Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
"@MichaelMDowling As English pubs open today, we should recognise they achieved this by risking the health of their population by vaccinating too early with vaccines they didn't understand.
The EU approach is testing new medicine is vastly superior to the early chance to pop into Weatherspoons."
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
"@MichaelMDowling As English pubs open today, we should recognise they achieved this by risking the health of their population by vaccinating too early with vaccines they didn't understand.
The EU approach is testing new medicine is vastly superior to the early chance to pop into Weatherspoons."
On topic, when there are no Tory candidates in the north east, it is often because they are hiding under other banners:
- Independent - [Some local area or other] Independents - Ratepayers - Residents' Association - Save [Something or Other] - No [Something or Other] - Stop [Something or Other]
Not just the north east of course. And perhaps becoming less prevalent now that some people are actually choosing to vote Conservative.
"@MichaelMDowling As English pubs open today, we should recognise they achieved this by risking the health of their population by vaccinating too early with vaccines they didn't understand.
The EU approach is testing new medicine is vastly superior to the early chance to pop into Weatherspoons."
Now deleted. Never trust a man who cant spell Wetherspoons though.
I always wonder what people's problems with Wetherspoons is. I guess its more about the type of people who use them.
Large corporate pushing out small independent firms while engaging in aggressive tax measures to keep costs low. They're the Amazon of the pub space.
You really think that? I would describe them more of the lidl/aldi of the pub trade. Cheap and cheerful, staff paid and treated no worse than your gastro pub with a bill 3x the size. A pint and lunch for less than a £5.
The food in Wetherspoons is awful. There is nothing 'cheerful' about them.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
Absolutely. Term time is a nuisance interruption of their left wing activities...
I'm screwed if being condescending, offensive, and focussing on language are seen as being problematic by the judiciary and others.
A litigant-in-person has been hit with a bill of almost £100,000 in costs, after the court slammed him for being "difficult to deal with, condescending" and "offensive".
...
I think you have also to be an unnecessarily prolix and vexatious tw@t, so on balance you ought to be OK ?
I'm very happy with my bet at evens on the Tories to win Hartlepool. It's much shorter now but I'm not laying back. The party of Brexit are quite rightly the clear betting favourites to win this most Brexity of seats. I'll also be delighted if I'm wrong and Labour pull off the upset since this will mean the Tory hold on the WWC Leave political identity is starting to fade already - despite a Brexit so recent in the memory and looking very good because of vaccines - which will bode well for Labour's longer term prospects at GE24. So it's a win/win as far as I'm concerned. Course by the same token it's also a lose/lose.
Good bit of expectations management there. Seat the tories have never had and didnt get in the brexit landslide of 2019, if they still dont get it in this by election shows quite clearly that theyve lost the hold on the WWC.
??
I have no interest in "expectations management". No clue why you're suggesting that. Other than amusement, my only goals on here are (i) winning hearts & minds for the modern metro left (which I'm terrible at but it is a tough crowd) and (ii) calling political outcomes correctly (where I'm very good).
Here it's all about the latter. Getting the call right. Ever since Hartlepool was announced, I've been saying that the Cons are favourites and explaining why they are. I have also put my money where my mouth is and have backed them at evens (1.68 now).
New punditry for a new politics. Suggest you get onboard.
"@MichaelMDowling As English pubs open today, we should recognise they achieved this by risking the health of their population by vaccinating too early with vaccines they didn't understand.
The EU approach is testing new medicine is vastly superior to the early chance to pop into Weatherspoons."
Now deleted. Never trust a man who cant spell Wetherspoons though.
I always wonder what people's problems with Wetherspoons is. I guess its more about the type of people who use them.
Large corporate pushing out small independent firms while engaging in aggressive tax measures to keep costs low. They're the Amazon of the pub space.
You really think that? I would describe them more of the lidl/aldi of the pub trade. Cheap and cheerful, staff paid and treated no worse than your gastro pub with a bill 3x the size. A pint and lunch for less than a £5.
The food in Wetherspoons is awful. There is nothing 'cheerful' about them.
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
Don't tell us... You're going to do all the work the last day before school starts, honest?
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
Don't tell us... You're going to do all the work the last day before school starts, honest?
The whole idea of doing it today was so I wouldn’t have to!
Although I have got all my planning done bar one lesson.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
Don't tell us... You're going to do all the work the last day before school starts, honest?
The whole idea of doing it today was so I wouldn’t have to!
Although I have got all my planning done bar one lesson.
But somehow it didn't get done. But lots of mucking about on the internet....
This reminds me of something.... Can't quite put my finger on it.....
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
Don't tell us... You're going to do all the work the last day before school starts, honest?
The whole idea of doing it today was so I wouldn’t have to!
Although I have got all my planning done bar one lesson.
But somehow it didn't get done. But lots of mucking about on the internet....
This reminds me of something.... Can't quite put my finger on it.....
My excuse is that the only table in the house large enough to use for marking shitloads of books is in the sunroom, and until the sun came out today it’s been too cold to work in it.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
Don't tell us... You're going to do all the work the last day before school starts, honest?
The whole idea of doing it today was so I wouldn’t have to!
Although I have got all my planning done bar one lesson.
But somehow it didn't get done. But lots of mucking about on the internet....
This reminds me of something.... Can't quite put my finger on it.....
My excuse is that the only table in the house large enough to use for marking shitloads of books is in the sunroom, and until the sun came out today it’s been too cold to work in it.
"@MichaelMDowling As English pubs open today, we should recognise they achieved this by risking the health of their population by vaccinating too early with vaccines they didn't understand.
The EU approach is testing new medicine is vastly superior to the early chance to pop into Weatherspoons."
Now deleted. Never trust a man who cant spell Wetherspoons though.
I always wonder what people's problems with Wetherspoons is. I guess its more about the type of people who use them.
Large corporate pushing out small independent firms while engaging in aggressive tax measures to keep costs low. They're the Amazon of the pub space.
You really think that? I would describe them more of the lidl/aldi of the pub trade. Cheap and cheerful, staff paid and treated no worse than your gastro pub with a bill 3x the size. A pint and lunch for less than a £5.
The food in Wetherspoons is awful. There is nothing 'cheerful' about them.
Ok, I have been jabbed. It was the Pfizer one that was being handed out today. Obviously not as clever as the Oxford vaccine but I am sure that it will do the job. 21 days until I am relatively safe.
One possible side effect of proximity to the vaccine seemed to be a tendency to move in slow motion. Some of the NHS staff seemed particularly badly affected. Something to look out for.
Yay! Better late than never. Bit unpatriotic, getting that foreign sounding one, but I'll let you off.
I don't mind Wetherspoons. Their food is good value and the beer is cheap enough. They also do a really good job of saving old buildings of interest.
'Spoons are good value, the beer is well kept, and food OK if you stick to something basic.
I won't be going though, there are better independent pubs near me, and Tim Martin has been a total arse, not just about Brexit, but also about lockdown and to his staff.
Well Salmond has not ruled out getting his supporters to take the streets if the Nationalists win a majority and the UK government refuses a legal indyref2 or to respect the result, as it will refuse and Sturgeon then refuses to declare UDI.
However he can be ignored.
Bruce only won against a weak English King in Edward IInd, his predecessor as Scottish independence leader William Wallace ended up hung, drawn and quartered by the stronger Kind Edward Ist
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
I suspect lateral flow tests for school kids coming back into the system (you can check the make up of the different type of tests if you restrict to England under cases). Also substantially less that two weeks ago, so Easter effect will be there last monday.
They were meant to keep testing all the way through the holidays, although I doubt if many bothered.
Double checking extremely low death numbers maybe?
The sub-pages for cases and deaths seem to have updated separately, even though the main update page hasn't. Apparently 3,568 cases (seems a lot higher than recent numbers) and 13 deaths.
That's a terrible number for positive tests, if it's right. As you say, seems completely out of whack with recent trends.
See my post - lateral flow tests for kids coming back to school. PCR confirmed is still very low.
The children are still off school though? Unless some places have different holidays maybe?
Not everywhere. Some are back I think.
State schools round here all started today.
Depends on the county. Lancs I think went back today. Staffs broke up a week later, we go back next Monday. Although I have spent all afternoon marking.
Clearly a lie - teachers only work in term-time. I know, because someone told me this. Must be true.
What’s bloody annoying is not that I have to do it but that I’ve only done about a third of it.
Don't tell us... You're going to do all the work the last day before school starts, honest?
The whole idea of doing it today was so I wouldn’t have to!
Although I have got all my planning done bar one lesson.
But somehow it didn't get done. But lots of mucking about on the internet....
This reminds me of something.... Can't quite put my finger on it.....
My excuse is that the only table in the house large enough to use for marking shitloads of books is in the sunroom, and until the sun came out today it’s been too cold to work in it.
Is that a sufficiently original excuse?
It’s creative. Almost certainly more effort gone into the excuse than than doing the work itself for which I salute you... Back to work for me after a week off (the uni helpfully closes on the Tuesday after Easter, giving us the option of three days holiday means ten days off. Really hard to get back into it today...
"@MichaelMDowling As English pubs open today, we should recognise they achieved this by risking the health of their population by vaccinating too early with vaccines they didn't understand.
The EU approach is testing new medicine is vastly superior to the early chance to pop into Weatherspoons."
Now deleted. Never trust a man who cant spell Wetherspoons though.
I always wonder what people's problems with Wetherspoons is. I guess its more about the type of people who use them.
Large corporate pushing out small independent firms while engaging in aggressive tax measures to keep costs low. They're the Amazon of the pub space.
On the flipside they're also affordable for a lot of people and bring custom back to high streets. The problem isn't with Wetherspoons it's with other large breweries charging ridiculous rent and not allowing pubs to choose their own beer or prices.
Yes: Tim Martin saw a market opportunity caused by pub companies behaving poorly, he took it and that has been good for consumers (and for him).
But if I call out Amazon and Starbucks for being aggressive tax-wise, then I need to call out Wetherspoons. Their cash tax rate (i.e. the amount of tax they pay relative to their stated pre-tax earnings) has been consistently in the 11 to 13% range, which is well below UK corporate tax rates, and which is a key advantage in their ability to raise money to invest. If you're not handing money over to HMRC, you can borrow more and you can be a lot more aggressive.
Well Salmond has not ruled out getting his supporters to take the streets if the Nationalists win a majority and the UK government refuses a legal indyref2 or to respect the result, as it will refuse and Sturgeon then refuses to declare UDI.
However he can be ignored.
Bruce only won against a weak English King in Edward IInd, his predecessor as Scottish independence leader William Wallace ended up hung, drawn and quartered by the stronger Kind Edward Ist
I think you would probably need decent cart-horses to quarter Salmond. Ponies just wouldn't be able to cut it. I suppose tanks would be a decent modern substitute.
A blog post alleging that the SNP has channelled public funding to voluntary groups that advocate lowering the age of consent to 10 has provoked controversy on social media.
The post on the Wings Over Scotland blog amplified comments attributed to Alba Party candidate for Central Scotland, Margaret Lynch.
A tweet on Saturday 10 April by another party supporter claimed Lynch had argued in an online party forum for women that LGBT+ groups in Scotland were lobbying to reduce the age of consent to 10.
Although the tweet was subsequently deleted, screen grabs of it continued to be shared online and Lynch has subsequently re-shared other tweets making similar arguments from her Twitter account.
The author of the Wings Over Scotland blog developed the claims further. In a post he described a document said to provide evidence for the claims as a ‘paedophile charter,’ and concluded the SNP are “paying lobby groups with your money to try to reduce the age of consent in Scotland to 10”.
This blog post was subsequently shared on Twitter by Alba Party MP and Scottish Parliamentary candidate, Neale Hanvey. It was also shared repeatedly on Twitter, and in a number of Facebook groups.
Ferret Fact Service looked at this claim and rated it FFS.
Breakfast at Spoons - variable but when it's good it's value for the amount you get. Locally, I prefer my cafe but there are some very good Spoons out there and some which are frankly awful. I used to like their curry nights not because they were quality but they were good value.
I note the big race meetings at Ayr and Newbury next Saturday have been moved back 24 hours to allow "time" for Prince Philip's funeral while other scheduled meetings are being re-timed to either finish before or start after the funeral. Not quite sure why the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has decided to do what it has done.
What are we supposed to do next Saturday afternoon? Sit in helpless devotion sobbing uncontrollably at the solemnity of it all, go for a walk, go shopping or sit in the pub? I suppose I could sit quietly in a deserted betting shop - after all, there'll be nothing to bet on.
Well Salmond has not ruled out getting his supporters to take the streets if the Nationalists win a majority and the UK government refuses a legal indyref2 or to respect the result, as it will refuse and Sturgeon then refuses to declare UDI.
However he can be ignored.
Bruce only won against a weak English King in Edward IInd, his predecessor as Scottish independence leader William Wallace ended up hung, drawn and quartered by the stronger Kind Edward Ist
I think you would probably need decent cart-horses to quarter Salmond. Ponies just wouldn't be able to cut it. I suppose tanks would be a decent modern substitute.
Given his size, I think he’d need to be in eights to make the pieces safe to lift. Health and safety at work matters.
Breakfast at Spoons - variable but when it's good it's value for the amount you get. Locally, I prefer my cafe but there are some very good Spoons out there and some which are frankly awful. I used to like their curry nights not because they were quality but they were good value.
I note the big race meetings at Ayr and Newbury next Saturday have been moved back 24 hours to allow "time" for Prince Philip's funeral while other scheduled meetings are being re-timed to either finish before or start after the funeral. Not quite sure why the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has decided to do what it has done.
What are we supposed to do next Saturday afternoon? Sit in helpless devotion sobbing uncontrollably at the solemnity of it all, go for a walk, go shopping or sit in the pub? I suppose I could sit quietly in a deserted betting shop - after all, there'll be nothing to bet on.
If you need to bet every hour of every day you might have a problem.
You said yourself the races were just being brought forward/back to avoid clashing with the actual timing of the thing. Seems like a small gesture that won't really inconvenience anyone.
I'm very happy with my bet at evens on the Tories to win Hartlepool. It's much shorter now but I'm not laying back. The party of Brexit are quite rightly the clear betting favourites to win this most Brexity of seats. I'll also be delighted if I'm wrong and Labour pull off the upset since this will mean the Tory hold on the WWC Leave political identity is starting to fade already - despite a Brexit so recent in the memory and looking very good because of vaccines - which will bode well for Labour's longer term prospects at GE24. So it's a win/win as far as I'm concerned. Course by the same token it's also a lose/lose.
Good bit of expectations management there. Seat the tories have never had and didnt get in the brexit landslide of 2019, if they still dont get it in this by election shows quite clearly that theyve lost the hold on the WWC.
??
I have no interest in "expectations management". No clue why you're suggesting that. Other than amusement, my only goals on here are (i) winning hearts & minds for the modern metro left (which I'm terrible at but it is a tough crowd) and (ii) calling political outcomes correctly (where I'm very good).
Here it's all about the latter. Getting the call right. Ever since Hartlepool was announced, I've been saying that the Cons are favourites and explaining why they are. I have also put my money where my mouth is and have backed them at evens (1.68 now).
New punditry for a new politics. Suggest you get onboard.
I'm screwed if being condescending, offensive, and focussing on language are seen as being problematic by the judiciary and others.
A litigant-in-person has been hit with a bill of almost £100,000 in costs, after the court slammed him for being "difficult to deal with, condescending" and "offensive".
Sir Henry Royce Memorial, a charitable foundation, brought a claim in the High Court for costs on an indemnity basis against former finance director Mark Hardy. The claim followed a previous trial where Hardy had accused Sir Henry Royce Memorial and its directors of fraud and false accounting.
Hardy's accusations of wrongdoing by the directors were unproven. And the court ruled that his request for inspection of documents under the Companies Act was invalid, and not made for a proper purpose.
Judge Paul Matthews ruled that Hardy had a "rather condescending manner" and exhibited "unnecessary" behaviour when dealing with the other side, which resulted in "more time and resources" being spent on the "problems of tone and language than in addressing the real issues in the case."
The judge said the matter did not require "such disproportionate efforts" from Hardy, and highlighted his "excessive correspondence", which ran to two lever arch files for the trial bundle. Hardy had also exhibited a 500 page transcript of a particular meeting, which the judge noted was not "more than remotely relevant to the issues in the case".
Hardy had "vigorously" insisted that a remote trial of his claim should be live streamed on the internet because there would be a great public interest with "possibly hundreds of requests to join". However, no more than 14 members of the public requested the link.
The judge said Hardy should not be excused for his behaviour just because he was a litigant-in-person. The problem was that Hardy had "no sense of responsibility to the system" and "no duty of the kind that would be owed by a lawyer to the court," said the judge.
The claimant sought to recover costs estimated at around £163,000 on an indemnity basis. The judge said the size of the costs was "significant" and while they may be justified, "are somewhat larger than I would have expected for what is essentially a short point under the Companies Act."
The judge ordered Hardy to pay 60% of the costs upfront, with the remainder going for detailed assessment.
I have known many, many occasions where someone is truculent and difficult, through some wrongheaded notion of being thorough and officious, and cause things to be investigated which otherwise probably would not be, or caused far more work, time or cost than they wanted (and usually complained about), so that sort of story does not surprise me in the slightest.
It's hard to know where to draw the line, but some people intentionally or not take the piss when they play barrack room lawyer out of a misplaced sense of thoroughness, and a hyper focus on tone and language, and arguing over trivial matters, is a common sign of it.
The worst was when we were document dumped.
The other side sent over 250 office storage boxes worth of documents.
To be honest we probably only needed 6 boxes worth, preferably digitised.
It was needlessly petulant behaviour on the part of the other side and it did allow us to find other stuff.
My preference is for it to be sent in digital form, preferably word and excel, in the hopes they've left track changes on so I can see more stuff than they intended.
We had a discussion of the difference (if any) between genetic modification and gene editing a couple of days back. The latter is not quite so precise as its more enthusiastic proponents like to make out.
Frequent loss-of-heterozygosity in CRISPR-Cas9–edited early human embryos https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2021/04/09/2004832117 CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing is a promising technique for clinical applications, such as the correction of disease-associated alleles in somatic cells. The use of this approach has also been discussed in the context of heritable editing of the human germ line. However, studies assessing gene correction in early human embryos report low efficiency of mutation repair, high rates of mosaicism, and the possibility of unintended editing outcomes that may have pathologic consequences. We developed computational pipelines to assess single-cell genomics and transcriptomics datasets from OCT4 (POU5F1) CRISPR-Cas9–targeted and control human preimplantation embryos. This allowed us to evaluate on-target mutations that would be missed by more conventional genotyping techniques. We observed loss of heterozygosity in edited cells that spanned regions beyond the POU5F1 on-target locus, as well as segmental loss and gain of chromosome 6, on which the POU5F1 gene is located. Unintended genome editing outcomes were present in ∼16% of the human embryo cells analyzed and spanned 4–20 kb. Our observations are consistent with recent findings indicating complexity at on-target sites following CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Our work underscores the importance of further basic research to assess the safety of genome editing techniques in human embryos, which will inform debates about the potential clinical use of this technology...
Just caught up with the eulogies to Philip from Starmer and Johnson.
Well, Starmer's was clearly an attempt to eulogise over someone of whom he held with the utmost disdain, without causing offence. Another attrmpt at abstention?
Now Johnson's eulogy was odd, in so much as, had Johnson substituted his own international diplomatic faux pas for those of HRH, the speech could have been all about Johnson himself, and how misunderstood he is/was. As to whether Johnson was talking about Philip or Boris, I got the impression that at least he liked the subject of his eulogy. It was bloomin' wietd though.
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Supply will eventually rebound to meet the demand, but not until potential new entrants to the market are sure that Covid (and therefore the shitty masks and all the rest of the rotten paraphernalia that comes with it) is over permanently, at least in its highly disruptive Plague form.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Another useful (interim) result from the UK Covid research effort. (Cheap & widely available inhaled steroid appears to offer some protection against hospitalisation.)
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Supply will eventually rebound to meet the demand, but not until potential new entrants to the market are sure that Covid (and therefore the shitty masks and all the rest of the rotten paraphernalia that comes with it) is over permanently, at least in its highly disruptive Plague form.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
On the contrary, I think it's a great time for micropubs, high street units will be cheap and some of their competitors will have gone out of business
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Ultimately they’ll have to defend the decision in full. This isn’t something that just happened without any thought. This was planned for years.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
Britain would be "prosperous and dynamic and contented" after completing its exit from the European Union, Johnson declared, free to strike trade deals around the world while continuing to export seamlessly to the EU market of 450 million consumers.
But it's been 100 days since the United Kingdom split from its single biggest trading partner and Brexit is proving to be disastrous for many British exporters, which have rejected Johnson's description of the issues as "teething problems" and are now asking the government to take urgent action to prevent further losses. "We are calling on both the UK and EU to get back around the table and produce solutions that reduce trade barriers and give exporters a fighting chance," British Chambers of Commerce co-executive director Hannah Essex said in a statement on Monday.
"The difficulties exporters are facing are not just 'teething problems.' They are structural issues that, if they continue to go unaddressed, could lead to long term, potentially irreversible weakness in the UK export sector," she added.
The deal has been bad for trade. But it's also contributed to recent violence and rising anger in Northern Ireland.
The situation is particularly urgent for food producers, which have seen exports all but wiped out by the new trading arrangements. As of January 1, all plant and animal products entering the European Union require an export health certificate (EHC) that must be stamped by a government-certified vet. UK food and drink exports collapsed in January, driven by a 76% decline in sales to the European Union compared to the same month last year, according to the Food and Drink Federation. Exports of salmon tumbled 98%, beef slid 92% and animal feed declined 80%. Whisky exports fell 63%.
The new trading relationship is expected to lead to a long-run loss of output in Britain of around 4% compared to remaining in the European Union, according to the UK Office for Budget Responsibility, which produces economic forecasts for the government. Exports and imports will be around 15% lower in the long run.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Haha, makes you proud to be British.
And the subject of the obsequies would probably have agreed with the displeased viewers.
I get the impression he was not averse to a bit of deference... but only in moderation.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Ultimately they’ll have to defend the decision in full. This isn’t something that just happened without any thought. This was planned for years.
That's the problem. It was planned in the days when you had to go next door to watch BBC2.
Breakfast at Spoons - variable but when it's good it's value for the amount you get. Locally, I prefer my cafe but there are some very good Spoons out there and some which are frankly awful. I used to like their curry nights not because they were quality but they were good value.
I note the big race meetings at Ayr and Newbury next Saturday have been moved back 24 hours to allow "time" for Prince Philip's funeral while other scheduled meetings are being re-timed to either finish before or start after the funeral. Not quite sure why the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has decided to do what it has done.
What are we supposed to do next Saturday afternoon? Sit in helpless devotion sobbing uncontrollably at the solemnity of it all, go for a walk, go shopping or sit in the pub? I suppose I could sit quietly in a deserted betting shop - after all, there'll be nothing to bet on.
Next Saturday I will be in a pub garden. I will observe the silence and raise a glass in his memory.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Haha, makes you proud to be British.
No, the bit that makes us proud to be British should be the 116 people who have written to the BBC to complain that, by having the dedicated link for complaints about Philip coverage, it was making it too easy for people to complain.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
A bunch of talking heads gushing repetitively was a bit of a turn off.
A well made documentary of his life would have been enough. Perhaps something lighter on BBC2, such as a top 50 of Prince Philips most memorable moments, with a few of his witticisms chucked in to give it an element of danger.
It's a great tribute. And I suspect she sees some of her sense of duty reflected in him too.
It might be unfair to say this but she really has aged the last 3-4 years. Clearly, being PM is a horrendous job and really takes it out of people - I wouldn't want to do it - but I wonder if in her case she's struggled with the aftermath too.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Ultimately they’ll have to defend the decision in full. This isn’t something that just happened without any thought. This was planned for years.
The North Korean-style gambit of carpeting every single channel and station with the same stream was beyond moronic. The spectacle of dedicated dance music station Radio 1Xtra replacing the usual Friday night tech-house with a rolling obituary seemed tailor-made to attract ridicule. BBC1 and BBC News would have been enough.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Ultimately they’ll have to defend the decision in full. This isn’t something that just happened without any thought. This was planned for years.
As ever the main comment will be “We think we got it about right”. Used to watch Samira Ahmed’s programme each week and this was the default response by the bbc editor of the day to any criticism...
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
If they wanted choice, they could always have watched the Philip coverage on ITV. Or turn over to the Philip coverage on Channel Four.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
The only issue I have is why duplicate/triplicate the coverage on all beeb channels. BBC1 was the correct place for the coverage.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
If they wanted choice, they could always have watched the Philip coverage on ITV. Or turn over to the Philip coverage on Channel Four.
Or listened to it instead of grinding drum and bass on Radio 1Xtra.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
What about classic FM? Having ads is a necessity because it isn't taxpayer funded.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
If they wanted choice, they could always have watched the Philip coverage on ITV. Or turn over to the Philip coverage on Channel Four.
Gone are the days when there were only four channels.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
If they wanted choice, they could always have watched the Philip coverage on ITV. Or turn over to the Philip coverage on Channel Four.
Firstly, it's silly to complain to the BBC about the fact ITV and C4 weren't providing an alternative.
Secondly, almost everyone has multi-channel TV, oodles of recorded content, the world at their fingertips online... or if worst comes to the worst, read a book FFS.
Did they err on the side of too much? Very much so. Are the complainants somewhat ludicrous whingers? Yes, I think so.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
In an ideal world, the BBC would at once proceed to inflict an endless loop of my Latin elegiacs on the Prince's passing on all 110,994 of those complainants...
I'm very happy with my bet at evens on the Tories to win Hartlepool. It's much shorter now but I'm not laying back. The party of Brexit are quite rightly the clear betting favourites to win this most Brexity of seats. I'll also be delighted if I'm wrong and Labour pull off the upset since this will mean the Tory hold on the WWC Leave political identity is starting to fade already - despite a Brexit so recent in the memory and looking very good because of vaccines - which will bode well for Labour's longer term prospects at GE24. So it's a win/win as far as I'm concerned. Course by the same token it's also a lose/lose.
Good bit of expectations management there. Seat the tories have never had and didnt get in the brexit landslide of 2019, if they still dont get it in this by election shows quite clearly that theyve lost the hold on the WWC.
??
I have no interest in "expectations management". No clue why you're suggesting that. Other than amusement, my only goals on here are (i) winning hearts & minds for the modern metro left (which I'm terrible at but it is a tough crowd) and (ii) calling political outcomes correctly (where I'm very good).
Here it's all about the latter. Getting the call right. Ever since Hartlepool was announced, I've been saying that the Cons are favourites and explaining why they are. I have also put my money where my mouth is and have backed them at evens (1.68 now).
New punditry for a new politics. Suggest you get onboard.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
If they wanted choice, they could always have watched the Philip coverage on ITV. Or turn over to the Philip coverage on Channel Four.
Firstly, it's silly to complain to the BBC about the fact ITV and C4 weren't providing an alternative.
Secondly, almost everyone has multi-channel TV, oodles of recorded content, the world at their fingertips online... or if worst comes to the worst, read a book FFS.
Did they err on the side of too much? Very much so. Are the complainants somewhat ludicrous whingers? Yes, I think so.
I can't think of any other circumstance when exactly the same coverage would be shown on different channels at exactly the same time. That benefited no-one, and was silly.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
What about classic FM? Having ads is a necessity because it isn't taxpayer funded.
Classic FM is shit. Who wants to immerse oneself in beautiful music only to interrupted by insurance salesmen?
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Supply will eventually rebound to meet the demand, but not until potential new entrants to the market are sure that Covid (and therefore the shitty masks and all the rest of the rotten paraphernalia that comes with it) is over permanently, at least in its highly disruptive Plague form.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
If they wanted choice, they could always have watched the Philip coverage on ITV. Or turn over to the Philip coverage on Channel Four.
Gone are the days when there were only four channels.
Are you seriously saying that the BBC carpeting every one of its channels and every one of its radio stations was a reasonable response? I couldn't care much for the telly, but BBC music radio is a big part of lots of people's Friday night wind-down.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
What about classic FM? Having ads is a necessity because it isn't taxpayer funded.
Classic FM is shit. Who wants to immerse oneself in beautiful music only to interrupted by insurance salesmen?
About six million people a week.
Look, I'm not saying it wasn't very mildly annoying for massive Radio 3-heads for a short period. But worse things happen at sea, FFS.
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Supply will eventually rebound to meet the demand, but not until potential new entrants to the market are sure that Covid (and therefore the shitty masks and all the rest of the rotten paraphernalia that comes with it) is over permanently, at least in its highly disruptive Plague form.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
It's rare we agree but yes I think you're right.
I did think Andrew calling Philip "the grandfather of the nation" was absurd.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
What about classic FM? Having ads is a necessity because it isn't taxpayer funded.
Classic FM is shit. Who wants to immerse oneself in beautiful music only to interrupted by insurance salesmen?
About six million people a week.
Look, I'm not saying it wasn't very mildly annoying for massive Radio 3-heads for a short period. But worse things happen at sea, FFS.
It was hours on a Friday night, and affected all of its music radio stations.
It was an idiotic editorial decision. Nope, it's not a disaster and yes, we will recover!
But in the parameters of what the BBC is judged on – it's editorial calls, it was beyond ludicrous.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
There is no such risk, they can do the wall-to-wall stuff to everyone’s content on BBC1 (BBC News, and Radio Four), keep Brandreth on all day and interview him about every single occasion he’s ever seen the queen; just leave the other channels to get on with their schedule.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
It's rare we agree but yes I think you're right.
I did think Andrew calling Philip "the grandfather of the nation" was absurd.
A conspiracy theorist might think the BBC was making a subtle point here.
The usually leave themselves open to attack from the nationalist Tory right. Here, they have played it totally by the book - no room at all for criticism from that flank. But it's probably backfired mildly for monarchists - a lot of moderates just think it's OTT and silly. The message to the right flank? Be careful what you wish for.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist... the BBC probably just oversteered a bit.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
What about classic FM? Having ads is a necessity because it isn't taxpayer funded.
Classic FM is shit. Who wants to immerse oneself in beautiful music only to interrupted by insurance salesmen?
About six million people a week.
Look, I'm not saying it wasn't very mildly annoying for massive Radio 3-heads for a short period. But worse things happen at sea, FFS.
It was hours on a Friday night, and affected all of its music radio stations.
It was an idiotic editorial decision. Nope, it's not a disaster and yes, we will recover!
But in the parameters of what the BBC is judged on – it's editorial calls, it was beyond ludicrous.
But wasn't it a decades old and frequently reviewed plan? The very opposite of an editorial decision. Either way, there was really no excuse for having been caught on the hop as it was hardly a surprise unlike Diana.
• Stopped people visiting their families • Closed the pubs • Carpeted every state radio and TV station with a single state broadcast
Funny old world.
What I dislike is when someone from RT is being interviewed on BBC news and they (the Beeb) say something along the lines of: well you are just a tool of the State and so not impartial...
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
I don't think it is to do with Diana on its own.
It follows on from the coverage of the death of the Queen Mother, the BBC went for the let us not go OTT like Diana but rather than she was a really old woman who had some health issues for the last few years, which got them some grief.
To be honest I'm expecting the public reaction to HMQ to make the reactions of the North Koreans to the death of Kim Il-sung look understated.
The media will have to follow the lead of the public.
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
It's rare we agree but yes I think you're right.
I did think Andrew calling Philip "the grandfather of the nation" was absurd.
A conspiracy theorist might think the BBC was making a subtle point here.
The usually leave themselves open to attack from the nationalist Tory right. Here, they have played it totally by the book - no room at all for criticism from that flank. But it's probably backfired mildly for monarchists - a lot of moderates just think it's OTT and silly. The message to the right flank? Be careful what you wish for.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist... the BBC probably just oversteered a bit.
Everyone seems desperate to try to "get the mood right". We have a Government who has never found a majority it cannot run to and embrace.
Now, you might say the Daily Mail readership is the "solid middle" of Britain - I wouldn't - and if you do right by them you can't go wrong but if you all you have is cleaving to a majoritarian opinion on all things, you go nowhere. Perhaps that defines a conservative society - popular stagnation - but dynamic societies progress by challenging their majorities and making seem look at issues in different ways. That great radical, Margaret Thatcher. didn't run after opinion, she made it run to her.
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Supply will eventually rebound to meet the demand, but not until potential new entrants to the market are sure that Covid (and therefore the shitty masks and all the rest of the rotten paraphernalia that comes with it) is over permanently, at least in its highly disruptive Plague form.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
I bet you can get some *really* cheap leases right now.
The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
You cannot replace Radios 3, 6 and 1X – ad-free, expert, quality music radio dedicated to classical, indie and dance respectively. I haven't complained and I won't, but the carpeting of every channel was risible.
What about classic FM? Having ads is a necessity because it isn't taxpayer funded.
Classic FM is shit. Who wants to immerse oneself in beautiful music only to interrupted by insurance salesmen?
About six million people a week.
Look, I'm not saying it wasn't very mildly annoying for massive Radio 3-heads for a short period. But worse things happen at sea, FFS.
It was hours on a Friday night, and affected all of its music radio stations.
It was an idiotic editorial decision. Nope, it's not a disaster and yes, we will recover!
But in the parameters of what the BBC is judged on – it's editorial calls, it was beyond ludicrous.
Even worse, it was served with a triple helping of hypocrisy and an accompaniment of gritted teeth. Respect for tradition is anathema to the BBC's customary output.
Back from pub lunch. Sunny but bloody freezing but had to be done.
Very busy, no-one wearing masks except staff. Prices hiked a fair bit but I don't begrudge that given the torrid time hospitality has had. I reckon they have done 250-300 covers over lunch time (it's a big pub) and if average £25 a head that's approx £7k takings.
Good for them.
Inevitably there will temporarily be a reduction in hospitality capacity, as some businesses will not have survived, or will have to have shrunk in order to do so. Combine that with a population eager to make up for lost time and it's a recipe for too much demand chasing not enough supply - and a large dollop of inflation in the short term.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Supply will eventually rebound to meet the demand, but not until potential new entrants to the market are sure that Covid (and therefore the shitty masks and all the rest of the rotten paraphernalia that comes with it) is over permanently, at least in its highly disruptive Plague form.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
I bet you can get some *really* cheap leases right now.
You would think so - but certainly there have been issues pre-Covid where large landlords would rather leave a vacancy advertised at a high rate than have to write down the value of the whole of the portfolio by letting the rate come down.
The media will have to follow the lead of the public.
Why?
There's a much greater diversity of media now than there has ever been - there will be those who won't (either through conviction or choice) want to "grieve" or "mourn" when the Queen dies. We can argue whether such sentiments are appropriate or reasonable but we can't deny they will exist - are they to be ignored simply because "the majority" thinks otherwise?
I echo @Richard_Tyndall 's warm words on Shirley Williams. Her, Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher, Betty Boothroyd and Shirley Williams are all names I think of from that era (across a variety of parties) as strong and pioneering female politicians.
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
It's rare we agree but yes I think you're right.
I did think Andrew calling Philip "the grandfather of the nation" was absurd.
A conspiracy theorist might think the BBC was making a subtle point here.
The usually leave themselves open to attack from the nationalist Tory right. Here, they have played it totally by the book - no room at all for criticism from that flank. But it's probably backfired mildly for monarchists - a lot of moderates just think it's OTT and silly. The message to the right flank? Be careful what you wish for.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist... the BBC probably just oversteered a bit.
Ooo nice one. That hadn't occurred to me. The Beeb using their metropolitan liberal smarts to undermine the Right by showing the public the stultifying reality in store if their softhead obsessions are pandered to.
Comments
- Independent
- [Some local area or other] Independents
- Ratepayers
- Residents' Association
- Save [Something or Other]
- No [Something or Other]
- Stop [Something or Other]
Not just the north east of course. And perhaps becoming less prevalent now that some people are actually choosing to vote Conservative.
Here it's all about the latter. Getting the call right. Ever since Hartlepool was announced, I've been saying that the Cons are favourites and explaining why they are. I have also put my money where my mouth is and have backed them at evens (1.68 now).
New punditry for a new politics. Suggest you get onboard.
I don't begrudge them it either - but what if it becomes more than a temporary effect?
Although I have got all my planning done bar one lesson.
This reminds me of something.... Can't quite put my finger on it.....
Is that a sufficiently original excuse?
https://twitter.com/AlbaParty/status/1381385141734477829
I won't be going though, there are better independent pubs near me, and Tim Martin has been a total arse, not just about Brexit, but also about lockdown and to his staff.
However he can be ignored.
Bruce only won against a weak English King in Edward IInd, his predecessor as Scottish independence leader William Wallace ended up hung, drawn and quartered by the stronger Kind Edward Ist
But if I call out Amazon and Starbucks for being aggressive tax-wise, then I need to call out Wetherspoons. Their cash tax rate (i.e. the amount of tax they pay relative to their stated pre-tax earnings) has been consistently in the 11 to 13% range, which is well below UK corporate tax rates, and which is a key advantage in their ability to raise money to invest. If you're not handing money over to HMRC, you can borrow more and you can be a lot more aggressive.
Breakfast at Spoons - variable but when it's good it's value for the amount you get. Locally, I prefer my cafe but there are some very good Spoons out there and some which are frankly awful. I used to like their curry nights not because they were quality but they were good value.
I note the big race meetings at Ayr and Newbury next Saturday have been moved back 24 hours to allow "time" for Prince Philip's funeral while other scheduled meetings are being re-timed to either finish before or start after the funeral. Not quite sure why the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has decided to do what it has done.
What are we supposed to do next Saturday afternoon? Sit in helpless devotion sobbing uncontrollably at the solemnity of it all, go for a walk, go shopping or sit in the pub? I suppose I could sit quietly in a deserted betting shop - after all, there'll be nothing to bet on.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1381614192977924100?s=20
https://twitter.com/bobservant/status/1381647573946097664?s=20
You said yourself the races were just being brought forward/back to avoid clashing with the actual timing of the thing. Seems like a small gesture that won't really inconvenience anyone.
https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1381649945032323074?s=20
The other side sent over 250 office storage boxes worth of documents.
To be honest we probably only needed 6 boxes worth, preferably digitised.
It was needlessly petulant behaviour on the part of the other side and it did allow us to find other stuff.
My preference is for it to be sent in digital form, preferably word and excel, in the hopes they've left track changes on so I can see more stuff than they intended.
Not too keen on PDF.
The latter is not quite so precise as its more enthusiastic proponents like to make out.
Frequent loss-of-heterozygosity in CRISPR-Cas9–edited early human embryos
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2021/04/09/2004832117
CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing is a promising technique for clinical applications, such as the correction of disease-associated alleles in somatic cells. The use of this approach has also been discussed in the context of heritable editing of the human germ line. However, studies assessing gene correction in early human embryos report low efficiency of mutation repair, high rates of mosaicism, and the possibility of unintended editing outcomes that may have pathologic consequences. We developed computational pipelines to assess single-cell genomics and transcriptomics datasets from OCT4 (POU5F1) CRISPR-Cas9–targeted and control human preimplantation embryos. This allowed us to evaluate on-target mutations that would be missed by more conventional genotyping techniques. We observed loss of heterozygosity in edited cells that spanned regions beyond the POU5F1 on-target locus, as well as segmental loss and gain of chromosome 6, on which the POU5F1 gene is located. Unintended genome editing outcomes were present in ∼16% of the human embryo cells analyzed and spanned 4–20 kb. Our observations are consistent with recent findings indicating complexity at on-target sites following CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Our work underscores the importance of further basic research to assess the safety of genome editing techniques in human embryos, which will inform debates about the potential clinical use of this technology...
Just caught up with the eulogies to Philip from Starmer and Johnson.
Well, Starmer's was clearly an attempt to eulogise over someone of whom he held with the utmost disdain, without causing offence. Another attrmpt at abstention?
Now Johnson's eulogy was odd, in so much as, had Johnson substituted his own international diplomatic faux pas for those of HRH, the speech could have been all about Johnson himself, and how misunderstood he is/was. As to whether Johnson was talking about Philip or Boris, I got the impression that at least he liked the subject of his eulogy. It was bloomin' wietd though.
Anyone trying to enter the hospitality business right now must be very brave, very foolish, or have exceptionally deep pockets.
At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.
According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen.
The BBC declined to comment on the leaked weekend figures and said a formal announcement would be made as planned on Thursday.
(Cheap & widely available inhaled steroid appears to offer some protection against hospitalisation.)
Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at higher risk of adverse outcomes in the community: interim analyses from the PRINCIPLE trial
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.10.21254672v1
I agree the coverage of HRH's passing has been OTT - I think the BBC overshot, because they had Diana in their minds from 1997. Universal announcements on Friday when it happened, were merited, as was special coverage and tributes for 24 hours, but not days of it on every channel for days on end. And not stopping of channel broadcasting, or duplicating it on every channel, still less the corporate virtue-signalling with black banners. I think that'd only be appropriate for the reigning monarch or direct heir.
The risk is the BBC now overcorrect, and undershoot for HMQ - which would cause a national outrage.
Personally, I am not at all interested in the Royal Family, and was mildly annoyed that viewing and listening on the BBC was messed about with to such an extent. But I do understand why the national broadcaster feels the need to do it, and it's not like there isn't a choice of entertainment options. The 111k people should get a life basically.
Britain would be "prosperous and dynamic and contented" after completing its exit from the European Union, Johnson declared, free to strike trade deals around the world while continuing to export seamlessly to the EU market of 450 million consumers.
But it's been 100 days since the United Kingdom split from its single biggest trading partner and Brexit is proving to be disastrous for many British exporters, which have rejected Johnson's description of the issues as "teething problems" and are now asking the government to take urgent action to prevent further losses. "We are calling on both the UK and EU to get back around the table and produce solutions that reduce trade barriers and give exporters a fighting chance," British Chambers of Commerce co-executive director Hannah Essex said in a statement on Monday.
"The difficulties exporters are facing are not just 'teething problems.' They are structural issues that, if they continue to go unaddressed, could lead to long term, potentially irreversible weakness in the UK export sector," she added.
The deal has been bad for trade. But it's also contributed to recent violence and rising anger in Northern Ireland.
The situation is particularly urgent for food producers, which have seen exports all but wiped out by the new trading arrangements. As of January 1, all plant and animal products entering the European Union require an export health certificate (EHC) that must be stamped by a government-certified vet. UK food and drink exports collapsed in January, driven by a 76% decline in sales to the European Union compared to the same month last year, according to the Food and Drink Federation. Exports of salmon tumbled 98%, beef slid 92% and animal feed declined 80%. Whisky exports fell 63%.
The new trading relationship is expected to lead to a long-run loss of output in Britain of around 4% compared to remaining in the European Union, according to the UK Office for Budget Responsibility, which produces economic forecasts for the government. Exports and imports will be around 15% lower in the long run.
I get the impression he was not averse to a bit of deference... but only in moderation.
A well made documentary of his life would have been enough. Perhaps something lighter on BBC2, such as a top 50 of Prince Philips most memorable moments, with a few of his witticisms chucked in to give it an element of danger.
It might be unfair to say this but she really has aged the last 3-4 years. Clearly, being PM is a horrendous job and really takes it out of people - I wouldn't want to do it - but I wonder if in her case she's struggled with the aftermath too.
Secondly, almost everyone has multi-channel TV, oodles of recorded content, the world at their fingertips online... or if worst comes to the worst, read a book FFS.
Did they err on the side of too much? Very much so. Are the complainants somewhat ludicrous whingers? Yes, I think so.
Scissor cut.
Beard trim.
Wet blade line to finish.
Hot towel.
Stinging barbers' aftershave.
The works.
Never again shall they shutter our public houses, and our barbershops!
And no, Classic FM and Heart don't cut it.
Look, I'm not saying it wasn't very mildly annoying for massive Radio 3-heads for a short period. But worse things happen at sea, FFS.
• Stopped people visiting their families
• Closed the pubs
• Carpeted every state radio and TV station with a single state broadcast
Funny old world.
I did think Andrew calling Philip "the grandfather of the nation" was absurd.
It was an idiotic editorial decision. Nope, it's not a disaster and yes, we will recover!
But in the parameters of what the BBC is judged on – it's editorial calls, it was beyond ludicrous.
The usually leave themselves open to attack from the nationalist Tory right. Here, they have played it totally by the book - no room at all for criticism from that flank. But it's probably backfired mildly for monarchists - a lot of moderates just think it's OTT and silly. The message to the right flank? Be careful what you wish for.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist... the BBC probably just oversteered a bit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9461617/Nicola-Sturgeon-pays-tribute-Prince-Philip-devoted-husband-powerful-woman.html
The very opposite of an editorial decision.
Either way, there was really no excuse for having been caught on the hop as it was hardly a surprise unlike Diana.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1381653783051173894?s=20
It follows on from the coverage of the death of the Queen Mother, the BBC went for the let us not go OTT like Diana but rather than she was a really old woman who had some health issues for the last few years, which got them some grief.
To be honest I'm expecting the public reaction to HMQ to make the reactions of the North Koreans to the death of Kim Il-sung look understated.
The media will have to follow the lead of the public.
Now, you might say the Daily Mail readership is the "solid middle" of Britain - I wouldn't - and if you do right by them you can't go wrong but if you all you have is cleaving to a majoritarian opinion on all things, you go nowhere. Perhaps that defines a conservative society - popular stagnation - but dynamic societies progress by challenging their majorities and making seem look at issues in different ways. That great radical, Margaret Thatcher. didn't run after opinion, she made it run to her.
There's a much greater diversity of media now than there has ever been - there will be those who won't (either through conviction or choice) want to "grieve" or "mourn" when the Queen dies. We can argue whether such sentiments are appropriate or reasonable but we can't deny they will exist - are they to be ignored simply because "the majority" thinks otherwise?
I like that. I like that very much.