though think the target for the next group should be earlier than end of April, mid April should be do-able if not earlier still.
I hope so though its worth noting the target keeps edging forwards which is refreshing, normally these things slip the other direction. Only a few days ago May was beaking spoken about.
Also worth noting that there will be increasing amounts of second doses due by the end of this month onwards. So keeping first doses going while not falling behind on second doses will require continued ramping up of capacity.
I'd like to see a target for all adults to be vaccinated. Be good to get that by July IMO. Definitely before the schools reopen.
The target for that is still autumn, again think we are clearly on track for before end of July on that (assuming first jabs count). Autumn covers 1 Sept to 21 Dec so the govt target doesnt tell us much. If its as seasonal as last year and the vulnerable are already vaccinated the exact pace in the summer hopefully might not actually matter much.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
Well, its like casting Romans with american accents, it just doesn't work, same thing if there are castles and swords even through it's a made up setting.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
I have a feeling he won't be as chipper as previous weeks.
Why do you think that?
The idea that 2021 "will be like 2020" is utterly unacceptable.
If we can't rid ourselves of harm from this thing by the spring, we need to accept it and live with it. Those at high risk can voluntarily shield.
Many PBers seem sanguine about endless lockdowns.
I am not. They must end forever this spring.
I guess it depends what you mean by "end". I think there will continue to be widespread mask use which I would be relaxed about, for instance.
I`ve banged on enough about my concern - and yours - that the narrative of "the vaccine will save us" will change to "the vaccines are great but there is still risk so let`s keep x shut and restrict y and Sunak must continue to financially support z and what about mutant variants etc etc etc". Populist government = the public has got to want things to return to normal and there is insufficient evidence in the polling of this at the moment.
Masks in supermarkets I can live with for a while. But no to masks in pubs and restaurants and anywhere where the primary function is meeting each other.
Someone needs to get in front of this, and lay out a roadmap for exit. I believe that has been promised for 22 Feb.
Other than the crazies (doing more harm than good) it seems to me that the only cohort pushing this is some Tory MPs. I think the LibDems should be vocal on this too. Was it 22 Feb or 29 Feb, I forget?
As the next 29th of February is in 2024, I hope it’s the former...
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
It feels like the end of the world to me. That`s not much of an exaggeration. For me, my wife and particularly my children.
The effects of the pandemic are being so unequally felt to be sure, intra-nation and across nations.
Being is the States, Canada or Australia is one thing - I can`t take lockdown in this country. No way.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
Yes, we were chatting about this on our weekly Zoom on Friday. This lockdown has been so much worse than March where there was still some kind novelty.
I have a feeling he won't be as chipper as previous weeks.
Why do you think that?
The idea that 2021 "will be like 2020" is utterly unacceptable.
If we can't rid ourselves of harm from this thing by the spring, we need to accept it and live with it. Those at high risk can voluntarily shield.
Many PBers seem sanguine about endless lockdowns.
I am not. They must end forever this spring.
I guess it depends what you mean by "end". I think there will continue to be widespread mask use which I would be relaxed about, for instance.
I`ve banged on enough about my concern - and yours - that the narrative of "the vaccine will save us" will change to "the vaccines are great but there is still risk so let`s keep x shut and restrict y and Sunak must continue to financially support z and what about mutant variants etc etc etc". Populist government = the public has got to want things to return to normal and there is insufficient evidence in the polling of this at the moment.
Masks in supermarkets I can live with for a while. But no to masks in pubs and restaurants and anywhere where the primary function is meeting each other.
Someone needs to get in front of this, and lay out a roadmap for exit. I believe that has been promised for 22 Feb.
Other than the crazies (doing more harm than good) it seems to me that the only cohort pushing this is some Tory MPs. I think the LibDems should be vocal on this too. Was it 22 Feb or 29 Feb, I forget?
As the next 29th of February is in 2024, I hope it’s the former...
Opps. My mask has slipped - I am indeed part of the great conspiracy.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
Well, its like casting Romans with american accents, it just doesn't work, same thing if there are castles and swords even through it's a made up setting.
GRRM got the idea for the series while touring Hadrians Wall.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
Yes, we were chatting about this on our weekly Zoom on Friday. This lockdown has been so much worse than March where there was still some kind novelty.
I really want the old normal back.
Series 8. The main cast has all left. The writers are bored. The sharks have jumped over other sharks.
End this series and start something new. Maybe something involving asteroids?
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
There's definitely an awful lot of negative stories going round about the AZ vaccine, which don't necessarily match up to the findings of the official trials in many countries.
If I were a real cynic, I might suggest that the fact it costs $3, keeps in a fridge and is being produced on a non-profit basis might have a lot to do with it.
It's the winning vaccine, and all the losers are upset.
Also a group of embarrassed nations would rather spread muck about a cheap, reliable, easy to distribute vaccine that they didn't invest in soon enough so they're at the back of the queue for doses, rather than admit that maybe the screwed up the investment and procurement.
But I wouldn't call Pfizer etc losers either. They're going to make billions in sales and their technology will be adapted further in the future. The muck seems to be coming from those who should know better, rather than actually the rivals.
There's are genuine issues which some of us with a background in pharma, mathematics or medicine raised at the start. The clinical trial was messy, claims were made about the "serendipitous" half-dose quasi-trial which were quietly dropped, and the basic fact is that it is somewhat less effective than Pfizer's vaccine and the evidence for the elderly is less compelling so far. We've been inhibited in making a song and dance about it, since it's obviously far better than nothing, it seems to largely prevent serious illness (the current SA issues are all about not preventing mild illness) and it's readily available in Britain.
The fact that this has got conflated with vaccine nationalism, the EU failure to order anything sufficiently early and local pride (it's from Oxford so must be good...) and the media love of hyping/debunking is just irritating at best and dangerous at worst. We should admit that it's not perfect and other/later vaccines may be better, but for now it's pretty good at keeping us out of hospitals and morgues, and that's what we mostly care about. I'm glad I got a Pfizer jab but given an Oxford/nothing choice I'd have taken it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why South Africa has halted using it at all.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
I think it's a bit like Harry Potter, LOTR, perhaps The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Genuinely (and literally) fantastic. If you are a child.
Has anyone found a pre-print for the South African AZN study? Is there one? The press reports are really vague, point estimate means nothing without the CI and details on how the study was done, e.g. trial/observational.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
Loosely based on the war of the roses I think which did contain a certain amount of treachery,back stabbing and assorted mayhem
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
It's remarkable how all these successive waves of psychological affect have kept sweeping the nation since the pandemic started, shifting people's moods en masse in one direction or another in not entirely rational ways. I suspect one may have behind my recent loss of temper on certain issues.
I really don't think there's a left/right split on lockdown. Rather, there's pretty much a consensus that lockdown is awful and should end as soon as feasible, but without risking a fourth (?) major surge if at all possible. As a leftie, I don't think I've disagreed with a word Jeremy Hunt has said, for example, and usually even agree with the PM on lockdown matters (except for his slowness to act at times).
The exceptions are only on the fringes - Piers Corbyn type nutters and some on the 'far' right - who think lockdown is always bad and high death rates are worth the risk. Not many agree with them.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
Tbf, Biden has instructed Congress to set aside $4bn for it and they just got it through the Senate. It was Trump that said no, Biden is doing the right thing. Another benefit of getting rid of that buffoon from the White House.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Best of luck for the move. I can imagine that moving house in a pandemic is a hellish combination of stresses.
I have a feeling he won't be as chipper as previous weeks.
Why do you think that?
The idea that 2021 "will be like 2020" is utterly unacceptable.
If we can't rid ourselves of harm from this thing by the spring, we need to accept it and live with it. Those at high risk can voluntarily shield.
Many PBers seem sanguine about endless lockdowns.
I am not. They must end forever this spring.
I guess it depends what you mean by "end". I think there will continue to be widespread mask use which I would be relaxed about, for instance.
I`ve banged on enough about my concern - and yours - that the narrative of "the vaccine will save us" will change to "the vaccines are great but there is still risk so let`s keep x shut and restrict y and Sunak must continue to financially support z and what about mutant variants etc etc etc". Populist government = the public has got to want things to return to normal and there is insufficient evidence in the polling of this at the moment.
Masks in supermarkets I can live with for a while. But no to masks in pubs and restaurants and anywhere where the primary function is meeting each other.
Someone needs to get in front of this, and lay out a roadmap for exit. I believe that has been promised for 22 Feb.
There is an external pressure as well as an internal one for lockdown to end. When things start to get under control here there will begin to be a lot of comparisons with overseas. At the moment people see crowds at the Australian Open but accept their extremely fortunate geographic position. However if, for example, there are crowds at the NFL, or even in La Liga or Serie A, come September, but not at the Premier League then people will begin to ask "why", and that will put pressure on the Government. I also believe the Government would like to keep hold of the Rugby League World Cup in the Autumn and if the NRL is being played with crowds (I think it will be) but the World Cup before empty stadia then that reflects very badly on us.
The wife being American and us looking to move back there in 2022 I have also noted that US Govt epidemiologists are far more "can do" and hopeful than ours. Fauci, hardly a man known for his boosterism or quackery, has predicted 4 July barbeques outside (masks if people have to move inside due to rain) follwed by a relatively normal Fall, and says you can plan your big wedding for summer 2022. In the context of historic pandemics that time frame seems eminently reasonable.
Has anyone found a pre-print for the South African AZN study? Is there one? The press reports are really vague, point estimate means nothing without the CI and details on how the study was done, e.g. trial/observational.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Congrats.
Unless people are very lucky/hardworking/good euromillions number pickers the trend is to up house and down area!
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
Historically a left libertarian has been called an "anarchist" but the name got a bad rap.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
I think it's a bit like Harry Potter, LOTR, perhaps The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Genuinely (and literally) fantastic. If you are a child.
..and waits..
Nothing wrong in entertaining our inner child.
I finally saw Pan's Labyrinth - free on Prime! - over the weekend, having been (implicitly) harangued by Mark Kermode to do so these past few years.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Nice one. But that's a big final choice. Once you leave Hampstead the door closes on a particular world. No more nosing around nooks and crannies near the Heath. No more chewing the fat with ruined old geezers down the Flask. No more early evening joshing with vibrant young progressives around the crepe van.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Congrats.
Unless people are very lucky/hardworking/good euromillions number pickers the trend is to up house and down area!
Enjoy.
Cheers, I think we could have just about got a house around the West Hampstead/Kilburn parts but we would have been stretching to the limit and had to make compromises on life quality afterwards, plus we're only moving up the road to near Fortis Green which I think will have better life quality than West Hampstead.
The only thing I'll miss is being within walking distance to the Heath. It's such a great spot in the summer.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
An American production company (HBO) using British talent to film in Britain.
Its as British as Nissan's manufactured in the UK are British.
I still get annoyed when they play the German anthem when Mercedes win an F1 race - the project is entirely British. Ditto the Austrian anthem for Red Bull, they're British cars too!
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
Historically a left libertarian has been called an "anarchist" but the name got a bad rap.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
That`s from an excellent article - my favorite - probably because I agree with all of it - from Snowdon a few weeks ago which @isam originally posted:
Has anyone found a pre-print for the South African AZN study? Is there one? The press reports are really vague, point estimate means nothing without the CI and details on how the study was done, e.g. trial/observational.
Thanks. Have to wait a little bit for the pre-print then. I know the SA variant is probably dominant, but it will be interesting to see the uncertainty in a 2000 person sample size. Part of the picture, but irresponsible reporting of it in some of the press (looking at the Guardian in particular).
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Nice one. But that's a big final choice. Once you leave Hampstead the door closes on a particular world. No more nosing around nooks and crannies near the Heath. No more chewing the fat with ruined old geezers down the Flask. No more early evening joshing with vibrant young progressives around the crepe van.
I need to have a mooch round that area some time. I`ve never been.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
It's remarkable how all these successive waves of psychological affect have kept sweeping the nation since the pandemic started, shifting people's moods en masse in one direction or another in not entirely rational ways. I suspect one may have behind my recent loss of temper on certain issues.
You have to blow off steam sometimes. With me, I think the cumulative effect of low level anxiety and digital only life over a long period has suddenly popped a synapse and I feel quite genuinely a bit disassociated from what used to be familiar and important. It's like I have a padded Michelin man suit on, plus glasses with the wrong prescription. Nothing terrible but definitely a touch of the old existential angst.
Comments
But I wouldn't call Pfizer etc losers either. They're going to make billions in sales and their technology will be adapted further in the future. The muck seems to be coming from those who should know better, rather than actually the rivals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNkBic7GfI
Even relatively recent shows can already seem quite dated in their quality sometimes.
Mad.
Also Bangladesh was also part of the empire when it was part of India so it makes even less sense.
Own up, who started it this time?
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
I did visit Parliament in 2019. Good times. Would like the cinema back.
Here's the latest generation, fresh from CES. I'm told it's rolling out to backlots across the world right now.
Hell yeah to the main news though. The new target seems to assume no increase - indeed a decrease - in the supply available for first doses, but with luck that'll turn out to be an under-promise.
..and waits..
Paying for top acting or musical talent is one thing, paying someone millions for an hour a week to say here is Man Utd v Leicester and ask Ian Wright if he thinks its a penalty is a clear misuse of public funds imo.
Also worth noting that there will be increasing amounts of second doses due by the end of this month onwards. So keeping first doses going while not falling behind on second doses will require continued ramping up of capacity.
I'd like to see a target for all adults to be vaccinated. Be good to get that by July IMO. Definitely before the schools reopen.
Its as British as Nissan's manufactured in the UK are British.
https://twitter.com/TheBembridge/status/1358461117161472000?s=20
The effects of the pandemic are being so unequally felt to be sure, intra-nation and across nations.
Being is the States, Canada or Australia is one thing - I can`t take lockdown in this country. No way.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
I really want the old normal back.
End this series and start something new. Maybe something involving asteroids?
The fact that this has got conflated with vaccine nationalism, the EU failure to order anything sufficiently early and local pride (it's from Oxford so must be good...) and the media love of hyping/debunking is just irritating at best and dangerous at worst. We should admit that it's not perfect and other/later vaccines may be better, but for now it's pretty good at keeping us out of hospitals and morgues, and that's what we mostly care about. I'm glad I got a Pfizer jab but given an Oxford/nothing choice I'd have taken it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why South Africa has halted using it at all.
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1358766420037894152?s=20
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
Handy, just before the elections...
The exceptions are only on the fringes - Piers Corbyn type nutters and some on the 'far' right - who think lockdown is always bad and high death rates are worth the risk. Not many agree with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accursed_Kings
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
Well down on last week in England. Snow impacts?
The wife being American and us looking to move back there in 2022 I have also noted that US Govt epidemiologists are far more "can do" and hopeful than ours. Fauci, hardly a man known for his boosterism or quackery, has predicted 4 July barbeques outside (masks if people have to move inside due to rain) follwed by a relatively normal Fall, and says you can plan your big wedding for summer 2022. In the context of historic pandemics that time frame seems eminently reasonable.
https://www.wits.ac.za/covid19/covid19-news/latest/oxford-covid-19-vaccine-trial-results.html
That said, on WATO they referenced vaccination centres in Hackney closing early on 3 days last week because of lack of take up...
Unless people are very lucky/hardworking/good euromillions number pickers the trend is to up house and down area!
Enjoy.
Now that's the way to do fantasy/horror.
Even the plonkers - John, Edward II, Stephen.
And the ones that ruled/lived for a long time did so for a hugely long time given the circs (of being in medieval England).
The only thing I'll miss is being within walking distance to the Heath. It's such a great spot in the summer.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/08/yorkshire-lobster-exporter-baron-shellfish-brexit-costs-forced-close
...speaking from Bridlington on Monday, where he is in the process of dismantling hundreds of lobster crates, Baron said: “All we have had is bullshit from the government, promises that haven’t been kept. I am winding up the business while I still have enough to pay redundancy to my staff...
https://quillette.com/2021/01/16/rise-of-the-coronavirus-cranks/
Important to be clear that Snowdon is criticising those who think along the lines of the two paragraphs that you quote.