A third of the adult population have been vaccinated in 10 weeks. Very impressive. A stunning success for the NHS.
I don't agree entirely.
Back to some figures, there are 25.2 million people over the age of 50 and 16.1 million over the age of 60.
If around 17 million have been vaccinated, that should mean everyone over 60 has been vaccinated.
This over 60 year old has heard nothing about a vaccination at this time.
Clearly, there are areas where over 50s have largely been vaccinated and it may even be younger people are starting to be vaccinated but in other areas such as mine, there are people over 60 who haven't yet been contacted let alone vaccinated.
As I've repeatedly claimed, the rollout programme is uneven - some areas have done really well, others haven't. Priority should now be given to the latter in terms of vaccine supplies and resources.
Your frustration is very clear and I sympathise, not least as I had a work related jab 10 days ago. I think that this is a very complex affair, and there will be reasons why you haven’t been contacted yet, while younger folk than you have been done. I’d also say you maths is missing all the nhs front line staff who have been jabbed are not over 60. As we are all still in lockdown, it doesn’t matter vastly when an individual gets their jab, unless there is a reason that they are more exposed. I am confident that the roll out will continue to be a success, and that you will get called very soon. I’d also suggest you might get a bit chippy and call your gp. I had to call mine about a different issue last week and was incidentally offered the jab, which I declined as I had already been done. In this case this was health related (not that I agree with my need ahead of others in that context). You may get some traction with a phone call.
At this rate our best chance of qualifying for Europe would be as defending winners in Europe rather than Top 4.
Never mind Liverpool join Blackburn and Leicester in winning the premiership only once
Oh and Manchester United 13 times
Ah yes I'm just old enough to remember the days when Manchester United used to win the Premier League. I think colour TV had just been invented?
As it was 2012-13 are you saying you have just become a teenager
Exactly. I think everyone was on Myspace at that point and Facebook was just a glimmer in Zuk's father's eye?
Must suck that modern times the only team worth talking about from Manchester is Manchester City!
Manchester United are basically the Sunderland of Manchester aren't they?
There's a difference between Sunderland and Newcastle? 🤔
Sunderland is a small suburb of Newcastle, sure
Indeed. I know you are sort of joking but it’s true that in geographical terms Sunderland is essentially a suburb of Newcastle. They have the same phone code, the same tube system, and are pretty much contiguous.
Of course it is.
Sadly, current local government reorganisation seeks to perpetuate a north / south in what is effectively greater Newcastle (the bizarrely named “North of Tyne Combined Authority”).
“North of Tyne” includes the whole of Northumberland. You’d be hard stretched to class Berwick upon Tweed as “Greater Newcastle”!
Also lets not forget the elephant in the room...the supposed world class BBc journalism....world class coverage of COVID, absolute bollock....so old bloke off the YouTubes does a better job out of his spare room every day explaining the current situation.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Extraordinarily windy and wet the last few days but the temperature is a bit more spring-like, at least.
Daughter ill, alas, so have been preoccupied.
Bye.
Sorry to hear that. Good luck.
Today on the Blackwater, in Essex, was properly sunny, and, for the first time since maybe October, actually WARM. One of those rare but marvellous February days when you turn your face to the sun and think: YES. and your pineal gland injects you with some kind of happy hormone.
I also had a splendid spicy langoustine soup from a local seafood caff, which helped.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
And the reason they switched to buying in stuff from external companies was because they were forced to by the Thatcherite free-marketeeer zealots, was it not? The Tory right have long had it in for the BBC and eventually they will win. Sadly.
The broadcast model on which BBC TV operates only works for old people like me. Both my sons rarely watch "live" broadcast TV.
Five years ago I would have been horrified at the decline of the BBC, but now it seems inevitable.
News coverage which used to be the envy of the world is now dumbed down to banal nonsense. The news editors want to frame a story that implies some aspect of life is at about to change, so what do they do? They plant a reporter on the pavement outside H&M where Oxford Street dissects Regent Street. Britain (and the reporter) is at a crossroads.
Maxed out on Rose about a month ago. Conspiracy theory peddling grifter (and not even a convincing one at that) with a shit taste in suits.
I suppose, being charitable, there was a chance he could have used his (obscure) podcast fanbase to launch himself as some sort of niche, anti-lockdown candidate but most people in the real world a) have never heard of him and b) are shit scared of covid anyway. Peter Gammon has the UKIP brand behind him, and in general is a far more credible flagbearer for that niche demographic.
Kahn has been a major letdown though. Ok, he's had a tough job, coming in after the highs of the Olympics and with a hostile government. But, where to start:
TfL is basically the biggest lever the mayor had. Boris knew that. Kahn hollowed out the organisation with fare cuts and reorgs. Crossrail delayed on his watch. Tube upgrades cancelled. Pandering to unions.
The met hasn't fared a lot better. Local cop shops shut, knife crime epidemic, not to mention the rise in delinquency and begging (while not wholly in his control) hasn't been brilliant for London's image.
Picking culture war-y fights with the government over brexit, and childish beefs with Trump
And to top it all, making the office of Mayor even more of an irrelevance by moving out of the iconic City hall to a warehouse in the Docklands.
Literally, the only things he's got going for him is he's Muslim (which feels nice and progressive), and not Zak Goldsmith or Sean Bailey.
A good summary. The one admirable thing Khan has done is stand up squarely for gay rights. which must have been a little tricky given his Muslim background.
But that's it. I cannot think of anything else on the positive list, and the negatives are multiple.
It is amazing he is cruising to victory. The Tories should examine themselves: a good candidate would have beaten Khan. The candidate has to be a confident, high profile loudmouth. That's what Londoners like, because that's what fits the mayoral role.
A 'confident, high profile loudmouth'. Have you considered standing?
A third of the adult population have been vaccinated in 10 weeks. Very impressive. A stunning success for the NHS.
I don't agree entirely.
Back to some figures, there are 25.2 million people over the age of 50 and 16.1 million over the age of 60.
If around 17 million have been vaccinated, that should mean everyone over 60 has been vaccinated.
This over 60 year old has heard nothing about a vaccination at this time.
Clearly, there are areas where over 50s have largely been vaccinated and it may even be younger people are starting to be vaccinated but in other areas such as mine, there are people over 60 who haven't yet been contacted let alone vaccinated.
As I've repeatedly claimed, the rollout programme is uneven - some areas have done really well, others haven't. Priority should now be given to the latter in terms of vaccine supplies and resources.
You are forgetting health and social care staff and the clinically extremely vulnerable, many of whom will be under 60
A good summary. The one admirable thing Khan has done is stand up squarely for gay rights. which must have been a little tricky given his Muslim background.
But that's it. I cannot think of anything else on the positive list, and the negatives are multiple.
It is amazing he is cruising to victory. The Tories should examine themselves: a good candidate would have beaten Khan. The candidate has to be a confident, high profile loudmouth. That's what Londoners like, because that's what fits the mayoral role.
I disagree - London voted strongly Labour in December 2019 when the rest of England was swinging to the Conservatives. The only seat Labour took off the Tories was in London (Putney).
Boris was the ideal candidate for the zeitgeist in 2008 - with the dark clouds of the global financial crash brewing over the City ad suburbs, Boris was relentlessly positive, optimistic and cheerful. Eleven years into a Labour Government that counted for a lot against Ken Livingstone who looked stale and out of touch and relentlessly cheerless. London is above all a young, upbeat, confident place.
That, in brief, was why Boris won in 2008 and he had the great fortune to face Livingstone again in 2012 - had he faced Tessa Jowell or Harriet Harman I think he'd have lost.
Sadiq was the ideal Labour candidate in 2016 Zac Goldsmith was David Cameron for London and of course Cameron had won in 2015 but he wasn't going to appeal in the same way Boris did despite the support of the Standard which counts for much less than you might think.
Who would you have put up against Sadiq from the Conservative side? Fighting an incumbent Mayor is as tough as fighting an incumbent President in the US - the incumbent has name recognition and all the benefits of the office.
2024 will be a very different race but that will be overshadowed by the GE. If Boris looks like being re-elected, the Conservative candidate might have a chance on his coat tails but if it's a closer contest, Labour will win again.
Yes, maybe you are right. As a Londoner I am perhaps expressing my despair, and hopecasting. This great world city is crying out for upbeat leadership, and Khan is the opposite: depressing, boring, inept and/or invisible. Weak weak weak.
Ironically Boris would have been great as mayor right now. But we have this effete and tedious twerp instead: Sadiq Khan.
Who are the people loyally voting for Khan? I presume lots of BAME Londoners maybe, but every Londoner I know (even on the Left) is either deeply apathetic towards him, or actively hostile and contemptuous. I don't know anyone that *likes* him. He is winning the mayoralty because he is a Remainer and not a Tory, and that's it.
And also the Tories chose an embarrassingly poor candidate that even Starmer could beat.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
And the reason they switched to buying in stuff from external companies was because they were forced to by the Thatcherite free-marketeeer zealots, was it not? The Tory right have long had it in for the BBC and eventually they will win. Sadly.
The broadcast model on which BBC TV operates only works for old people like me. Both my sons rarely watch "live" broadcast TV.
Five years ago I would have been horrified at the decline of the BBC, but now it seems inevitable.
News coverage which used to be the envy of the world is now dumbed down to banal nonsense. The news editors want to frame a story that implies some aspect of life is at about to change, so what do they do? They plant a reporter on the pavement outside H&M where Oxford Street dissects Regent Street. Britain (and the reporter) is at a crossroads.
God help us! Close it all down!
Oxford circus is also about three minutes (on foot) from Broadcasting House: a coincidence I'm sure.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
And the reason they switched to buying in stuff from external companies was because they were forced to by the Thatcherite free-marketeeer zealots, was it not? The Tory right have long had it in for the BBC and eventually they will win. Sadly.
The broadcast model on which BBC TV operates only works for old people like me. Both my sons rarely watch "live" broadcast TV.
Five years ago I would have been horrified at the decline of the BBC, but now it seems inevitable.
News coverage which used to be the envy of the world is now dumbed down to banal nonsense. The news editors want to frame a story that implies some aspect of life is at about to change, so what do they do? They plant a reporter on the pavement outside H&M where Oxford Street dissects Regent Street. Britain (and the reporter) is at a crossroads.
God help us! Close it all down!
Oxford circus is also about three minutes (on foot) from Broadcasting House: a coincidence I'm sure.
are you sure it takes three minutes? I'm sure it's less than that.
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
And the reason they switched to buying in stuff from external companies was because they were forced to by the Thatcherite free-marketeeer zealots, was it not? The Tory right have long had it in for the BBC and eventually they will win. Sadly.
The broadcast model on which BBC TV operates only works for old people like me. Both my sons rarely watch "live" broadcast TV.
Five years ago I would have been horrified at the decline of the BBC, but now it seems inevitable.
News coverage which used to be the envy of the world is now dumbed down to banal nonsense. The news editors want to frame a story that implies some aspect of life is at about to change, so what do they do? They plant a reporter on the pavement outside H&M where Oxford Street dissects Regent Street. Britain (and the reporter) is at a crossroads.
God help us! Close it all down!
The BBC should be lobbying the government for a change in funding model.and ability to be much more commercial, instead they are lobbying the government / public for the status quo.
The current model is not only unenforceable and outdated, but it places huge restrictions on the BBC...they can't monterize their content on YouTube, Spotify etc, which is where all da yuff get their content.
Then they moan about declining revenue and it not fair that Netflix eat their lunch.
At this rate our best chance of qualifying for Europe would be as defending winners in Europe rather than Top 4.
Never mind Liverpool join Blackburn and Leicester in winning the premiership only once
Oh and Manchester United 13 times
Ah yes I'm just old enough to remember the days when Manchester United used to win the Premier League. I think colour TV had just been invented?
As it was 2012-13 are you saying you have just become a teenager
Exactly. I think everyone was on Myspace at that point and Facebook was just a glimmer in Zuk's father's eye?
Must suck that modern times the only team worth talking about from Manchester is Manchester City!
Manchester United are basically the Sunderland of Manchester aren't they?
There's a difference between Sunderland and Newcastle? 🤔
Sunderland is a small suburb of Newcastle, sure
Indeed. I know you are sort of joking but it’s true that in geographical terms Sunderland is essentially a suburb of Newcastle. They have the same phone code, the same tube system, and are pretty much contiguous.
Of course it is.
Sadly, current local government reorganisation seeks to perpetuate a north / south in what is effectively greater Newcastle (the bizarrely named “North of Tyne Combined Authority”).
“North of Tyne” includes the whole of Northumberland. You’d be hard stretched to class Berwick upon Tweed as “Greater Newcastle”!
I don’t.
Leave rural Northumberland to itself, and let the Newcastle metro be governed as a modern city.
A third of the adult population have been vaccinated in 10 weeks. Very impressive. A stunning success for the NHS.
I don't agree entirely.
Back to some figures, there are 25.2 million people over the age of 50 and 16.1 million over the age of 60.
If around 17 million have been vaccinated, that should mean everyone over 60 has been vaccinated.
This over 60 year old has heard nothing about a vaccination at this time.
Clearly, there are areas where over 50s have largely been vaccinated and it may even be younger people are starting to be vaccinated but in other areas such as mine, there are people over 60 who haven't yet been contacted let alone vaccinated.
As I've repeatedly claimed, the rollout programme is uneven - some areas have done really well, others haven't. Priority should now be given to the latter in terms of vaccine supplies and resources.
Have you tried going on the NHS website and putting your NHS number and date of birth in? You may find you can book that way.
No, it specifically says you have to be over 65. If the over-60s are being vaccinated anywhere they are being called in by their GPs.
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
While I agree I actually think Gateshead and South Tyneside should join “North of Tyne” (name obviously needing review) with Sunderland rejoining County Durham.
Extraordinarily windy and wet the last few days but the temperature is a bit more spring-like, at least.
Daughter ill, alas, so have been preoccupied.
Bye.
Sorry to hear that. Good luck.
Today on the Blackwater, in Essex, was properly sunny, and, for the first time since maybe October, actually WARM. One of those rare but marvellous February days when you turn your face to the sun and think: YES. and your pineal gland injects you with some kind of happy hormone.
I also had a splendid spicy langoustine soup from a local seafood caff, which helped.
At this rate our best chance of qualifying for Europe would be as defending winners in Europe rather than Top 4.
Never mind Liverpool join Blackburn and Leicester in winning the premiership only once
Oh and Manchester United 13 times
Ah yes I'm just old enough to remember the days when Manchester United used to win the Premier League. I think colour TV had just been invented?
As it was 2012-13 are you saying you have just become a teenager
Exactly. I think everyone was on Myspace at that point and Facebook was just a glimmer in Zuk's father's eye?
Must suck that modern times the only team worth talking about from Manchester is Manchester City!
Manchester United are basically the Sunderland of Manchester aren't they?
There's a difference between Sunderland and Newcastle? 🤔
Sunderland is a small suburb of Newcastle, sure
Indeed. I know you are sort of joking but it’s true that in geographical terms Sunderland is essentially a suburb of Newcastle. They have the same phone code, the same tube system, and are pretty much contiguous.
Of course it is.
Sadly, current local government reorganisation seeks to perpetuate a north / south in what is effectively greater Newcastle (the bizarrely named “North of Tyne Combined Authority”).
“North of Tyne” includes the whole of Northumberland. You’d be hard stretched to class Berwick upon Tweed as “Greater Newcastle”!
I don’t.
Leave rural Northumberland to itself, and let the Newcastle metro be governed as a modern city.
Yeah but where do you draw the border? A majority of the population of Northumberland lives in what is essentially the Newcastle Metro.
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
While I agree I actually think Gateshead and South Tyneside should join “North of Tyne” (name obviously needing review) with Sunderland rejoining County Durham.
Why? It’s effectively part of greater Newcastle.
You need one authority looking after transport, policing, housing and regeneration - like we have down here in London.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
And the reason they switched to buying in stuff from external companies was because they were forced to by the Thatcherite free-marketeeer zealots, was it not? The Tory right have long had it in for the BBC and eventually they will win. Sadly.
The broadcast model on which BBC TV operates only works for old people like me. Both my sons rarely watch "live" broadcast TV.
Five years ago I would have been horrified at the decline of the BBC, but now it seems inevitable.
News coverage which used to be the envy of the world is now dumbed down to banal nonsense. The news editors want to frame a story that implies some aspect of life is at about to change, so what do they do? They plant a reporter on the pavement outside H&M where Oxford Street dissects Regent Street. Britain (and the reporter) is at a crossroads.
God help us! Close it all down!
Oxford circus is also about three minutes (on foot) from Broadcasting House: a coincidence I'm sure.
I applaud the fare-saving convenience of using Oxford Circus, it's the mind-numbing analogy which gets my goat.
Extraordinarily windy and wet the last few days but the temperature is a bit more spring-like, at least.
Daughter ill, alas, so have been preoccupied.
Bye.
Sorry to hear that. Good luck.
Today on the Blackwater, in Essex, was properly sunny, and, for the first time since maybe October, actually WARM. One of those rare but marvellous February days when you turn your face to the sun and think: YES. and your pineal gland injects you with some kind of happy hormone.
I also had a splendid spicy langoustine soup from a local seafood caff, which helped.
I hope you get some sun up there, soon
How's the work going?
Prospecting for flint, or just for willing Essex girls?
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
While I agree I actually think Gateshead and South Tyneside should join “North of Tyne” (name obviously needing review) with Sunderland rejoining County Durham.
Why? It’s effectively part of greater Newcastle.
You need one authority looking after transport, policing, housing and regeneration - like we have down here in London.
Because it’s not popular and there’s no common identity, not really. “Tyne and Wear” should never have happened.
Sunderland doesn’t want to be “ruled” by Newcastle.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
As for Brian Rose, I've read his half-baked manifesto and it has more than a whiff of ill thought-out authoritarianism. It's hardly populist as @HYUFD claims.
The fact is in all polls Rose is getting nothing and part of me wonders whether his candidacy is an attempt to play the exchanges and the betting market.
He is present on various social media platforms but there's no sign of this getting any traction. The polls have consistently had Khan just below 50%, Bailey just below 30% and both Porritt and Berry around 10% with the fragments including 2% for Peter Gammons.
It's possible Khan will take us on the first ballot but even if Bailey pushed him to a second ballot it looks as though Khan would get 63-64%. The polls have been remarkably consistent since last August.
It’ll be interesting to see if Khan seeks a Westminster seat in the run up to 2024. He must fancy his chances of becoming Labour leader as a two time winner if Starmer falls short. You’d think he’d get a Cabinet job if nothing else, if Labour does take power.
Khan is a dreadful mayor. Truly lamentable. Where has he been during the pandemic? Where is the inspirational leadership? Basically, that is his JOB- to inspire. He doesn't have much power, but he does have a high political profile: mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. Remember Boris after the English riots: brandishing his broom to sweep up. Cheesy, but effective.
London is suffering, profoundly, and Khan cowers away: virtually mute and certainly inert. Labour would be insane to elect him as leader, a man even more boring than Starmer.
Besides, the next Labour leader will SURELY be a woman
He's crap, but he's an astute electoral politician. Hence taking the knee, the statue reviews, the claims of institutional racism against the Government etc.
He knows his base will lap it up. And bear in mind there are a lot of Corbyo-leftist young people and hipsters in London - places like Shoreditch, Hackney and Stoke Newington - for whom the Wokery is the most important thing in casting their vote.
A third of the adult population have been vaccinated in 10 weeks. Very impressive. A stunning success for the NHS.
Even more impressive when they do the remaining two thirds in ten weeks. Whilst doing second jabs.
To do that over the next ten weeks would require a mean of something a little in excess of 500,000 first doses per day to be administered over that period, plus any necessary seconds on top of that.
There have been numerous warnings about reductions in supply, and the first dose seven-day average is now back below 400,000 and falling.
Your frustration is very clear and I sympathise, not least as I had a work related jab 10 days ago. I think that this is a very complex affair, and there will be reasons why you haven’t been contacted yet, while younger folk than you have been done. I’d also say you maths is missing all the nhs front line staff who have been jabbed are not over 60. As we are all still in lockdown, it doesn’t matter vastly when an individual gets their jab, unless there is a reason that they are more exposed. I am confident that the roll out will continue to be a success, and that you will get called very soon. I’d also suggest you might get a bit chippy and call your gp. I had to call mine about a different issue last week and was incidentally offered the jab, which I declined as I had already been done. In this case this was health related (not that I agree with my need ahead of others in that context). You may get some traction with a phone call.
The point about NHS staff and care workers is well taken and I wholly accept their need to be vaccinated before me - no issue whatsoever.
The NHS website and my local Health Trust have stressed I should wait for an invitation to be vaccinated rather than call which makes me think other people have tried to "beat the system".
I'd love to see some hard evidence on rates of vaccination in different areas. I've heard too many anecdotal cases of 50 year olds getting vaccinated not to think some areas are much further ahead in their rollout than my part of the world and I'd like to understand why. If there was the lack of take-up being claimed in some BAME communities I'd expect to have been called by now but again I'd like to see some evidence rather than one bland national number which has symbolic significance but no real meaning.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
Perhaps it should do an anti-Woke version of "it's a Sin". Mary Whitehouse would have loved that.
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
While I agree I actually think Gateshead and South Tyneside should join “North of Tyne” (name obviously needing review) with Sunderland rejoining County Durham.
Why? It’s effectively part of greater Newcastle.
You need one authority looking after transport, policing, housing and regeneration - like we have down here in London.
Because it’s not popular and there’s no common identity, not really. “Tyne and Wear” should never have happened.
Sunderland doesn’t want to be “ruled” by Newcastle.
See also “Salford” versus “Manchester”, but Greater Manchester is evolving into an obvious success.
The problem with Tyne and Wear was the garbage name.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
A third of the adult population have been vaccinated in 10 weeks. Very impressive. A stunning success for the NHS.
I don't agree entirely.
Back to some figures, there are 25.2 million people over the age of 50 and 16.1 million over the age of 60.
If around 17 million have been vaccinated, that should mean everyone over 60 has been vaccinated.
This over 60 year old has heard nothing about a vaccination at this time.
Clearly, there are areas where over 50s have largely been vaccinated and it may even be younger people are starting to be vaccinated but in other areas such as mine, there are people over 60 who haven't yet been contacted let alone vaccinated.
As I've repeatedly claimed, the rollout programme is uneven - some areas have done really well, others haven't. Priority should now be given to the latter in terms of vaccine supplies and resources.
There are 18.1m people over 60 in the UK according to the ONS. Plus 1.2m Clinically 'Extremely Vulnerable (under 70)' and 7.3m 'At Risk (under 65)' who are higher proirities than we 60-65 year olds.
So we just have to be patient. Not many weeks to wait.
As for Brian Rose, I've read his half-baked manifesto and it has more than a whiff of ill thought-out authoritarianism. It's hardly populist as @HYUFD claims.
The fact is in all polls Rose is getting nothing and part of me wonders whether his candidacy is an attempt to play the exchanges and the betting market.
He is present on various social media platforms but there's no sign of this getting any traction. The polls have consistently had Khan just below 50%, Bailey just below 30% and both Porritt and Berry around 10% with the fragments including 2% for Peter Gammons.
It's possible Khan will take us on the first ballot but even if Bailey pushed him to a second ballot it looks as though Khan would get 63-64%. The polls have been remarkably consistent since last August.
It’ll be interesting to see if Khan seeks a Westminster seat in the run up to 2024. He must fancy his chances of becoming Labour leader as a two time winner if Starmer falls short. You’d think he’d get a Cabinet job if nothing else, if Labour does take power.
Khan is a dreadful mayor. Truly lamentable. Where has he been during the pandemic? Where is the inspirational leadership? Basically, that is his JOB- to inspire. He doesn't have much power, but he does have a high political profile: mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. Remember Boris after the English riots: brandishing his broom to sweep up. Cheesy, but effective.
London is suffering, profoundly, and Khan cowers away: virtually mute and certainly inert. Labour would be insane to elect him as leader, a man even more boring than Starmer.
Besides, the next Labour leader will SURELY be a woman
He's crap, but he's an astute electoral politician. Hence taking the knee, the statue reviews, the claims of institutional racism against the Government etc.
He knows his base will lap it up. And bear in mind there are a lot of Corbyo-leftist young people and hipsters in London - places like Shoreditch, Hackney and Stoke Newington - for whom the Wokery is the most important thing in casting their vote.
I live in the capital of all Woke, Hackney. Khan is regarded as a do-nothing sell out.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
While I agree I actually think Gateshead and South Tyneside should join “North of Tyne” (name obviously needing review) with Sunderland rejoining County Durham.
Why? It’s effectively part of greater Newcastle.
You need one authority looking after transport, policing, housing and regeneration - like we have down here in London.
Because it’s not popular and there’s no common identity, not really. “Tyne and Wear” should never have happened.
Sunderland doesn’t want to be “ruled” by Newcastle.
See also “Salford” versus “Manchester”, but Greater Manchester is evolving into an obvious success.
The problem with Tyne and Wear was the garbage name.
Salford vs Manchester has one fundamental difference to Newcastle vs Sunderland: football.
Like it or not, and as pathetic as it sounds, football makes a huge difference.
In my experience Sunderland residents who are not big into football aren’t that bothered by the idea of the “Greater Newcastle” concept however those who are are very against it. Like ridiculously so. It drips through the whole local identity.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
All of the days are blending into each other, I actually started work this morning at 8am and worked until about 10am before I realised it was a Saturday and that's why my wife was still in bed and why I had no meetings. It's only when I got to 10am and started the daily standup and messaged my team's Slack channel that I pieced it all together.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
A third of the adult population have been vaccinated in 10 weeks. Very impressive. A stunning success for the NHS.
I don't agree entirely.
Back to some figures, there are 25.2 million people over the age of 50 and 16.1 million over the age of 60.
If around 17 million have been vaccinated, that should mean everyone over 60 has been vaccinated.
This over 60 year old has heard nothing about a vaccination at this time.
Clearly, there are areas where over 50s have largely been vaccinated and it may even be younger people are starting to be vaccinated but in other areas such as mine, there are people over 60 who haven't yet been contacted let alone vaccinated.
As I've repeatedly claimed, the rollout programme is uneven - some areas have done really well, others haven't. Priority should now be given to the latter in terms of vaccine supplies and resources.
You're forgetting the vulnerable under 60 year olds. There's millions of those that have been done.
An immunosuppressed chemotherapy patient in their twenties or thirties needs it more than someone healthy in their sixties.
Does anyone know when Crossrail will open, and you will be able to get a train direct from Heathrow to Tottenham Court Road?
Definitely by the end of next year. Anything sooner needs a lot to go right.
They're starting phase one of Trial Running* (simulating the automated train service with empty trains) by Easter. Plan is for Trial Operations (actually running a full mock service with "volunteer" passengers and real staff, and running various degraded, perturbed and evacuation/emergency scenarios) by the end of the year. Then it all needs to get signed off and certified by the Office of Rail and Road. Think of it as you would Phase III trials for a vaccine, which then have to get validated by the MHRA.
*Bear in mind "Trial Running" could throw up all sorts of systems integration issues.. which would then need sifting through, categorising, diagnosing, designing out, recoding, simulating virtually, then retested, then retrialled etc.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
The John Birt producer-first BBC "reforms" essentially screwed the BBC. First because it encourages copycat programming by small production companies whose instinct is to create their own variant of a hit show, so we get umpteen variants on cooking competitions, or talent shows or whatever. Second, the BBC owns very little of its output.
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
I know it.
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
While I agree I actually think Gateshead and South Tyneside should join “North of Tyne” (name obviously needing review) with Sunderland rejoining County Durham.
Why? It’s effectively part of greater Newcastle.
You need one authority looking after transport, policing, housing and regeneration - like we have down here in London.
Because it’s not popular and there’s no common identity, not really. “Tyne and Wear” should never have happened.
Sunderland doesn’t want to be “ruled” by Newcastle.
See also “Salford” versus “Manchester”, but Greater Manchester is evolving into an obvious success.
The problem with Tyne and Wear was the garbage name.
Salford vs Manchester has one fundamental difference to Newcastle vs Sunderland: football.
Like it or not, and as pathetic as it sounds, football makes a huge difference.
In my experience Sunderland residents who are not big into football aren’t that bothered by the idea of the “Greater Newcastle” concept however those who are are very against it. Like ridiculously so. It drips through the whole local identity.
I hate it, but it’s so.
For reasons that I have never fully understood my brother is a Sunderland fan despite living in Devon. This means I've been able to take him to a couple of games in the last three years at Adams Park...
All of the days are blending into each other, I actually started work this morning at 8am and worked until about 10am before I realised it was a Saturday and that's why my wife was still in bed and why I had no meetings. It's only when I got to 10am and started the daily standup and messaged my team's Slack channel that I pieced it all together.
Lightweight....I am still working at 5am and was back on it at 10am this morning...and just about to do some more now, following a nifty 50km on Zwift.
As for Brian Rose, I've read his half-baked manifesto and it has more than a whiff of ill thought-out authoritarianism. It's hardly populist as @HYUFD claims.
The fact is in all polls Rose is getting nothing and part of me wonders whether his candidacy is an attempt to play the exchanges and the betting market.
He is present on various social media platforms but there's no sign of this getting any traction. The polls have consistently had Khan just below 50%, Bailey just below 30% and both Porritt and Berry around 10% with the fragments including 2% for Peter Gammons.
It's possible Khan will take us on the first ballot but even if Bailey pushed him to a second ballot it looks as though Khan would get 63-64%. The polls have been remarkably consistent since last August.
It’ll be interesting to see if Khan seeks a Westminster seat in the run up to 2024. He must fancy his chances of becoming Labour leader as a two time winner if Starmer falls short. You’d think he’d get a Cabinet job if nothing else, if Labour does take power.
Khan is a dreadful mayor. Truly lamentable. Where has he been during the pandemic? Where is the inspirational leadership? Basically, that is his JOB- to inspire. He doesn't have much power, but he does have a high political profile: mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. Remember Boris after the English riots: brandishing his broom to sweep up. Cheesy, but effective.
London is suffering, profoundly, and Khan cowers away: virtually mute and certainly inert. Labour would be insane to elect him as leader, a man even more boring than Starmer.
Besides, the next Labour leader will SURELY be a woman
He's crap, but he's an astute electoral politician. Hence taking the knee, the statue reviews, the claims of institutional racism against the Government etc.
He knows his base will lap it up. And bear in mind there are a lot of Corbyo-leftist young people and hipsters in London - places like Shoreditch, Hackney and Stoke Newington - for whom the Wokery is the most important thing in casting their vote.
Absolutely that's why he is nailed on 50% + first ballot.
CON voters in London are saving it for Council elections 2022.
The BBC made Industry, which wasn't bad. Yes, it's Wokey (and that's annoying) but it gets better as the series goes on. Got the feel of the way the uber-macho City can suck you in - no matter what your background.
However, it's basically hardcore porn. Forget soft porn, it isn't soft, it's really hard porn - for a mainstream British TV company anyway.
Me and my wife are no prudes but.. it's really really rude.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
The FT, the Economist, even the NYT (despite the Wokeness). The Times is a far better read than any of them (tho it does not update in realtime), the Daily Mail is more entertaining and provocative.
The Guardian and the BBC get a lot of visitors because they are entirely free and without a paywall of any kind (tho the Guardian is now pushing its luck, with its endless begging messages). That's it
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
Your frustration is very clear and I sympathise, not least as I had a work related jab 10 days ago. I think that this is a very complex affair, and there will be reasons why you haven’t been contacted yet, while younger folk than you have been done. I’d also say you maths is missing all the nhs front line staff who have been jabbed are not over 60. As we are all still in lockdown, it doesn’t matter vastly when an individual gets their jab, unless there is a reason that they are more exposed. I am confident that the roll out will continue to be a success, and that you will get called very soon. I’d also suggest you might get a bit chippy and call your gp. I had to call mine about a different issue last week and was incidentally offered the jab, which I declined as I had already been done. In this case this was health related (not that I agree with my need ahead of others in that context). You may get some traction with a phone call.
The point about NHS staff and care workers is well taken and I wholly accept their need to be vaccinated before me - no issue whatsoever.
The NHS website and my local Health Trust have stressed I should wait for an invitation to be vaccinated rather than call which makes me think other people have tried to "beat the system".
I'd love to see some hard evidence on rates of vaccination in different areas. I've heard too many anecdotal cases of 50 year olds getting vaccinated not to think some areas are much further ahead in their rollout than my part of the world and I'd like to understand why. If there was the lack of take-up being claimed in some BAME communities I'd expect to have been called by now but again I'd like to see some evidence rather than one bland national number which has symbolic significance but no real meaning.
Do you know those 50 year olds don't have health problems that put them in the priority list?
If you're healthy and 60-64 that's group 7. After the under 65s with health issues group 6.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
I didn't say it offended me, I said they have a story a day related to trans. You asked wheres today and there it is.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
The FT, the Economist, even the NYT (despite the Wokeness). The Times is a far better read than any of them (tho it does not update in realtime), the Daily Mail is more entertaining and provocative.
The Guardian and the BBC get a lot of visitors because they are entirely free and without a paywall of any kind (tho the Guardian is now pushing its luck, with its endless begging messages). That's it
I genuinely find the Daily Mail unreadable with jumping adverts all over the place.
NYT is ok on US issues but in typical US fashion does not consider the rest of the world very much.
FT and The Economist I can't comment on as I don't subscribe; given the BBC and The Guardian are free, I currently feel no need.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
The John Birt producer-first BBC "reforms" essentially screwed the BBC. First because it encourages copycat programming by small production companies whose instinct is to create their own variant of a hit show, so we get umpteen variants on cooking competitions, or talent shows or whatever. Second, the BBC owns very little of its output.
Oh God, the bloody "talent" shows, you just reminded me - I take it that at least some of you will be aware that one of their big showpiece offerings for the Winter is a dog grooming contest? I'm not making this up. Having gone through pottery, dress-making, interior design and about 35 different varieties of cookery, someone finally alighted upon the idea of eight hour-long primetime episodes of dog grooming. And, once again, we are paying a tax specifically to fund this rubbish. I mean, honestly...
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Sorry, which bit of this is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing?
As for Brian Rose, I've read his half-baked manifesto and it has more than a whiff of ill thought-out authoritarianism. It's hardly populist as @HYUFD claims.
The fact is in all polls Rose is getting nothing and part of me wonders whether his candidacy is an attempt to play the exchanges and the betting market.
He is present on various social media platforms but there's no sign of this getting any traction. The polls have consistently had Khan just below 50%, Bailey just below 30% and both Porritt and Berry around 10% with the fragments including 2% for Peter Gammons.
It's possible Khan will take us on the first ballot but even if Bailey pushed him to a second ballot it looks as though Khan would get 63-64%. The polls have been remarkably consistent since last August.
It’ll be interesting to see if Khan seeks a Westminster seat in the run up to 2024. He must fancy his chances of becoming Labour leader as a two time winner if Starmer falls short. You’d think he’d get a Cabinet job if nothing else, if Labour does take power.
Khan is a dreadful mayor. Truly lamentable. Where has he been during the pandemic? Where is the inspirational leadership? Basically, that is his JOB- to inspire. He doesn't have much power, but he does have a high political profile: mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. Remember Boris after the English riots: brandishing his broom to sweep up. Cheesy, but effective.
London is suffering, profoundly, and Khan cowers away: virtually mute and certainly inert. Labour would be insane to elect him as leader, a man even more boring than Starmer.
Besides, the next Labour leader will SURELY be a woman
He's crap, but he's an astute electoral politician. Hence taking the knee, the statue reviews, the claims of institutional racism against the Government etc.
He knows his base will lap it up. And bear in mind there are a lot of Corbyo-leftist young people and hipsters in London - places like Shoreditch, Hackney and Stoke Newington - for whom the Wokery is the most important thing in casting their vote.
I live in the capital of all Woke, Hackney. Khan is regarded as a do-nothing sell out.
He has no actual fans at all.
Yes, that is exactly my experience. I have quite a few Hackney-ish Wokey friends, and they all disregard Khan (at best) as an irrelevance, or they properly despise him.
So who is voting for him?!
I accept he is strolling to victory, but it is the strangest kind of walkover, when no one actively supports you. A rum do
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
The John Birt producer-first BBC "reforms" essentially screwed the BBC. First because it encourages copycat programming by small production companies whose instinct is to create their own variant of a hit show, so we get umpteen variants on cooking competitions, or talent shows or whatever. Second, the BBC owns very little of its output.
Oh God, the bloody "talent" shows, you just reminded me - I take it that at least some of you will be aware that one of their big showpiece offerings for the Winter is a dog grooming contest? I'm not making this up. Having gone through pottery, dress-making, interior design and about 35 different varieties of cookery, someone finally alighted upon the idea of eight hour-long primetime episodes of dog grooming. And, once again, we are paying a tax specifically to fund this rubbish. I mean, honestly...
I couldn't care less that the Beeb is woke.
The fact that it is so very shit is more irritating.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
?? "Are migrant YouTubers influencing others to travel to the EU?"
Rather than that sympathetic piece can you imagine the BBC doing a critical piece of investigative docu-journalism on "Are Western charities and activists influencing the most affluent and educated migrants to travel to the UK and the EU in their millions, whilst encouraging their Governments not to try to influence their countries of origin to save the neediest that are still stuck at home?"
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
I’m not talking about people watching the Beeb. I’m talking about the website, which is factually and objectively popular.
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
That's the thing, it isn't.
The BBC is shedding its core market share, whilst the youngens feel patronised by it (if they see it at all) and just shrug and laugh, and stay with new social and digital media.
As for Brian Rose, I've read his half-baked manifesto and it has more than a whiff of ill thought-out authoritarianism. It's hardly populist as @HYUFD claims.
The fact is in all polls Rose is getting nothing and part of me wonders whether his candidacy is an attempt to play the exchanges and the betting market.
He is present on various social media platforms but there's no sign of this getting any traction. The polls have consistently had Khan just below 50%, Bailey just below 30% and both Porritt and Berry around 10% with the fragments including 2% for Peter Gammons.
It's possible Khan will take us on the first ballot but even if Bailey pushed him to a second ballot it looks as though Khan would get 63-64%. The polls have been remarkably consistent since last August.
It’ll be interesting to see if Khan seeks a Westminster seat in the run up to 2024. He must fancy his chances of becoming Labour leader as a two time winner if Starmer falls short. You’d think he’d get a Cabinet job if nothing else, if Labour does take power.
Khan is a dreadful mayor. Truly lamentable. Where has he been during the pandemic? Where is the inspirational leadership? Basically, that is his JOB- to inspire. He doesn't have much power, but he does have a high political profile: mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. Remember Boris after the English riots: brandishing his broom to sweep up. Cheesy, but effective.
London is suffering, profoundly, and Khan cowers away: virtually mute and certainly inert. Labour would be insane to elect him as leader, a man even more boring than Starmer.
Besides, the next Labour leader will SURELY be a woman
He's crap, but he's an astute electoral politician. Hence taking the knee, the statue reviews, the claims of institutional racism against the Government etc.
He knows his base will lap it up. And bear in mind there are a lot of Corbyo-leftist young people and hipsters in London - places like Shoreditch, Hackney and Stoke Newington - for whom the Wokery is the most important thing in casting their vote.
I live in the capital of all Woke, Hackney. Khan is regarded as a do-nothing sell out.
He has no actual fans at all.
Yes, that is exactly my experience. I have quite a few Hackney-ish Wokey friends, and they all disregard Khan (at best) as an irrelevance, or they properly despise him.
So who is voting for him?!
I accept he is strolling to victory, but it is the strangest kind of walkover, when no one actively supports you. A rum do
I would say that the red rosette on a donkey explanation applies here, but if London is so much of a lefty la la land then even that doesn't entirely explain it. The other candidates must be at least as useless too. I mean, even if London can never be convinced to return another Tory, you'd think there might be an opening for a charismatic Green or something?
But no, people aren't used to voting for minor party candidates in strength, because they mostly care about parliamentary elections and something that isn't Labour or Tory is usually a waste in those. So I think my first instinct was correct. Red rosette on a donkey.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
The FT, the Economist, even the NYT (despite the Wokeness). The Times is a far better read than any of them (tho it does not update in realtime), the Daily Mail is more entertaining and provocative.
The Guardian and the BBC get a lot of visitors because they are entirely free and without a paywall of any kind (tho the Guardian is now pushing its luck, with its endless begging messages). That's it
I genuinely find the Daily Mail unreadable with jumping adverts all over the place.
NYT is ok on US issues but in typical US fashion does not consider the rest of the world very much.
FT and The Economist I can't comment on as I don't subscribe; given the BBC and The Guardian are free, I currently feel no need.
QED. Suffering an onslaught from the blitz-scaling NYT, the free-to-view Guardian will have to go paywall very soon, and then its readership will collapse, because it is no better than its competitors, and often inferior - and it has the kind of readership that will refuse to pay. Possibly terminal.
I mean I don’t find the vast majority of the articles the BBC publishes interesting in the slightest. Especially the more “tabloidy” ones. I miss the days where the BBC website was more serious.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
I’m not talking about people watching the Beeb. I’m talking about the website, which is factually and objectively popular.
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
Well, that's where the BBC get deluded. The thing is that Woke articles get loads of clicks - because they're so polarising. The Woke lap it up of course, and they're in competition with the Guardian for that, and the antiWoke click on it just to see what latest nonsense they're pushing.
The rest is confirmation bias by BBC staff who love writing them.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
I’m not talking about people watching the Beeb. I’m talking about the website, which is factually and objectively popular.
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
How do you know? The BBC isn't driven by market forces. Victoria Derbyshire had a show for how many years that nobody watched? BBC Three is still going and nobody ever watched that.
They write arts reviews for niche theatre performances, I highly doubt they get many clicks at all.
Now some might say that great, but how often the BBC write cover something != how engaged the public are about it.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
That's the thing, it isn't.
The BBC is shedding its core market share, whilst the youngens feel patronised by it (if they see it at all) and just shrug and laugh, and stay with new social and digital media.
I can’t speak for the youngens, I am nearly 30 after all, but this narrative about how “teenagers” are pushing back against “woke” seems to be based on nothing but anecdotes. I’d love to see some actual data.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
The John Birt producer-first BBC "reforms" essentially screwed the BBC. First because it encourages copycat programming by small production companies whose instinct is to create their own variant of a hit show, so we get umpteen variants on cooking competitions, or talent shows or whatever. Second, the BBC owns very little of its output.
Oh God, the bloody "talent" shows, you just reminded me - I take it that at least some of you will be aware that one of their big showpiece offerings for the Winter is a dog grooming contest? I'm not making this up. Having gone through pottery, dress-making, interior design and about 35 different varieties of cookery, someone finally alighted upon the idea of eight hour-long primetime episodes of dog grooming. And, once again, we are paying a tax specifically to fund this rubbish. I mean, honestly...
It is quite entertaining, but not in the way they intended. The Anti-Woke theme for this poor pup for example...
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
That's the thing, it isn't.
The BBC is shedding its core market share, whilst the youngens feel patronised by it (if they see it at all) and just shrug and laugh, and stay with new social and digital media.
I can’t speak for the youngens, I am nearly 30 after all, but this narrative about how “teenagers” are pushing back against “woke” seems to be based on nothing but anecdotes. I’d love to see some actual data.
... based on wishful thinking but so right-leaning old fogeys imho.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
I’m not talking about people watching the Beeb. I’m talking about the website, which is factually and objectively popular.
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
I'd imagine that the website is popular because:
1) It's free. 2) It doesn't have adverts.
Of course, the only reason it has those advantages is that we have to cough up £154 a year to be able to watch live broadcast TV.
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
That's the thing, it isn't.
The BBC is shedding its core market share, whilst the youngens feel patronised by it (if they see it at all) and just shrug and laugh, and stay with new social and digital media.
I can’t speak for the youngens, I am nearly 30 after all, but this narrative about how “teenagers” are pushing back against “woke” seems to be based on nothing but anecdotes. I’d love to see some actual data.
Yes, we need a comprehensive survey of Albanian taxi drivers...
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
I’m not talking about people watching the Beeb. I’m talking about the website, which is factually and objectively popular.
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
How do you know? The BBC isn't driven by market forces. Victoria Derbyshire had a show for how many years that nobody watched? BBC Three is still going and nobody ever watched that.
They write arts reviews for niche theatre performances, I highly doubt they get many clicks at all.
Now so.might say that great, but how often the BBC write cover something != now engaged the public are about it.
It is however the most popular news website in the country and one of the most popular in the world.
How does BBC still not have 4k beyond I think 2-3 "trial" shows. They started their trials 5 years ago! A 4k HDR telly costs £300 these days, it not some niche product.
Because the BBC has completely lost its way.
It really needs privatising to sink or swim because it's just becoming embarrassingly poor now.
I suspect the reason is iPlayer tech is so crap it can't handle it. Remember for far too long it was built on using Abode Flash.
Indeed. Because they've not built it as a selling point but rather as a boxing ticking exercise.
If they were wanting to ensure they kept subscribers it would be much better than it is.
From what I remember, they actually got iPlayer going fairly early on, but at some point along the way the effort stalled, and they never managed to establish it internationally to compete with Netflix & Co.
They did but they never made it what it should be.
Netflix and co offered a whole library of shows. The Beeb digitised its archive but never connected it to the iPlayer, never offered a library of programs like Netflix did.
People make out like the iPlayer was groundbreaking but it wasn't really, Netflix did it first. And the Beeb never made the most of what the iPlayer could have been instead loving to think how great they were.
That's the Beeb's biggest problem I think. They're arrogant and convinced that they and their "celebrities" are much more beloved than they really are.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the BBC quite often didn't have rights to stream stuff in the UK that it had bought in. And most BBC content, including (for a long time) thing like Top Gear, was bought from external production companies.
So, it was really only their own generated content that was streamable, except around broadcast windows.
The John Birt producer-first BBC "reforms" essentially screwed the BBC. First because it encourages copycat programming by small production companies whose instinct is to create their own variant of a hit show, so we get umpteen variants on cooking competitions, or talent shows or whatever. Second, the BBC owns very little of its output.
Oh God, the bloody "talent" shows, you just reminded me - I take it that at least some of you will be aware that one of their big showpiece offerings for the Winter is a dog grooming contest? I'm not making this up. Having gone through pottery, dress-making, interior design and about 35 different varieties of cookery, someone finally alighted upon the idea of eight hour-long primetime episodes of dog grooming. And, once again, we are paying a tax specifically to fund this rubbish. I mean, honestly...
It is quite entertaining, but not in the way they intended. The Anti-Woke theme for this poor pup for example...
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
The BBC is free. FFS. If I gave away my (artisanal) flint dildos for free I'd probably be the most successful flint sex-toy knapper in East Anglia. As it happens, I need to make a living, and feed my kids, so I charge, and I am less popular than all that.
Is this technical debate a bit too highbrow for you?
The North of Tyne CA is an abomination that should never have been allowed to happen. The idea that Gateshead riverside, a few yards from Newcastle Quayside and in the CBD, is a different city is for the birds.
Even more ludicrous is that Berwick, Allendale, Haltwhistle, Kielder, Rothbury et al are in. But the most ludicrous is the name. I'm in it despite living South of Tyne. It is the old county of Northumberland. I'm a big fan of the historic counties. Why not simply call it that?
As a relatively new Netflix subscriber I have to say its offering is hardly overwhelming. The Crown, Queens Gambit, we enjoyed The Dig too, but beyond that... it's all a bit meh really. Certainly not enough to fill a schedule.
The BBC has an enormous back-catalogue (quite a few of Netflix's offerings are ex-BBC). I am not sure of the licensing issues in offering that back-catalogue but I hope it is not hampered by 'unfair competition' issues foisted on it by private media interests.
The BBC has been a truly massive cultural influence around the world on behalf of the UK; it would be senseless for us now to allow it to be trashed on ideological grounds.
The problem with the BBC is they seem unable / unwilling to adapt and seem lost about what they should be doing.
We have done the whole bit about how theu haven't adapted to modern tv series structures. But they also seem lost about how to use YouTube. The seem to think uploading the odd clip will do, but their upload get very few views compared to loads of total randoms who do news and current affairs round ups.
Victoria Derbyshire used to make a huge thing about despite hardly anybody watching her show live, some of her clips got lots of retweets...but that doesn't generate any revenue and it is the same niche group of twatterati. As we saw with all the nonsense about how many people viewed a Boris clip it means nothing.
The youth don't watch them as their offerings aren't seen as cool.
And we are seeing it already, all the noises from the BBC are defensive don't toucb the licence fee, no reformz we are better than Netflix.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. One issue the BCC has is the expectation on them is vastly different to that on Netflix. How many hours of new TV does Netflix produce per week? Sure they have had some good series in recent months but so have the BBC.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
The one way the BBC might survive is if it became a rare outpost of anti-Wokery. Instead, it is piling on the bandwagon, spending tens of millions recruiting new BAME staff who are ALREADY over-represented on the screen, compared to the population at large.
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
It's the BBC website that's the worst.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
I don't think they go a day without a trans article.....even the Guardian manage to have a day off that subject occasionally.
Really? Where's today's?
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
Here you go...Front page, with big picture...
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
There are 65 stories on that 'front page'; the one you have highlghted is 35th out of 65 and more about disablility than trans. I can't see why it offends you so much.
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
ANY OTHER WEBSITE
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
Perhaps the website is popular with the youngens? Not everything is aimed at you, you know.
It's not, tho. My older, teenage British daughter does not use the BBC website at all. She watches the odd reality TV show, the rest is Netflix, Youtube, etc
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
I’m not talking about people watching the Beeb. I’m talking about the website, which is factually and objectively popular.
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
How do you know? The BBC isn't driven by market forces. Victoria Derbyshire had a show for how many years that nobody watched? BBC Three is still going and nobody ever watched that.
They write arts reviews for niche theatre performances, I highly doubt they get many clicks at all.
Now so.might say that great, but how often the BBC write cover something != now engaged the public are about it.
It is however the most popular news website in the country and one of the most popular in the world.
Comments
As we are all still in lockdown, it doesn’t matter vastly when an individual gets their jab, unless there is a reason that they are more exposed. I am confident that the roll out will continue to be a success, and that you will get called very soon. I’d also suggest you might get a bit chippy and call your gp. I had to call mine about a different issue last week and was incidentally offered the jab, which I declined as I had already been done. In this case this was health related (not that I agree with my need ahead of others in that context). You may get some traction with a phone call.
The government has repeatedly hampered the BBC for 'competition' reasons when it should instead have been promoting and supporting the BBC as a global influencer.
Very short-sighted.
Today on the Blackwater, in Essex, was properly sunny, and, for the first time since maybe October, actually WARM. One of those rare but marvellous February days when you turn your face to the sun and think: YES. and your pineal gland injects you with some kind of happy hormone.
I also had a splendid spicy langoustine soup from a local seafood caff, which helped.
I hope you get some sun up there, soon
Five years ago I would have been horrified at the decline of the BBC, but now it seems inevitable.
News coverage which used to be the envy of the world is now dumbed down to banal nonsense. The news editors want to frame a story that implies some aspect of life is at about to change, so what do they do? They plant a reporter on the pavement outside H&M where Oxford Street dissects Regent Street. Britain (and the reporter) is at a crossroads.
God help us! Close it all down!
And North Somerset needs to stop pissing about and join the “West of England Combined Authority” aka Greater Bristol.
Thankfully the new Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield authorities seem to have avoided petty municipal fissiparousness.
I would now like to see a combined authority for Nottingham-Derby; also for Southampton-Portsmouth.
Are you saying the much-vaunted "system" isn't working as it should?
The current model is not only unenforceable and outdated, but it places huge restrictions on the BBC...they can't monterize their content on YouTube, Spotify etc, which is where all da yuff get their content.
Then they moan about declining revenue and it not fair that Netflix eat their lunch.
Leave rural Northumberland to itself, and let the Newcastle metro be governed as a modern city.
It’s effectively part of greater Newcastle.
You need one authority looking after transport, policing, housing and regeneration - like we have down here in London.
Sunderland doesn’t want to be “ruled” by Newcastle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53135022
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/24/the-bbc-is-already-diverse/
BBC drama suffers from the same left-liberal PC bias, it is unwatchably Woke.
I stopped paying for this bien pensant pap several months ago. Yet, it saddens me as a Brit. The BBC is a great British institution - but so were rum, sodomy and the lash, in the Navy, and they have gone the way of all flesh. So will the Corp, unless it transforms, super quick
He knows his base will lap it up. And bear in mind there are a lot of Corbyo-leftist young people and hipsters in London - places like Shoreditch, Hackney and Stoke Newington - for whom the Wokery is the most important thing in casting their vote.
There have been numerous warnings about reductions in supply, and the first dose seven-day average is now back below 400,000 and falling.
It's not going to happen.
The NHS website and my local Health Trust have stressed I should wait for an invitation to be vaccinated rather than call which makes me think other people have tried to "beat the system".
I'd love to see some hard evidence on rates of vaccination in different areas. I've heard too many anecdotal cases of 50 year olds getting vaccinated not to think some areas are much further ahead in their rollout than my part of the world and I'd like to understand why. If there was the lack of take-up being claimed in some BAME communities I'd expect to have been called by now but again I'd like to see some evidence rather than one bland national number which has symbolic significance but no real meaning.
Seriously, if you haven't tried it give it a go: the worst that can happen is they tell you you need to wait a bit longer.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/book-coronavirus-vaccination/
The problem with Tyne and Wear was the garbage name.
Check out the news homepage any day of the week. Pick one at random. And count the Wokey stories - lots of Twitter amplified bollocks about trans, BLM, gender fluidity, history shaming etc etc.
The irony is da kidz (for that is who they are trying to appeal to with this) never go on there.
So we just have to be patient. Not many weeks to wait.
Khan is regarded as a do-nothing sell out.
He has no actual fans at all.
Like it or not, and as pathetic as it sounds, football makes a huge difference.
In my experience Sunderland residents who are not big into football aren’t that bothered by the idea of the “Greater Newcastle” concept however those who are are very against it. Like ridiculously so. It drips through the whole local identity.
I hate it, but it’s so.
Also tell me which news site is better then the BBC or the Guardian?
BBC News - Disability and dating: 'I didn’t know what bisexual was'
Ray Everall is a 21-year-old trans man from Brighton. He struggles with communication, audio and visual processing and has learning difficulties, including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For him the main challenges are around accessing trans health services.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-56111149
An immunosuppressed chemotherapy patient in their twenties or thirties needs it more than someone healthy in their sixties.
They're starting phase one of Trial Running* (simulating the automated train service with empty trains) by Easter. Plan is for Trial Operations (actually running a full mock service with "volunteer" passengers and real staff, and running various degraded, perturbed and evacuation/emergency scenarios) by the end of the year. Then it all needs to get signed off and certified by the Office of Rail and Road. Think of it as you would Phase III trials for a vaccine, which then have to get validated by the MHRA.
*Bear in mind "Trial Running" could throw up all sorts of systems integration issues.. which would then need sifting through, categorising, diagnosing, designing out, recoding, simulating virtually, then retested, then retrialled etc.
CON voters in London are saving it for Council elections 2022.
However, it's basically hardcore porn. Forget soft porn, it isn't soft, it's really hard porn - for a mainstream British TV company anyway.
Me and my wife are no prudes but.. it's really really rude.
Sky One's schedule tonight
5.30 pm The Simpsons
6.00 pm The Simpsons
6.30 pm The Simpsons
7.00 pm The Simpsons
7.30 pm The Simpsons
The Guardian and the BBC get a lot of visitors because they are entirely free and without a paywall of any kind (tho the Guardian is now pushing its luck, with its endless begging messages). That's it
And your suggestion for a better news site is... ?
If you're healthy and 60-64 that's group 7. After the under 65s with health issues group 6.
These are also on the BBC site front page right this minute:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56124688
"Why are there so few BAME players in English women's football?"
Yes, that is definitely the sporting question of the day. I hear nothing else in my masked, distanced meetings with outdoor friends.
Also there's this, yet another way of rehashing BLM:
"Wilfried Zaha: 'Players should stand tall, taking a knee is degrading'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56117084
And then this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2hVF5XNbqJ6pLQJjFvcTprW/what-do-rupaul-and-aristotle-have-in-common
"What do RuPaul and Aristotle have in common?"
Oh, I dunno, maybe nothing? Maybe it's just another way of inserting a tedious Woke agenda into the website?
Enough. Fuck off. Let the BBC die a dignified death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-56132392
NYT is ok on US issues but in typical US fashion does not consider the rest of the world very much.
FT and The Economist I can't comment on as I don't subscribe; given the BBC and The Guardian are free, I currently feel no need.
Have you not looked at the BBC News Website recently? It is a Woke version of the Daily Express. It is cheap, vulgar, moronic and embarrassing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
So who is voting for him?!
I accept he is strolling to victory, but it is the strangest kind of walkover, when no one actively supports you. A rum do
The fact that it is so very shit is more irritating.
Sky News is woke central.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/biggest-news-websites-april-2020/
When you were 20, I bet people your age currently hated what 20 year olds liked.
“Woke” just means “stuff I don’t like”
No?
Me neither.
This is a massive problem for the Beeb. The kids have lost the BBC habit - as discussed on here ad infinitum, so I shall shut up - and go watch something on Netflix.
Later....
They wouldn’t write these “woke” articles if people didn’t read them.
Here’s a tip: if you don’t like the articles, don’t read them?
The BBC is shedding its core market share, whilst the youngens feel patronised by it (if they see it at all) and just shrug and laugh, and stay with new social and digital media.
It's haemorrhaging support.
But no, people aren't used to voting for minor party candidates in strength, because they mostly care about parliamentary elections and something that isn't Labour or Tory is usually a waste in those. So I think my first instinct was correct. Red rosette on a donkey.
The BBC, who knows
But do I get angry about it? Nope.
I don’t even pay my TV licence anymore.
The rest is confirmation bias by BBC staff who love writing them.
They write arts reviews for niche theatre performances, I highly doubt they get many clicks at all.
Now some might say that great, but how often the BBC write cover something != how engaged the public are about it.
I can’t speak for the youngens, I am nearly 30 after all, but this narrative about how “teenagers” are pushing back against “woke” seems to be based on nothing but anecdotes. I’d love to see some actual data.
If you don't want to read that article don't click on it.
https://twitter.com/giantpoppywatch/status/1363203441254952960?s=19
Won't it lead to R central??
(or, I was)
1) It's free.
2) It doesn't have adverts.
Of course, the only reason it has those advantages is that we have to cough up £154 a year to be able to watch live broadcast TV.
It doesn't justify an eight-hour long series, but it made me laugh nonetheless.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/20/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-deal-aftermath-gbr-intl/index.html
Probably needs to happen though. It is all about balancing health and normal life.
Is this technical debate a bit too highbrow for you?
Oh...
But the most ludicrous is the name.
I'm in it despite living South of Tyne.
It is the old county of Northumberland. I'm a big fan of the historic counties. Why not simply call it that?
HEAD. DESK