Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Florida Governor Ron DeStantis looks a good bet for the GOP WH2024 nomination – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,709
edited April 2021 in General
imageFlorida Governor Ron DeStantis looks a good bet for the GOP WH2024 nomination – politicalbetting.com

I’ve just had a small punt on DeSantis after reading this in the Wall Street Journal:

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Test
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862
    21 for president in 2024 on BFx seems quite tasty.

    And second...
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,781
    Third.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    Fourth like West Ham.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    Will Harry be welcomed into the bosom of his family or frozen out. The weather this morning seems inauspicious. V cold and with a dusting of snow near the South Coast.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    FPT, just before this one appeared.

    Sunny here, no sign of snow or frost, but my outside thermometer says minus 0.6 deg. C.

    Stand-off in our bird-box yesterday; another blue-tit arrived and tried to take ove the nearly-finished nestr. Driven out with much chattering.

    Idle wander=past-the-pub planned for later; just to see if there's anyone there whom I've not seen for a while.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    edited April 2021

    FPT, just before this one appeared.

    Sunny here, no sign of snow or frost, but my outside thermometer says minus 0.6 deg. C.

    Stand-off in our bird-box yesterday; another blue-tit arrived and tried to take ove the nearly-finished nestr. Driven out with much chattering.

    Idle wander=past-the-pub planned for later; just to see if there's anyone there whom I've not seen for a while.

    No snow here, but there’s a lot of hail that might look like snow to the uninitiated.

    On topic, de Santis is clearly a certifiable lunatic who is unfit to be President.

    Therefore, I agree he’s value.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    Happy beer gardens day to everyone in England! 🍻

    Fingers crossed everyone behaves themselves and there’s no big spike in cases a couple of weeks down the line.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Were they complaining about his release?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    edited April 2021
    ydoethur said:

    FPT, just before this one appeared.

    Sunny here, no sign of snow or frost, but my outside thermometer says minus 0.6 deg. C.

    Stand-off in our bird-box yesterday; another blue-tit arrived and tried to take ove the nearly-finished nestr. Driven out with much chattering.

    Idle wander=past-the-pub planned for later; just to see if there's anyone there whom I've not seen for a while.

    No snow here, but there’s a lot of hail that might look like snow to the uninitiated.

    On topic, de Santis is clearly a certifiable lunatic who is unfit to be President.

    Therefore, I agree he’s value.
    If the money's on him being on the ballot, maybe. If he's on the Republican ticket...... I suspect there might some water to flow under that bridge, if only because I wonder if Trump will upset sufficient of the top brass to cause him to be thrown out.
    Or, a possibility, that Trump's enmeshed in legal problems.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,154
    Good luck to the High Street on Returning Retail Therapy Day.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    When my parents gave a party in the mid 90s the police switchboard was jammed with people asking if the Germans were invading

    Admittedly they had borrowed a couple of 24 pounders to use instead of drums for the 1812...
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    edited April 2021

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Were they complaining about his release?
    Quite possibly, but I gather most of them were outraged viewers of the Antiques Roadshow.

    TBF, there was probably quite an overlap between those groups...
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    edited April 2021
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    Not his death - his release from prison.

    Not surprised to learn there were complaints about the coverage of his death either.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Were they complaining about his release?
    Quite possibly, but I gather most of them were outraged viewers of the Antiques Roadshow.

    TBF, there was probably quite an overlap between those groups...
    Cripes, its snowing here..
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    edited April 2021

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,017

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    You can enter the pub to pay, or use the toilet. Although maybe the pub doesn't want a steady stream of people going inside, or maybe has a reason for preferring cash.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    Not his death - his release from prison.

    Not surprised to learn there were complaints about the coverage of his death either.
    Oops - sorry! Yeah, antiques roadshow not such a big event!
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,445
    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    Doing a bit of @contrarian channelling there, David.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,017
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    I tend to agree with blanket news coverage when a big event is happening and unfolding by the minute. But after someone dies, there is literally no news. The Prince is dead, and as I understand it, that condition is unlikely to change. Not even the news channel needs to obsess about it.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,017

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Were they complaining about his release?
    Quite possibly, but I gather most of them were outraged viewers of the Antiques Roadshow.

    TBF, there was probably quite an overlap between those groups...
    Cripes, its snowing here..
    And here in Hampshire. It was big fluffy white flakes earlier, now they look smaller, and wetter. It is settling, although with temperatures above zero I can't see it staying around
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,445
    I think yes they should have had one channel BBC1 cover it non stop the rest could have got on with their schedules.

    That said it's only a couple of days and the fissure in programming can be seen to represent the fissure in continuity (no matter how small) for most of us as the D of E as part of our Royal Family is all we've known.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    The lack of respect is a very worrying change. Frankly I rarely watch BBC bit thought the ITV coverage was very good.

    As an aside, where does GB news broadcast from and to. Is it internet only?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
    This one? https://www.zoom-internet.co.uk/

    Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
    This one? https://www.zoom-internet.co.uk/

    Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
    100 quid per ?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,445
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    Doing a bit of @contrarian channelling there, David.
    Oh Lordie, its a bit early for that. But the US is a good test case for identifying what worked and what didn't. The answer, other than vaccines, seems to be nothing much. In fairness that is what our boffins were also saying from the start, the plan was to flatten the curve not eliminate it. We seem to forget that sometimes.

    This is vaccination day for me. If I am spared I will confirm what I am actually given later.
    Great news! Let us know.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,781
    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    How is OneWeb doing?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
    This one? https://www.zoom-internet.co.uk/

    Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
    100 quid per ?
    Month
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    I understood there to be significant issues around DeStantis and his manipulation/underreporting of Florida's deaths from Covid statistics.

    Great stats on Covid deaths as I recall, but rather a lot of very dangerous cases of flu.
    I'd forgotten that, you are right. Its scary sometimes how easy it is to take numbers at face value even if you know fine well they are open to manipulation.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    How is OneWeb doing?
    Pretty good, not that you'd know much about it. Their business model is to more to provide backhaul to telecoms companies and 'governments', rather than direct-to-consumer services. They are expecting to be live in Q4 this year.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
    This one? https://www.zoom-internet.co.uk/

    Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
    100 quid per ?
    Month
    Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,628
    edited April 2021
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    I understood there to be significant issues around DeStantis and his manipulation/underreporting of Florida's deaths from Covid statistics.

    Great stats on Covid deaths as I recall, but rather a lot of very dangerous cases of flu.
    I'd forgotten that, you are right. Its scary sometimes how easy it is to take numbers at face value even if you know fine well they are open to manipulation.
    There's that, and the fact that a few people have noted he was pretty close to Matt Gaetz. Could get very messy for the Governor if Gaetz ends up getting charged/convicted.

    I might not like it as a concept, but guilt by association works, especially when it involves politicians and paedophiles.

    If Gaetz took any of them to a pizza restaurant/takeaway I fear the internet might end.

    https://floridapolitics.com/archives/418618-anti-ron-desantis-group-launches-video-of-matt-gaetz-bromance-with-ron-desantis/
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,354
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    I understood there to be significant issues around DeStantis and his manipulation/underreporting of Florida's deaths from Covid statistics.

    Great stats on Covid deaths as I recall, but rather a lot of very dangerous cases of flu.
    I'd forgotten that, you are right. Its scary sometimes how easy it is to take numbers at face value even if you know fine well they are open to manipulation.
    That is why the most accurate (if in itself, nonetheless faulty) statistical comparator over the entire pandemic will be excess deaths.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,576

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    I tend to agree with blanket news coverage when a big event is happening and unfolding by the minute. But after someone dies, there is literally no news. The Prince is dead, and as I understand it, that condition is unlikely to change. Not even the news channel needs to obsess about it.
    Ironically the whole point of the monarchy is that it is continuous: not stopping when someone dies. The show must go on, which is why the Palace copped a lot of flak when Princess Diana died.

    And as you say, it may be significant that the Duke of Edinburgh died but there is not much to say, other than to report the fact of his death. He is not the Queen. The BBC broke the news well, and the documentary was good but most of its output was filler.

    The BBC needs to make sure its plan for HMQ's death is an actual plan, complete with details of what will be shown when and where, not just (as with the Duke of Edinburgh) that normal programming will be suspended across all the channels that existed when the plan was drawn up thirty years ago but with nothing specific about what to replace it with.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,054
    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    edited April 2021

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
    This one? https://www.zoom-internet.co.uk/

    Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
    100 quid per ?
    Month
    Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
    Lucky you, you won't be their customer.

    For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.

    It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    You can enter the pub to pay, or use the toilet. Although maybe the pub doesn't want a steady stream of people going inside, or maybe has a reason for preferring cash.
    Everyone, it seems, in that area complains about their broadband, whoever the supplier. I'm a couple of miles away and BT is excellent.
    And the pub management is very likely to push the boundaries.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.

    This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.

    This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?

    Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,576
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It would be interesting to know how many people complaining about their wifi also sneered at Corbyn's free broadband offer. If only they'd elected a government pledged to invest £5 billion into broadband infrastructure.

    Oh, hold on. They did. That was Boris!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,456
    "A third wave is unlikely this summer, Government scientists have admitted, despite modelling suggesting Britain would see a surge of infections.

    Senior experts close to the Government have said that any new wave would be more likely to arrive in the autumn, following the pattern of other seasonal respiratory infections."

    Telegraph.

    Totally unsurprising that once again after massive briefing about a modelled surge leading to as many deaths as January in summer we now see it seems that the advisors don't think it will happen.

    I am very much hoping the public inquiry includes a look at how scientists were endlessly briefing all sorts of models and theories and predictions "in a personal capacity" and how they were given undue attention by the media.

    Some of it has been ridiculous.
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.

    BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.

    One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.

    This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.

    This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?

    Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
    I always think the objections from the right are more genuine. I want to get rid of the licence fee as I think it’s simply unfair. The bias doesn’t really come into it, but whenever someone on the left complains about the BBC, I always say “let’s get rid of the licence fee.”

    That’s the difference. The left don’t want to get rid of the fee because deep down they know that it generally supports their view of the world or at least they think it ought to support their view.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    MrEd said:

    On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.

    BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.

    One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.

    The impression given from a long way away, is that until the past couple of weeks a lot of the US was shut down, except for Florida and Texas which have mostly stayed open. Lots of entertainment types (comics, musicians etc) have relocated from NY and CA to FL and TX. Would that be correct?
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    edited April 2021
    ...
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,781

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    I tend to agree with blanket news coverage when a big event is happening and unfolding by the minute. But after someone dies, there is literally no news. The Prince is dead, and as I understand it, that condition is unlikely to change. Not even the news channel needs to obsess about it.
    Ironically the whole point of the monarchy is that it is continuous: not stopping when someone dies. The show must go on, which is why the Palace copped a lot of flak when Princess Diana died.

    And as you say, it may be significant that the Duke of Edinburgh died but there is not much to say, other than to report the fact of his death. He is not the Queen. The BBC broke the news well, and the documentary was good but most of its output was filler.

    The BBC needs to make sure its plan for HMQ's death is an actual plan, complete with details of what will be shown when and where, not just (as with the Duke of Edinburgh) that normal programming will be suspended across all the channels that existed when the plan was drawn up thirty years ago but with nothing specific about what to replace it with.
    The story so far seems to me to be the media telling us all how badly they've all f*cked it up for so many years, and that he was a pretty good human being rather than a biggot-loon who can be summarised in a 4 word headline and a 5 paragraph article.

    It's the old anyone not stupid enough to believe the media and do some homework may have a decent perception of reality.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    I understood there to be significant issues around DeStantis and his manipulation/underreporting of Florida's deaths from Covid statistics.

    Great stats on Covid deaths as I recall, but rather a lot of very dangerous cases of flu.
    I'd forgotten that, you are right. Its scary sometimes how easy it is to take numbers at face value even if you know fine well they are open to manipulation.
    There's that, and the fact that a few people have noted he was pretty close to Matt Gaetz. Could get very messy for the Governor if Gaetz ends up getting charged/convicted.

    I might not like it as a concept, but guilt by association works, especially when it involves politicians and paedophiles.

    If Gaetz took any of them to a pizza restaurant/takeaway I fear the internet might end.

    https://floridapolitics.com/archives/418618-anti-ron-desantis-group-launches-video-of-matt-gaetz-bromance-with-ron-desantis/
    That, and the possibility of Trump running again, is what keeps me from being tempted at these relatively short odds (I had a very small punt a while back at more favourable ones).

    That apart, he would still be value. He's just about the only Republican runner that has managed to stay in 100% with Trump and his faithful without slavishly sucking up to them. However much I might despise him, I do recognise he's quite an effective operator.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,233
    That New Yorker article @Leon posted on a previous thread is very well worth reading. Utterly terrifying. China is an evil regime.

    This paragraph stood out for me:

    "Xinjiang itself has become a laboratory for digital surveillance. By 2013, officials in Ürümqi had begun to affix QR codes to the exterior of homes, which security personnel could scan to obtain details about residents. On Chen Quanguo’s arrival, all cars were fitted with state-issued G.P.S. trackers. Every new cell-phone number had to be registered, and phones were routinely checked; authorities could harvest everything from photos to location data. Wi-Fi “sniffers” were installed to extract identifying data from computers and other devices. Chen also launched a program called Physicals for All, gathering biometric data—blood types, fingerprints, voiceprints, iris patterns—under the guise of medical care. Every Xinjiang resident between the ages of twelve and sixty-five was required to provide the state with a DNA sample."

    ....."under the guise of medical care .....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    edited April 2021
    MrEd said:

    On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.

    BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him....

    In the land of the mad, the self aware grifters are kings.
    (Which is to say that I agree with you he should not be underestimated.)

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.

    This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.

    This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?

    Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
    I always think the objections from the right are more genuine. I want to get rid of the licence fee as I think it’s simply unfair. The bias doesn’t really come into it, but whenever someone on the left complains about the BBC, I always say “let’s get rid of the licence fee.”

    That’s the difference. The left don’t want to get rid of the fee because deep down they know that it generally supports their view of the world or at least they think it ought to support their view.
    If you were to survey left-leaning people in general, whether or not they'd be in favour of a tax per household which is the same amount for everyone rich and poor, and we will spend 10% of magistrates' courts time fining and imprisoning people mostly in the bottom decile of income for failing to pay this tax - how many of them would be in favour of it?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    Final thought on the as yet distant 2024 election - the smart bet is to lay Trump for President, IMO.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
    Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more.
    With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,145
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    Doing a bit of @contrarian channelling there, David.
    Oh Lordie, its a bit early for that. But the US is a good test case for identifying what worked and what didn't. The answer, other than vaccines, seems to be nothing much. In fairness that is what our boffins were also saying from the start, the plan was to flatten the curve not eliminate it. We seem to forget that sometimes.

    This is vaccination day for me. If I am spared I will confirm what I am actually given later.
    Mask wearing hasn't turned out to be the magic bullet some claimed it was.

    Perhaps these are the only true determinants of how much a country would be affected by covid:

    1) How much covid it let in
    2) How many sick oldies
    3) How many obese slobs
    4) How many and how quickly vaccinated
    5) How accurate is the data reported
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    I understood there to be significant issues around DeStantis and his manipulation/underreporting of Florida's deaths from Covid statistics.

    Great stats on Covid deaths as I recall, but rather a lot of very dangerous cases of flu.
    I'd forgotten that, you are right. Its scary sometimes how easy it is to take numbers at face value even if you know fine well they are open to manipulation.
    There's that, and the fact that a few people have noted he was pretty close to Matt Gaetz. Could get very messy for the Governor if Gaetz ends up getting charged/convicted.

    I might not like it as a concept, but guilt by association works, especially when it involves politicians and paedophiles.

    If Gaetz took any of them to a pizza restaurant/takeaway I fear the internet might end.

    https://floridapolitics.com/archives/418618-anti-ron-desantis-group-launches-video-of-matt-gaetz-bromance-with-ron-desantis/
    ’When I said I wanted a medium Hawaiian...’
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,245
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    There is a company advertising on TV called Zoom. No idea what their reach is...
    This one? https://www.zoom-internet.co.uk/

    Looks like a long-range wifi setup, but only available in a very small area on the South coast around Chichester and Bognor. They'll have a fibre-linked base station and a few remote microwave-linked stations on towers or tall buildings, similar to the mobile phone network. Quite the investment to get it up and running. A lot cheaper than dedicated satellite bandwidth though, Starlink will be in the £100 range for an 80-100mbps service.
    100 quid per ?
    Month
    Outrageous. My local provider gives me 50meg plus free Internet phone(used for incoming calls only and some calls abroad that are cheaper than on my mobile and not whatsappable.) All in for 20 quid plus vat.
    Lucky you, you won't be their customer.

    For those who live in the middle of nowhere, still on a dialup or a flaky 2mbps connection while waiting for Openreach to turn up one day, it will be a total game-changer.

    It's a bit like these plug-in hybrid cars everyone is going on about. To most people, they're ridiculously expensive, heavy and complicated - but to a specific target market of self-employed company car drivers leasing them, they're a complete and utter no-brainer.
    Starlink’s uk price is £80/mth. You can also cancel your landline which I think is £22/mth? If I was to change from BT to Starlink the delta per month would be under £40. But... I’m getting about 25mbps download so not (yet) tempted to make the switch. If Starlink improve upload speeds post beta test then I’ll probably sign up as OpenReach say they’ll basically never install fibre to premises in these parts.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.

    This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.

    This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?

    Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
    I always think the objections from the right are more genuine. I want to get rid of the licence fee as I think it’s simply unfair. The bias doesn’t really come into it, but whenever someone on the left complains about the BBC, I always say “let’s get rid of the licence fee.”

    That’s the difference. The left don’t want to get rid of the fee because deep down they know that it generally supports their view of the world or at least they think it ought to support their view.
    That kind of reflects the political imbalace too which any reasonable person would identify as left leaning. Removal of the license fee / lowering taxes and the Taxpayers Alliance agenda doesn't really resonate with the BBC as it undermines their funding. News tends to be skewed in a why wasnt more money spent on X, rather than why was it wasted.

    Interestingly they are able to do VAlue for money on an individual level with programmes like Watchdog and Moneybox, although Moneybox can turn into a rant about government services and benefits complaints so does feed into my previous point.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,456
    For those who like robust debates about Labour going for PR, here's one. I like the bit about "unicorns with jam on them".

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1381501846246850562
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,645
    edited April 2021

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It would be interesting to know how many people complaining about their wifi also sneered at Corbyn's free broadband offer. If only they'd elected a government pledged to invest £5 billion into broadband infrastructure.

    Oh, hold on. They did. That was Boris!
    The free broadband policy managed to collapse some broadband projects. So, it did achieve something....
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,005
    DavidL said:

    So apart from being a grade 1 nutter who is governor of a marginal state what exactly does this person have going for him?

    Florida has had more recorded cases than New York although considerably fewer deaths. That seems instinctively surprising to me given that Florida is likely to have more than its fair share of retirees who are more vulnerable. It suggests that Florida at least took testing pretty seriously. Deaths per million pretty average. Indeed it is interesting how little variation there is now in US States other than slightly higher deaths in the very big cities.
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Makes you wonder if a lot of the measures made a lot of difference in the end even if they had short term effects.

    Florida has a big climate advantage over New York for respiratory illnesses.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,245
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
    Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more.
    With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
    Yes, if I was selling a rural house right now the most obvious Phil and Kirsty thing to do would be to stick up a Starlink dish and write in the prospectus “150mbps download speed”. £500 and done. It’s not even begun to be priced into the housing market I don’t think but will be major.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,154
    The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".

    There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"

    The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."

    "However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."

    "I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."

    "Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."

    "Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."

    "The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."
  • Options

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    The lack of respect is a very worrying change. Frankly I rarely watch BBC bit thought the ITV coverage was very good.

    As an aside, where does GB news broadcast from and to. Is it internet only?
    GBnews will be broadcast on all major UK platforms including Freeview(236), Sky, YouView (236), Virginia Media and Freesat and will reach 96% of UK households

    It is due to launch very soon and will be a direct challenger to the BBC and Sky
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Was there so much coverage for the death of the Queen Mother? I seem to remember it was rather lower-key, but equally, I remember I didn’t pay much attention so I may simply not have noticed.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Yep. In certain parts of the world, there would be 10 days of national mourning for such a death - with all radio stations playing classical music and live entertainment cancelled.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The problem, of course, is that they’ve set the bar for HMQ. They can’t exactly scale it back for the change of monarch.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    Cyclefree said:

    That New Yorker article @Leon posted on a previous thread is very well worth reading. Utterly terrifying. China is an evil regime.

    This paragraph stood out for me:

    "Xinjiang itself has become a laboratory for digital surveillance. By 2013, officials in Ürümqi had begun to affix QR codes to the exterior of homes, which security personnel could scan to obtain details about residents. On Chen Quanguo’s arrival, all cars were fitted with state-issued G.P.S. trackers. Every new cell-phone number had to be registered, and phones were routinely checked; authorities could harvest everything from photos to location data. Wi-Fi “sniffers” were installed to extract identifying data from computers and other devices. Chen also launched a program called Physicals for All, gathering biometric data—blood types, fingerprints, voiceprints, iris patterns—under the guise of medical care. Every Xinjiang resident between the ages of twelve and sixty-five was required to provide the state with a DNA sample."

    ....."under the guise of medical care .....

    For me, this.
    ...Adrian Zenz, an independent academic who has unearthed troves of government documents on Chen’s crackdown, estimated that there were as many as a million people in the camps—a statistic echoed by the United Nations and others. Not since the Holocaust had a country’s minority population been so systematically detained...
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,154
    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
    Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more.
    With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
    Yes, if I was selling a rural house right now the most obvious Phil and Kirsty thing to do would be to stick up a Starlink dish and write in the prospectus “150mbps download speed”. £500 and done. It’s not even begun to be priced into the housing market I don’t think but will be major.
    Something lese that will impact on house prices in coming years is those homes currently blighted by road noise. By 2030, that is going to be significantly impacted by engine noise being taken out the equation, leaving just tyre noise.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.

    This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.

    This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?

    Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
    I always think the objections from the right are more genuine. I want to get rid of the licence fee as I think it’s simply unfair. The bias doesn’t really come into it, but whenever someone on the left complains about the BBC, I always say “let’s get rid of the licence fee.”

    That’s the difference. The left don’t want to get rid of the fee because deep down they know that it generally supports their view of the world or at least they think it ought to support their view.
    That kind of reflects the political imbalace too which any reasonable person would identify as left leaning. Removal of the license fee / lowering taxes and the Taxpayers Alliance agenda doesn't really resonate with the BBC as it undermines their funding. News tends to be skewed in a why wasnt more money spent on X, rather than why was it wasted.

    Interestingly they are able to do VAlue for money on an individual level with programmes like Watchdog and Moneybox, although Moneybox can turn into a rant about government services and benefits complaints so does feed into my previous point.
    The thing is, hypothecation isn’t something we tend to do in this country. Except for the BBC.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,645

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    I think the key lesson is that the BBC is not as apolitical as it thinks it is because it is pro-institution. These can be more left focussed (free at the point of use healthcare) or right wing (monarchy) but they are still existing institutions. The main reason for this is self interest. Can we really expect people who decide to work for it to be against its very principle.

    This is what I always think about when people accuse the BBC of bias - there may be a few instances, a few bad apples if you like, but in the main the BBC is small c conservative and not revolutionary which can annoy left and right.

    This explains a lot of the actions of the BBC. Why does it have an outside broadcast for New Year in London for instance? Why does it send hundreds of people to football championships / Olympics? Why does it go bananas over Wimbledon? The proms?

    Part of this is it's remit but I see it also motivated by self interest.
    Does anyone really complain about covering the events you mention? Apart from the junketing by senior management.

    The only real complaints about covering an event I can recall, is the Boat Race.
  • Options

    The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".

    There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"

    The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."

    "However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."

    "I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."

    "Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."

    "Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."

    "The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."

    By far the best way of dealing with the issue
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,037
    edited April 2021
    tlg86 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The problem, of course, is that they’ve set the bar for HMQ. They can’t exactly scale it back for the change of monarch.
    Well they could do better than what they did on BBC 4 which on Friday night was the worst of all possible options - supposed to show football they had a banner showing for 2 hours saying if you want to watch the match use iPlayer.

    So it neither continued normal programming nor showed the Prince Philip coverage.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,245

    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
    Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more.
    With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
    Yes, if I was selling a rural house right now the most obvious Phil and Kirsty thing to do would be to stick up a Starlink dish and write in the prospectus “150mbps download speed”. £500 and done. It’s not even begun to be priced into the housing market I don’t think but will be major.
    Something lese that will impact on house prices in coming years is those homes currently blighted by road noise. By 2030, that is going to be significantly impacted by engine noise being taken out the equation, leaving just tyre noise.
    To an extent. For faster traffic I seem to recall wind resistance and tyres dwarf engine noise.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Yep. In certain parts of the world, there would be 10 days of national mourning for such a death - with all radio stations playing classical music and live entertainment cancelled.
    In Thailand, isn’t it a whole year?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    ydoethur said:

    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Was there so much coverage for the death of the Queen Mother? I seem to remember it was rather lower-key, but equally, I remember I didn’t pay much attention so I may simply not have noticed.
    The BBC got some criticism for not showing enough respect to the Queen Mother. There is a suspicion that they’ve overcompensated this time.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".

    There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"

    The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."

    "However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."

    "I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."

    "Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."

    "Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."

    "The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."

    Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.

    Want PR? Lib Dem members.
    Want independence? SNP members.

    That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863

    In my early days with BBC News at the start of the 1970s one of my roles was as copy taster - scanning all the news report from around the world as they came in and alerting editors to developing major stories. Because someone was sitting in that seat 24/7 365 days of the year there was a file in the draw with the detailed procedures for the BBC as a whole of what should happen when any of the Royal Family should pass away. Many a boring night shift was spent perusing the details. Based on what happened with PP things have changed over the last half century. As I recall Prince Phillip's going would have led to 24 hours of all the networks playing Croydon church bells with a short news summary every 15 minutes.

    Some people might have preferred that.
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.

    BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him.

    One other snippet - and it backs Mike's points. One of the main hosts on the Daily Wire, which is one of the main conservative websites, ran a hypothetical poll of Trump vs DeSantis for the 2024 nomination on Twitter. 75K responses with a weighting of 70% DeSantis, 30% Trump. The host said he was really surprised by that - he said if you had taken that poll a few months back, he would have said the numbers would have been reversed.

    The impression given from a long way away, is that until the past couple of weeks a lot of the US was shut down, except for Florida and Texas which have mostly stayed open. Lots of entertainment types (comics, musicians etc) have relocated from NY and CA to FL and TX. Would that be correct?
    Yes, that's true @Sandpit but also a lot of business types who are sick of the taxes in CA and NY. FL and TX are making a big push to attract business people into their states and, from all accounts, it's going well. We have two sets of friends, one who lived in the Upper East Side and one who lived in Virginia, and they are now in Miami. The NYC pair were particularly big NY types - went out to dinners and bars every day, loved the city etc etc. They have said the old, pre-pandemic NYC (or at least Manhattan) has gone. Many of the restaurants have closed permanently and are not coming back, and the vibe has disappeared. I'm not sure you can write off cities for good but it's worth remembering that it probably took London 20+ years (and arguably more if you think its' decline started after WW 2) to pull itself up again.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,645
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
    Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more.
    With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
    The dish is being sold at a loss at the moment - it is very advanced tech and lots of it.

    Given SpaceX and Elon's history, I wouldn't bet against them reducing the price to any particular number, though.

    https://hackaday.com/2020/11/25/literally-tearing-apart-a-spacex-starlink-antenna/
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,037
    edited April 2021

    The Guardian has an interview with Nicola Sturgeon, where she claims "No 10 won't block a new IndyRef if SNP win".

    There's a question for PMQs. "Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the SNP have been given assurances - on the record or privately - that his Government will authorise a second referendum on Independence, if the SNP should win a majority of seats in the forthcoming Holyrood elections?"

    The PM can then undermine Nicola Sturgeon by saying "I can assure my Honourable Friend and the whole House that no such assurances have been - or will be - given."

    "However, there is clearly a level of unease across Scotland at its future direction of travel, whether from those who wish for independence or indeed those who see the immense benefits and wish to retain the Union. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP - and no doubt in turn Alex Salmond's new outfit - will airily wave away forensic examination of the many questions about Scotland's future, simply saying "You will have to trust us." Recent events have shown you would need a very brave heart indeed to trust them with your freedom."

    "I have been speaking with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my friend Douglas Ross. We are both of the view that a detailed, independent study is required of the various possible ways ahead for Scotland. The Scottish people deserve an honest appraisal - one that is not offered them from this current Scottish administration, in their unseemly rush to undo our Union."

    "Once the new Scottish government is in place, I will invite each of the major parties in Scotland to propose members to join a Royal Commission I propose we set up to examine - in great detail - the consequences for Scotland of each of the various options. It will be very broad ranging in its remit. It needs to be looking at all aspects of future governance - the head of state, the currency, tax raising powers, borrowing powers, defence, trade, fishing - whether inside the Union, some new federal structure or - if its people then still choose in a referendum - as an independent nation."

    "Only when it has reached its findings and the Scottish people can have a fully informed choice of the consequences of their course of action will I consider authorising any second referendum. I'd suggest the Scottish people be very wary of voting for those who take them forward towards on independent nation before that Royal Commission has reported. Equally, those who might refuse to work with it - or who will not agree to be bound by its findings. "Why not?" you should ask of them."

    "The Union has lasted 314 years so far. Any effort to undo that Union can wait a few years longer, to enable the Scots to make a fully informed choice. My proposed Royal Commission would give them that choice."

    Commissions are garbage. Any Commission reports with whatever its chosen members believe in.

    Want PR? Lib Dem members.
    Want independence? SNP members.

    That's why in democracies we don't rely upon Commissions. We have parties put up their own proposals, competing, and we choose between them.
    The purpose of the commission is probably not to answer the questions - it is to create a list of questions that would need to be answered during the referendum in a way that the winning party couldn't back away from afterwards.

    And currency is a big issue - the SNP's answer would likely be the Euro but the tricky part are the bits between the day their stop using Sterling and the day they join the Euro.

    Finance is another one - does Scotland have the tax base it needs to cover it's expenditure. In 2014 North Sea Oil was used whenever the question was raised - that isn't an option now but it still needs to be closed off before any independence referendum starts.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,245

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    My attention has been drawn to an advert for a pub not far away which includes the following 'we ask you pay cash as much as possible as wifi in the garden is not very good with the card machine'.

    Some people really are getting back to normal.

    Yes BT broadband is just as rubbish as before lockdown started, and it will be just as crap long after. It is one of the menaces in my life now dispensed with in favour of broadband via an aerial.
    Happy days, more than 30 quid cheaper per month and much less liable to loss of service.*180 install cost notwithstanding.
    Starlink is going to be quite the game-changer, for rural communities currently served very poorly by old ADSL infrastructure.
    The cost is too high for impecunious rural types. I ordered it for my place in France and the base station thing was about 500€. I guarantee nobody else in my village will pay that. They'd rather put up with 1Mb ADSL from orange.fr provided on cables nailed to telegraph poles and gable ends.
    It's not aimed at rural types. It's aimed at city types who want to move out, for whom a decent internet connection is a prerequisite. Good news for rural house prices.
    Add to that, early adopters pay a lot more.
    With first mover advantage, and the cheapest launch costs for the next half decade at least, Starlink will be a monster. The price will come down as soon as demand starts to slacken.
    The dish is being sold at a loss at the moment - it is very advanced tech and lots of it.

    Given SpaceX and Elon's history, I wouldn't bet against them reducing the price to any particular number, though.

    https://hackaday.com/2020/11/25/literally-tearing-apart-a-spacex-starlink-antenna/
    Once they’re churning out millions of a gen 2 dish it will come down a lot
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    The problem, of course, is that they’ve set the bar for HMQ. They can’t exactly scale it back for the change of monarch.
    Well they could do better than what they did on BBC 4 which on Friday night was the worst of all possible options - supposed to show football they had a banner showing for 2 hours saying if you want to watch the match use iPlayer.

    So it neither continued normal programming nor showed the Prince Philip coverage.
    Did it actually say that? Blimey, unbelievably poor.
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I've been backing Ron DeSantis for a while as the Republican nominee for 2024 - as many in the GOP put it, he's got a lot of Trump's positive points for the GOP without much of the baggage (I know many on here will guffaw but you don't count when it comes to whom gets selected). The hacked "60 Minutes" attack job has also done him a world of good with the base.

    BTW, I saw @Mexicanpete's and @DavidL's comments about the FL numbers and the main is a lunatic etc etc. No offence meant but it just shows how a few commentators on here, even the good ones, just get their view distorted by a lot of the commentary from the media. If you truly believe that about DeSantis, you have seriously underestimated him....

    In the land of the mad, the self aware grifters are kings.
    (Which is to say that I agree with you he should not be underestimated.)

    If you want to see how seriously the Democrat part of the media is treating DeSantis as the 2024 nominee, look at the amount of time and attention that is being taken up to attack him and his record. The other possible candidates - Hawley, Cruz. Pence etc - are not getting a look in.

    The CBS "60 Minutes" was an absolutely hit job to the point where you had Democrat officials publicly state that ^60 Minutes" completely misinterpreted what had go on with Florida. Take a look at the furore it has created and you can see why it has done DeSantis a world of good with the base.

    BTW, for those who say DeSantis is a loon, check out the guy he ran against. Imagine if this guy had become the Florida Governor

    https://news.yahoo.com/andrew-gillum-found-miami-hotel-173229449.html
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,037

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    The lack of respect is a very worrying change. Frankly I rarely watch BBC bit thought the ITV coverage was very good.

    As an aside, where does GB news broadcast from and to. Is it internet only?
    GBnews will be broadcast on all major UK platforms including Freeview(236), Sky, YouView (236), Virginia Media and Freesat and will reach 96% of UK households

    It is due to launch very soon and will be a direct challenger to the BBC and Sky
    If it's channel number is 236 - few people are ever going to find it.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    tlg86 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the BBC has received zillions of complaints about poor little darlings missing Eastenders. Are peoples lives really that shallow?

    When they cancelled the Antiques Roadshow to broadcast a news special on Nelson Mandela’s release, their switchboard was so busy with complaints that for 24 hours all internal phone lines were dead.
    Actually, the bigger issue is that people were tuning in to hear the latest news about the storm surge in the North Sea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25298113

    I think the coverage of the Duke’s death would have been different had it happened in the run up to Christmas with COVID raging.

    I do think it was a bit excessive to not show the France v England women’s football match on BBC 4.
    The right answer is clearly to have devoted BBC1 to it for a reasonable time (giving up at the point that Gyles Brandreth came round for a second time) and oput the most popular or important regular stuff on BBC2 for those that want it, leaving others like BBC4 to schedule. Devoting every single channel (or cancelling them altogether) was an idiotic decision and the BBC deserves all the criticism it is getting.
    Clearly the BBC think that it would be disrespectful to carry on regular broadcasting as normal. I, and I suspect most people in the country, don’t.

    And if you think this is what it’s like for the spouse, clearly it will be on another level when we get a change of monarch.
    Long ago, the idea of a period of mourning, which everyone within its scope had to submit to, was understood and accepted. Nowadays, not so much.

    In the early days of radio and TV it was just solemn music, IIUC. From what people say, it sounds as though broadcasters are trying now to fill the hours and days with comment, opinion and reviews of Prince Philip's life.

    It would be a good thing if the broadcasters/government/palace used this experience to have a review of what is acceptable nowadays for a period of official mourning, so that the next time is more in line with current mores.

    It's important to accept that people aren't being disrespectful if they take a life-goes-on approach, not nowadays.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Yep. In certain parts of the world, there would be 10 days of national mourning for such a death - with all radio stations playing classical music and live entertainment cancelled.
    In Thailand, isn’t it a whole year?
    Can't say I've ever been in Thailand when someone important died, maybe someone (or several people!) on this forum who's a frequent visitor to Thailand might be better informed on such matters?

    The usual maximum in Islamic countries is 40 days, but more commonly it's 10 days or 3 days of various changes.
This discussion has been closed.