politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sabisky decides to go of his own accord
Comments
-
The journalists will have known that somebody who has made outrageous comments in one place on the internet surely has more to be discovered, if they go digging for it.kle4 said:
Just goes to show that adopting the same 'wait for it to blow over' tactic does not always work - they should have guessed there'd be more coming that would force them to act, and in misjudgement have made it worse for themselves. Whatever the rights or wrongs they've sustained at least minor political damage to no gain.IanB2 said:0 -
This is, after all, a Boris honeymoon we’re talking about...rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1229502570399440900
Wait until the honeymoon is over...0 -
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”BluestBlue said:
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.Alistair said:
What exactly is the shame?MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.1 -
Locke was, of course, talking about one's freedom to boast about one's collections of incest eroticarottenborough said:0 -
Right, I know I'm somewhat invested in all this - but is the latest press release by Bloomberg pointing out a whole bunch of err... inconvienent truths about him is the strangest tactic I've ever seen.0
-
He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.rottenborough said:0 -
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂EPG said:
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.rural_voter said:
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.kinabalu said:
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.Nigelb said:If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂0 -
-
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?0 -
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'Cyclefree said:
There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.
His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.
It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?0 -
Boris is on the Left now?BluestBlue said:
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.Alistair said:
What exactly is the shame?MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.0 -
Free speech, for Toby Young, means freedom from consequences.rottenborough said:6 -
It's loud and bumpy.Benpointer said:Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?0 -
A little known but brilliant comedy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZnsZeR6gD8
Was shown on BBC4 a few years ago.0 -
I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.Benpointer said:Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?0 -
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.Philip_Thompson said:
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂EPG said:
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.rural_voter said:
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.kinabalu said:
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.Nigelb said:If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂0 -
If Dom is as good a game theorist as he seems to think he is, then he would be advised to shut the fuck up for a week or two.0
-
Ask a supporter of the Labour Party. There are plenty of them on here.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'Cyclefree said:
There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.
His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.
It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
And it’s not “the” standard. It’s my standard.0 -
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.Cyclefree said:
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”BluestBlue said:
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.Alistair said:
What exactly is the shame?MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.1 -
I had a very noisy and bumpy sleeper between Krakow and Budapest. Very noisy brakes and uncomfortably hot too.IanB2 said:
I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.Benpointer said:Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
Not as bad as the laughably titled Acropolis Express in the early eighties mind you!0 -
Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1229500965390295040?s=21. An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.Alistair said:
He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.rottenborough said:0 -
Thanks - maybe we will give them a try then and hope for a better experience.IanB2 said:
I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.Benpointer said:Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?0 -
Meanwhile, at the other end of the bonkers forest...
https://twitter.com/MatthewdAncona/status/12295313094223257780 -
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?0 -
You want him to copy Corbyn?BluestBlue said:
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.Cyclefree said:
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”BluestBlue said:
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.Alistair said:
What exactly is the shame?MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....0 -
Trump's rolling average approval rating is 43.9% according to 538 right now - that's the highest it's been for a smidgen over 3 years.0
-
No - as I've said on here before, give me the cosy, civilized pre-2015 consensus any day. But I strongly object to my side having to engage in the political arena with both hands tied behind our backs while literally anything goes on the other.Cyclefree said:
You want him to copy Corbyn?BluestBlue said:
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.Cyclefree said:
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”BluestBlue said:
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.Alistair said:
What exactly is the shame?MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....0 -
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough0 -
Your side is in power. If your side wants to talk about the benefits of eugenics you are perfectly free to do so. And those of who think this morally despicable balls are also free to say so.BluestBlue said:
No - as I've said on here before, give me the cosy, civilized pre-2015 consensus any day. But I strongly object to my side having to engage in the political arena with both hands tied behind our backs while literally anything goes on the other.Cyclefree said:
You want him to copy Corbyn?BluestBlue said:
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.Cyclefree said:
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”BluestBlue said:
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.Alistair said:
What exactly is the shame?MaxPB said:On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
It often seems to me that the desire not to have “both hands tied behind” your backs actually means not having to face any criticism or challenge. Well, tough. Corbyn’s Labour got it with both barrels over his nonsense - both from commentators and voters - and so will - and should - your side when it does the same.0 -
He has six children apparently.Cyclefree said:
Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1229500965390295040?s=21. An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.Alistair said:
He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.rottenborough said:
The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass.0 -
At the age of 27?!Foxy said:
He has six children apparently.Cyclefree said:
Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1229500965390295040?s=21. An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.Alistair said:
He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.rottenborough said:
The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass.0 -
0
-
BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019)EPG said:
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.Philip_Thompson said:
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂EPG said:
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.rural_voter said:
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.kinabalu said:
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.Nigelb said:If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.0 -
Interesting definition of mainstream.williamglenn said:Republicanism goes mainstream.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1229519704206856194
0 -
-
The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots0 -
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.1 -
I think Butler is saying a child has no sex when it is conceived, in reply to Madeley talking about when it is born... weird whatever
https://twitter.com/victoriapeckham/status/1229476741594439680?s=211 -
He was not the one doing the hard work.Cyclefree said:
At the age of 27?!Foxy said:
He has six children apparently.Cyclefree said:
Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1229500965390295040?s=21. An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.Alistair said:
He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.rottenborough said:
The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass. 0 -
Tomorrow’s Scottish Sun
“The rumours relate to Ms Sturgeon’s private life, but details cannot be disclosed for legal reasons.“0 -
YouTube around $15bn.Philip_Thompson said:
BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019)EPG said:
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.Philip_Thompson said:
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂EPG said:
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.rural_voter said:
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.kinabalu said:
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.Nigelb said:If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.0 -
Given that Bercow's reputation is as a nasty, insecure bully-boy surely destroying his reputation would be a good thing ?FrancisUrquhart said:The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots0 -
Another day in Britain's cultural wars.isam said:
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?
1 -
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.BluestBlue said:
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.0 -
Did not the last Labour leader hold the same view? Corbyn has been mainstream for years now, given how in sync he was with Labour memebrs on most things.williamglenn said:Republicanism goes mainstream.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1229519704206856194
And why does he suppose there is such a campaign, I wonder? No doubt these bullies have randomly decided to bully him with accusations of bullying.FrancisUrquhart said:The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots0 -
I miss the days when the outrage du jour was about it being wrong that Gregg's pasties should be VATable....rottenborough said:
Another day in Britain's cultural wars.isam said:
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?0 -
Ah, thats a shame. I'd hoped the refit would get rid of the rattling.Benpointer said:Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
I can sleep through pretty much anything, on pretty much anything (too many nights on mates' floors during my twenties, and in hotels all around the UK and Europe in my thirties). I find it almost impossible to sleep on the Cali sleeper.
I'm told the seats are pretty good actually - less to rattle within a carriage than a cabin.0 -
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.0 -
You could say so - it was otherwise known as a General Election.BluestBlue said:
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
1 -
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.0 -
This stuff matters to women who, if this flat earthery goes through, risk losing pretty much all their hard-won rights.rottenborough said:
Another day in Britain's cultural wars.isam said:
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?
Plus getting scientific and biological facts right matters. Talking scientific nonsense is as bad and dangerous as the anti-vaccine nonsense.
Agree with you on the rest.0 -
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.0 -
I enjoyed it because I like late-period John Malkovich - see also "The New Pope" - and I'm a sucker for languid period detective dramas with good lighting. This opinion was formed during the program without knowledge of the gammontariat, as oddly I like the programs I like without tying myself up in knots - see also "Mrs Brown's Boys" and "Dracula". I was hoping for another one this Xmas but the gods of BBC did not smile on me...Luckyguy1983 said:
Really? Or did you just enjoy how much the 'gammon' tendency was infuriated by it? I think the comical miscasting of John Malkovich and the leaden Brexit references covered up the fundamental weakness of the adaptation. Spoiler ahead. The whole point of Christie's story was that the grandiose set of crimes ended up being a cover for an essentially venal and conventional murder for financial gain. It is a statement about the banality of evil. It wasn't that the silly fart of a writer who perpetrated the adaptation had no reverence for the source material - she had no understanding of it.viewcode said:
I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.Luckyguy1983 said:Crappy Beeb dramas:
Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
A Christmas Carol
Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)
0 -
Stable times. Feels like Ike's 1950s America compared to the last couple of years.FrancisUrquhart said:
I miss the days when the outrage du jour was about it being wrong that Gregg's pasties should be VATable....rottenborough said:
Another day in Britain's cultural wars.isam said:
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?2 -
3rd place to lead a flailing party behind Sir Beige of Rejoin and Donna from accounts is not mainstream.RobD said:
Interesting definition of mainstream.williamglenn said:Republicanism goes mainstream.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/12295197042068561941 -
Saw speculation that it's some kind of respiratory disease, as 'lights' is a term used in relation to offal which is lungs, which I'd never heard.rottenborough said:
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only20's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.0 -
Early electrician was a bitch of a job.rottenborough said:
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
Especially when they only had static to work with.....1 -
I think the TV episodes predate the split.dodrade said:
Did Freeman and Abbingdon's real life split have anything to do with it?MarqueeMark said:
But it was a stupid rabbit hole to go down, because if they didn't then kill her pronto she would have over-shadowed Sherlock himself.Alistair said:
That was one of the few highlights. Killing her off for no reason at all was the WTF.MarqueeMark said:
Watson's wife being a ninja secret agent was utterly WTF????Alistair said:
The last season of Sherlock was truly awful.Casino_Royale said:
Sherlock started well, then it disappeared up its own arse and became self-referential and shite.TheScreamingEagles said:
Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.IanB2 said:BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty
0 -
And how much of that is voluntarily transactions, how much is taken by threat of imprisonment if you don't pay them?Nigelb said:
YouTube around $15bn.Philip_Thompson said:
BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019)EPG said:
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.Philip_Thompson said:
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂EPG said:
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.rural_voter said:
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.kinabalu said:
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.Nigelb said:If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.0 -
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.Cyclefree said:
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.BluestBlue said:
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
0 -
From memory so I could be wrong I believe that's a term they used for lung issues like bronchitis.rottenborough said:
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.1 -
Don't be silly, of course if you extend life you increase the time available for illnesses to happen, and as almost all illnesses happen more the older you get, the increase is greater than the extension itself. Yes, modern diet and pollution certainly also contribute to the disease burden, but we aren't going to live forever by adopting a Paleolithic diet or whatever it is you advocate.Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough0 -
Removing bladder stone, I think.kle4 said:
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.0 -
86 from "surfet". Mr Creosote was the last of a long line......rottenborough said:
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.0 -
Dawn Butler product of the world famous biology and medical faculty of Waltham Forest College.rottenborough said:
Another day in Britain's cultural wars.isam said:
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?0 -
The last series of Yes Prime Minister was married by Paul Eddington's health, as the treatment for his (eventually fatal) cancer weakened him. If you look at his scenes, he is mostly sitting down and his lines are limited to reactions to Nigel Hawthorne's monologues. Since he was very good at both it wasn't a problem but it's still sad to see in retrospect.rural_voter said:
It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.speedy2 said:
I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.Philip_Thompson said:
100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.IanB2 said:
The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.Philip_Thompson said:
Doctor Who? Seriously?TheScreamingEagles said:
Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.IanB2 said:BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty
I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.
Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
If you ever have time look up the interview he gave before his death. He's hairless and obviously physically impaired but still sharp and hie answers reveal a gentle man and a gentleman. I was sad to see him die.
5 -
But a personal endorsement of her extraordinary abilities from Barack Obama....dr_spyn said:
Dawn Butler product of the world famous biology and medical faculty of Waltham Forest College.rottenborough said:
Another day in Britain's cultural wars.isam said:
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?0 -
I didn't know that. Puts a very different light on the show.viewcode said:
The last series of Yes Prime Minister was married by Paul Eddington's health, as the treatment for his (eventually fatal) cancer weakened him. If you look at his scenes, he is mostly sitting down and his lines are limited to reactions to Nigel Hawthorne's monologues. Since he was very good at both it wasn't a problem but it's still sad to see in retrospect.rural_voter said:
It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.speedy2 said:
I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.Philip_Thompson said:
100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.IanB2 said:
The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.Philip_Thompson said:
Doctor Who? Seriously?TheScreamingEagles said:
Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.IanB2 said:BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty
I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.
Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
If you ever have time look up the interview he gave before his death. He's hairless and obviously physically impaired but still sharp and hie answers reveal a gentle man and a gentleman. I was sad to see him die.0 -
I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.BluestBlue said:
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.Cyclefree said:
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.BluestBlue said:
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.0 -
-
It’s a good sign of what a prosperous, safe, wealthy and content country Britain is where this pish is deemed important.Theuniondivvie said:
How lucky we all are to live in this country at this time.0 -
I look forward to it - I've always genuinely wanted to know the answer! Good night.Cyclefree said:
I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.BluestBlue said:
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.Cyclefree said:
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.BluestBlue said:
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.0 -
-
-
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.Luckyguy1983 said:
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.glw said:
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.Philip_Thompson said:They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes
Friends - 236 episodes
The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
Seinfeld - 180 episodes
Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.0 -
https://youtu.be/8PnijLn9I8cCyclefree said:
I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.BluestBlue said:
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.Cyclefree said:
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.BluestBlue said:
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.NickPalmer said:
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.BluestBlue said:
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.0 -
Only Fools & Horses... doubt there’s one episode from the first 6-7 series that could be shown on prime time tv now without some censorshipviewcode said:
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.Luckyguy1983 said:
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.glw said:
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.Philip_Thompson said:They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes
Friends - 236 episodes
The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
Seinfeld - 180 episodes
Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.0 -
In terms of the "hit" comedies of the past 20 years in the UK that everybody knows, again very few episodes. Phoenix Nights had what 12 in total, the Office about the same? Inbetweeners same.Philip_Thompson said:They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes
Friends - 236 episodes
The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
Seinfeld - 180 episodes
Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
Gavin and Stacey ~ 20
Thick of It ~ 20
IT Crowd ~ 20
The rule of thumb in the US for long term syndication is to reach 100 episodes of a show. If you can make it to about that, your show will be sold and resold for many many years to come.
Only Fools and Horses continues to this day to keep getting aired as it had more like 70 episodes.1 -
Let's see who wins. My money is on Cummings.HYUFD said:0 -
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1229535138410790916?s=20williamglenn said:Republicanism goes mainstream.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/12295197042068561940 -
"Have you lost your mind???"Malmesbury said:
"On any other day, that might seem strange."Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Stewardess? Oh, stewardess? What is the in-flight movie today?"viewcode said:
I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.Luckyguy1983 said:Crappy Beeb dramas:
Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
A Christmas Carol
Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)
"Well, according to my last psych report...yes"1 -
Boris favours 'reform not revolution' on BBC funding, if Cummings is not careful he will find he becomes Boris' Steve Bannon and ultimately discardedMexicanpete said:
Let's see who wins. My money is on Cummings.HYUFD said:0 -
Yes, it is all a set up to get BoZo seen to flag wave for the BBC*, and rebuild some credibility.HYUFD said:
*Funding has been agreed until 2027 already as I believe, so the future of Auntie is really an issue for the Parliament after this one1 -
...and of course Aaron Sorkin wrote the first four seasons of The West Wing before he decided being a drug user was better than being a functioning human being.viewcode said:
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.Luckyguy1983 said:
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.glw said:
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.Philip_Thompson said:They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes
Friends - 236 episodes
The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
Seinfeld - 180 episodes
Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.0 -
Boo! Johnson's first major mistake if he chickens out on this.HYUFD said:1 -
Yep. Samuel Pepys, whose portrait I have adopted for my avatar, was one who underwent the operation and survived, cured of the excruciating pain. He celebrated the anniversary every year.Foxy said:
Removing bladder stone, I think.kle4 said:
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.1 -
Evening, Lunatiquesrottenborough said:
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1229024596768235520?s=09Luckyguy1983 said:
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.Charles said:
No, we don’tLuckyguy1983 said:
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.RobD said:
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?Luckyguy1983 said:
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.RobD said:
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.Luckyguy1983 said:
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.Casino_Royale said:
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure. 0 -
Hilarious that the left have fallen in love with the Dom squirrel and they suck it up every frikking time.
Remember the time the CoTE resigned and the budget got delayed ?
Nah Eugenics and the BBC - wibble wibble !0 -
Sanders is going to run away with the nomination if the caucus plays out anything like that. Then again, we did have that poll showing err Steyer leading earlier. So who knowsHYUFD said: 1 -
So it's the sodomites AND the EU that's causing the flooding.
https://twitter.com/beryl1946/status/1229118796125933568?s=200 -
That is not you? I am devastatedRichard_Nabavi said:
Yep. Samuel Pepys, whose portrait I have adopted for my avatar, was one who underwent the operation and survived, cured of the excruciating pain. He celebrated the anniversary every year.Foxy said:
Removing bladder stone, I think.kle4 said:
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
1 -
Maybe it is time for the second Cummings- I thank you.HYUFD said:
Boris favours 'reform not revolution' on BBC funding, if Cummings is not careful he will find he becomes Boris' Steve Bannon and ultimately discardedMexicanpete said:
Let's see who wins. My money is on Cummings.HYUFD said:
Steve Bannon is available I believe.1 -
I'm trying to remember them. I can vaguely remember the ones with Grandad before he died and was replaced by Uncle Albert. But the memories are overlayed with the later ones with Cassandra and Raquel. I remember bits like the bit with the shotgun, and the one with the candleabras. It was good for a long while but fell off towards the end: definitely after the one where they find the watch and get richisam said:
Only Fools & Horses... doubt there’s one episode from the first 6-7 series that could be shown on prime time tv now without some censorshipviewcode said:
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.Luckyguy1983 said:
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.glw said:
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.Philip_Thompson said:They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes
Friends - 236 episodes
The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
Seinfeld - 180 episodes
Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.
Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff... 0 -
Don't forget comedy panel shows. Sure we have had them for a long time, but they really just became pretty much the entire comedy offering for quite a while.viewcode said:
Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff...1 -
The EU does not specifically prevent dredging, neither does it recommend dredging. Dredging is allowed in the UK although the four environmental regulators prefer not to do so in order to protect wildlife.Theuniondivvie said:So it's the sodomites AND the EU that's causing the flooding.
https://twitter.com/beryl1946/status/1229118796125933568?s=200 -
"All this stupid little country has to do is stand in line and do what it is told for one miserable day, but can it do that? My fragrant French arse it can't!"HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1229535138410790916?s=20williamglenn said:Republicanism goes mainstream.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/12295197042068561940
