Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sunak sees a colossal drop in his favourability ratings – politicalbetting.com

1234689

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    George Galloway has been given a special designation by Twitter:

    image

    And, as should come as no great surprise, he's already threatening legal action...

    https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1511729349204103170
    Note how the second thing he brings up is his follower count. People are so proud.

    The second thing to note is that of the things he lists only not working for Russian media would be relevant - being the leader of a party and spending time in parliament wouldn't mean he couldn't be a paid russian shill. Heck, you can be a former leader of a country and do that.

    Dear TwitterSupport I am not “Russian State Affiliated media”. I work for NO #Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action
    As twitter users are now pointing out he literally listed his work for RT Russia state media channel in his profile until about an hour ago, when he removed it.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    Good interview with Timothy Snyder, worth a read.

    If Ukrainians hadn’t fought back, the world would’ve been a much darker place
    https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/03/31/if-ukrainians-hadnt-fought-back-the-world-wouldve-been-a-much-darker-place/
    ....Only when a former empire comes to terms with its current borders can it become a normal state and society. For instance, Poland came to accept its borders thanks to Giedroyc, Kuroń, Geremek and Skubiszewski. Putin’s agony over Ukraine could herald the last stage of Russian imperialism....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Even the most ghastly regime can't be held responsible for the acts of individuals under its command. I suspect there are Russian soldiers out there trying not to blindly kill. I certainly don't see Putin as responsible for their acts.
    If he hadn't sent them there, they couldn't be doing this.

    Of course he is culpable.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,793

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.

    To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.

    Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?

    Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
    The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
    Sky is American owned
    And the company that owns it is controlled by an American oligarch. They call it a 'family business'.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308
    Nigelb said:

    Good interview with Timothy Snyder, worth a read.

    If Ukrainians hadn’t fought back, the world would’ve been a much darker place
    https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/03/31/if-ukrainians-hadnt-fought-back-the-world-wouldve-been-a-much-darker-place/
    ....Only when a former empire comes to terms with its current borders can it become a normal state and society. For instance, Poland came to accept its borders thanks to Giedroyc, Kuroń, Geremek and Skubiszewski. Putin’s agony over Ukraine could herald the last stage of Russian imperialism....

    I tend to agree with that paragraph. Russia's military deficiencies have certainly been thoroughly exposed. And the likelihood of it launching new expeditions into unwilling countries in the near future has surely been reduced. The immediate human cost though is appalling.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    George Galloway has been given a special designation by Twitter:

    image

    And, as should come as no great surprise, he's already threatening legal action...

    https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1511729349204103170
    Note how the second thing he brings up is his follower count. People are so proud.

    The second thing to note is that of the things he lists only not working for Russian media would be relevant - being the leader of a party and spending time in parliament wouldn't mean he couldn't be a paid russian shill. Heck, you can be a former leader of a country and do that.

    Dear TwitterSupport I am not “Russian State Affiliated media”. I work for NO #Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action
    As twitter users are now pointing out he literally listed his work for RT Russia state media channel in his profile until about an hour ago, when he removed it.

    I think he should just own it.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    George Galloway has been given a special designation by Twitter:

    image

    And, as should come as no great surprise, he's already threatening legal action...

    https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1511729349204103170
    Note how the second thing he brings up is his follower count. People are so proud.

    The second thing to note is that of the things he lists only not working for Russian media would be relevant - being the leader of a party and spending time in parliament wouldn't mean he couldn't be a paid russian shill. Heck, you can be a former leader of a country and do that.

    Dear TwitterSupport I am not “Russian State Affiliated media”. I work for NO #Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action
    As twitter users are now pointing out he literally listed his work for RT Russia state media channel in his profile until about an hour ago, when he removed it.

    I think he should just own it.
    I wish Twitter would label anyone who has had a pay cheque from RT similarly. They are all scum.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083
    Nigelb said:

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc

    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject

    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    He is also mixing two definitions of 'conversion therapy'.

    His government is still legislating to ban it (ie the coercive practice of attempting to persuade homosexual individuals that they aren't homosexual) in respect of homosexuality, at the same time as abandoning their previous promise to do so also in respect of transgender individuals.

    Talking about non-coercive clinical treatment of transgender individuals as "conversion therapy", at the same time as the government has ditched the proposed ban on coercive activities is singularly bad faith argument.
    Yep, it's very unhelpful to mix the terms. Muddying the waters.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341

    Applicant said:

    Anyway! It's Local Elections Nominations Day! Hoop Hoop!

    In Havering, we have Havering Residents Association vs Hornchurch & Upminster Independents in one ward, and Havering Residents Association vs Indepdendent Harold Hill Resisdents association in another, and Harold Wood Residents vs Havering Residents (Harold Wood) in a third.

    Havering politics are just bonkers.

    Damn you, I now have 500 Miles stuck in my head... :)
    500 miles? That's a lot of leaflets to deliver.

    Unless the driveways are very very long.
    That's rural Devon for you.....
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    When did Boris the liar Johnson ever put out a clear position on anything. Back of a fag packet opinion perhaps, but clear position, no.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,776

    FF43 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/we-own-channel-4-sell-off-isnt-a-done-deal-armando-iannucci

    The thing that is always striking from these defence pieces about BBC / CH4, is a) it is all historic, 30-40 years ago it did x and b) they acknowledge the elephant in the room, but never provide any suggestion about what to do about it.

    Film4 spends £30m a year on new productions, Netflix spends £1bn a year and 10,000 people work on their productions in the UK. Sky are committing billions to UK production, with a massive project at Elstree . What Film4 spends in a year on total film budget, Netflix spends on 3 episodes of one of their blue chip shows.

    I am all ears for suggestions. But no change isn't going to work. We see constantly now, the best talent goes to Netflix, Amazon. Its a bit like remembering when Wimbledon FC used to match up against the best in the Premier League, plucky upstarts on shoe string budget, and saying they can do it again....but now you either need billions and / or incredibly innovative owners like at Brentford.

    The flaw with this argument is why should we believe a privatised Channel 4 will become a second Netflix when no rationale at all is put forward for the change, beyond Nadine wants this? Channel 4 has a niche in its current form. What will the privatised version offer?
    If you don't think CH4 or BBC need to change given the rapidly shifting globalised streaming world well I can't help you.
    I'm saying there's no business case for the government's proposals for Channel 4. Literally because it hasn't bothered to put one together. In my experience this is a red flag for failure in every case.

    I don't need help.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.

    To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.

    Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?

    Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
    The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
    Sky is American owned
    And the company that owns it is controlled by an American oligarch. They call it a 'family business'.
    America is many things, but it is not by any fair measure an oligarchy, unlike Russia. It is therefore not possible for an American to be an Oligarch, however insanely rich.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    When did Boris the liar Johnson ever put out a clear position on anything. Back of a fag packet opinion perhaps, but clear position, no.
    It seems clear enough to be fair but the debate is controversial for some

    It would be interesting to hear how JK Rowling , Rosie Duffield , Mum's net, and other feminists respond to it
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309
    kle4 said:

    I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.

    When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.

    The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.

    Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch. ;)

    People consume content at an incredible rate now, so if you have a hit you need to leverage that. The BBC are still stuck in the approach of we will make it at our own time, fitting around the stars who are doing us a favour. That's why Peaky Blinders took 10 years to make 36 episodes, Taboo with Tom Hardy, they can't make a 2nd season, McMafia got scraped (even before the whole Russia stuff), no Bodyguard 2nd seasons for another few years, etc etc etc.

    Netflix they sign people for several seasons and its one season per year at this time on the dot.

    Now I know some like to argue you get the super high amazing quality if you take BBC approach. Personally, I don't buy that, but even if you think so, having this we will get to it, when we get to it, just is setting light to money.

    Slow Horses on Apple+ is shaping up to be very good and is only 6 episodes for a season...very well shot, high quality cast, but I bet you any money, April 2023 Season 2, April 2024 Season 3....
    When you say “people consume content at an incredible rate”, do you mean “I consume content at an incredible rate”?
    No. Its a fact. Netflix paid absolutely insane amounts of money to have Friends and Seinfeld in recent years, because they explain people eat up all the original content so quickly they need these shows that people will watch many many times over in order to keep them on the platform between new releases of the blue chip stuff.

    That is despite, Netflix making 60 shows in the UK last year alone, with 10,000 people working on them. Sky Productions are planning on doing the same. The demand for content is immense.
    Scary. People need to get a bloody life.
    Why? People seek out entertainment of different forms, some will go heavier on the tv/streaming than others.
    Because watching that much telly isn’t good for anybody. There is an opportunity cost: social contact.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    I'd agree with all that, and would only add that I'm uncomfortable with the concept of 'parental decision'. I wouldn't trust quite a lot of parents to make an informed decision. And that includes parents who may encourage their youngsters to change gender/sex inappropriately, as well as the other way round.
    I've limited experience, but from most acounts, parents say that most of the time they didn't know (and freely admit they didn't know) what to do for the best and were led/wanted to be led by clinicians and by their children. The really tricky thing is puberty blockers as it's a big decision either way, with life-long consquences in many cases, whatever the decision. With a ticking clock in the background that means no decision becomes a decision not to treat. And there isn't enough research (of good quality, at least) on the pros and cons of treating or not treating. I would hate to be put in that position as a parent.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Disgusting.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited April 6
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.

    To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.

    Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?

    Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
    To a certain extent the BBC and Channel 4 have some of the same problem ; the deregulatiing, rationalising and market-purist zeal was very and blunt and unsubtle in the UK during the 1990's, much more so than several neighbouring countries.

    The result of this was two organisations that were heavily restructured along market lines, but still expected to be treated with public service exceptionalism. Naturally people are sceptical of Channel 4's public service credentials, if they see its modern nightly line-up, or the modern BBC constantly straining for its unsubtle hits of commercialism, sometimes without particular distinctiveness.

    The crucial thing, though, is that this isn't a failure of "public broadcasting", as popularly imagined in the tabloid press and so more widely, but actually the opposite.

    What has to be done is to restore the delicate balance of commercial and non-commercial influences that made British TV so often distinctive ahead of the US, and quite often in fact even the best in the world. It can be done, structurally, but it requires the public to be better educated about what has not gone so well and not so well, and more political will than the currently is to change it.

    *Then*, structural problems fixed, you can start to look at priming and preparing both British commercial and public service TV ( they worked best as a synergy ) to compete around the world in the new era of streaming and online convergence.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    You may well be right. Johnson is good at clear simple positions* on complicated issues and many people seem to like that. Same with Brexit, too.

    *of course, he changes his clear simple positions quite often, border in Irish sea etc...
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,180

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    When did Boris the liar Johnson ever put out a clear position on anything. Back of a fag packet opinion perhaps, but clear position, no.
    Hard to disagree as to the specifics, and it's going to get worse.

    Boris's advisors will clearly be telling him to avoid anything that smacks of detail. They'll also be telling him never ever to have a night out again.

    Boris has good points - he's good at big picture politics, but the weaknesses of being awful at detail and being fundamentally not so nice counts against him.

    Who cares. PMs come and go. What's rather alarming is that there are many on the Tory front bench that think the slovenly Boris style is acceptable.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    You may well be right. Johnson is good at clear simple positions* on complicated issues and many people seem to like that. Same with Brexit, too.

    *of course, he changes his clear simple positions quite often, border in Irish sea etc...
    Indeed but this is the first time I have heard him clearly set out his position
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
  • Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 650
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Even the most ghastly regime can't be held responsible for the acts of individuals under its command. I suspect there are Russian soldiers out there trying not to blindly kill. I certainly don't see Putin as responsible for their acts.

    If this type of act was an isolated one, I might have a little sympathy for this view. There are probably a few wrong 'uns in every army. But there is no shortage of stories of similar horrific acts, whilst the rhetoric from Moscow is all about destroying Ukraine as a nation and viewing Ukrainians as somehow sub-human.

    I think it's entirely fair to blame the regime in this instance.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    You may well be right. Johnson is good at clear simple positions* on complicated issues and many people seem to like that. Same with Brexit, too.

    *of course, he changes his clear simple positions quite often, border in Irish sea etc...
    It’s worth listening to his actual words first:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    On Channel 4 - my understanding of it is that no one wants to buy it and also invest money in programming. Also £1bn is a fantasy valuation. Anyone with £1bn to spend is buying 7-9 production houses that can make 5-6 seasons of something per year which they can sell to Netflix for £60-90m per season.

    The government is on a hiding to nothing with C4. They would have been better giving it away but on the provision of a minimum investment in UK production as part of the deal.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    It was Starmer who was interviwed by Sky first on this today and Sky then interviwed Boris

    It is the media raising the issue and politicians responding

    However, if a politician is not careful that politician could alienate an awful lot of women
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,180
    LucyJones said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Even the most ghastly regime can't be held responsible for the acts of individuals under its command. I suspect there are Russian soldiers out there trying not to blindly kill. I certainly don't see Putin as responsible for their acts.

    If this type of act was an isolated one, I might have a little sympathy for this view. There are probably a few wrong 'uns in every army. But there is no shortage of stories of similar horrific acts, whilst the rhetoric from Moscow is all about destroying Ukraine as a nation and viewing Ukrainians as somehow sub-human.

    I think it's entirely fair to blame the regime in this instance.
    The Russian regime is horrible, and it's leader should be shot dead. The acts of one soldier cannot be layed at his door though. I suspect that this is an example of wholesale barbarity on the part of Russian forces, but suspicions have no place in comdemning a man.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.

    To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.

    Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?

    Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
    The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
    Sky is American owned
    And the company that owns it is controlled by an American oligarch. They call it a 'family business'.
    America is many things, but it is not by any fair measure an oligarchy, unlike Russia. It is therefore not possible for an American to be an Oligarch, however insanely rich.
    The description doesn't really fit Russia either since Putin took all the main economic entities under his control.
  • Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308
    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    I think most companies would kill for a yearly injection of money that came come rain or shine, in addition to its commercial activities. I don't think money is the problem. Apart from the 6 episodes format, it's shitty writing, having to (even more than other media outlets) inject leaden politically-correct homilies into everything, and just having an indefinable insipid 'BBC-ness' about almost every drama it puts out.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.

    To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.

    Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?

    Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
    The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
    Sky is American owned
    And the company that owns it is controlled by an American oligarch. They call it a 'family business'.
    America is many things, but it is not by any fair measure an oligarchy, unlike Russia. It is therefore not possible for an American to be an Oligarch, however insanely rich.
    The description doesn't really fit Russia either since Putin took all the main economic entities under his control.
    And ironically, the sanctions against them have neutered the oligarchs ability to do anything about Putin even more.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    On topic, I did say Rishi was a clear lay in the next leader election 😀
  • Cost of living? Crickets
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    MaxPB said:

    On Channel 4 - my understanding of it is that no one wants to buy it and also invest money in programming. Also £1bn is a fantasy valuation. Anyone with £1bn to spend is buying 7-9 production houses that can make 5-6 seasons of something per year which they can sell to Netflix for £60-90m per season.

    The government is on a hiding to nothing with C4. They would have been better giving it away but on the provision of a minimum investment in UK production as part of the deal.

    Not necessarily so. ITV is quite keen apparently as is Sky due to the synergy /consolidation of the market angle. A bit harder to see the economics for an outside player.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    MaxPB said:

    It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:

    @annettepacey
    Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen


    https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237

    No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
    Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.

    The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.

    Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.

    https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536

    I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.

    Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.

    ISTM very important that required time is taken.

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,466

    Cost of living? Crickets

    Quite. Government has lost its way.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,180

    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
    You're right CHB. CoL issues are really important, but it's just not something politicians should get involved in. State control isn't good.

    If you actually want a state controlled economy then that's fine. You'll hate the consequences though.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    edited April 6
    Jonathan said:

    Westminster refurbishment estimated to cost £22b. That's a lot of channel4s. Perhaps we could make saving there and a few other places. Heck the Brexit £350m/wk Brexit dividend Boris promised should pay for Ch4 before the end of the month.

    Time to simplify.

    The buggers could have finished HS2 with that, perhaps even including the billions spent stuffing Nimby mouths with gold.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited April 6
    MrEd said:

    MaxPB said:

    On Channel 4 - my understanding of it is that no one wants to buy it and also invest money in programming. Also £1bn is a fantasy valuation. Anyone with £1bn to spend is buying 7-9 production houses that can make 5-6 seasons of something per year which they can sell to Netflix for £60-90m per season.

    The government is on a hiding to nothing with C4. They would have been better giving it away but on the provision of a minimum investment in UK production as part of the deal.

    Not necessarily so. ITV is quite keen apparently as is Sky due to the synergy /consolidation of the market angle. A bit harder to see the economics for an outside player.
    If ITV bought it, but crucially a public service clause or stake was reserved by the government, it would probably make it legally even easier to return it to its original intended structure, and actually make it function properly again. Shared resources and production ( ITN still makes Channel 4 News ), and shared revenue, with the much larger helping weight of ITV revenue allowing it that creative freedom that was intended all the way back in the first place, and then lost with the changes.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813
    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:

    @annettepacey
    Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen


    https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237

    No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
    Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.

    The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.

    Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.

    https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536
    This version is three and a half minutes:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,466
    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    I wonder why the right keep losing these culture wars?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    edited April 6
    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    George Galloway has been given a special designation by Twitter:

    image

    And, as should come as no great surprise, he's already threatening legal action...

    https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1511729349204103170
    Note how the second thing he brings up is his follower count. People are so proud.

    The second thing to note is that of the things he lists only not working for Russian media would be relevant - being the leader of a party and spending time in parliament wouldn't mean he couldn't be a paid russian shill. Heck, you can be a former leader of a country and do that.

    Dear TwitterSupport I am not “Russian State Affiliated media”. I work for NO #Russian media. I have 400,000 followers. I’m the leader of a British political party and spent nearly 30 years in the British parliament. If you do not remove this designation I will take legal action
    I thought for a minute that @kle4 was getting above him / her / it self. :smile:

    But it turns out to be the gallowanker.


  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,466

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The BBC is great. The Ukraine war underlines its value. Arguments about the licence fee are used as a fig leaf by people who object to the BBC for various political reasons.

    To an extent. But I'm not convinced that's the whole of it.

    Personally I deeply value the news output and think, whilst there are other news outlers out there, that its worth paying for a national broadcaster. But I find it hard to justify in the modern age about paying for all the entertainment aspects it seeks to provide. It's not particularly good compared to anything else, is it any more unique? The back catalogue is a great boon, to be sure, and there is stuff made that can be sold, but is that worth paying for?

    Either way, it gets attacked from left and right at times, though more on the right, so I think the current set up just cannot hold.
    The right seem to prefer that we get our news and entertainment from oligarchs albeit of various flavours. If anything has had its day it is that.
    Sky is American owned
    And the company that owns it is controlled by an American oligarch. They call it a 'family business'.
    America is many things, but it is not by any fair measure an oligarchy, unlike Russia. It is therefore not possible for an American to be an Oligarch, however insanely rich.
    The description doesn't really fit Russia either since Putin took all the main economic entities under his control.
    And ironically, the sanctions against them have neutered the oligarchs ability to do anything about Putin even more.
    What can they no longer do that they could before?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    Omnium said:

    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
    You're right CHB. CoL issues are really important, but it's just not something politicians should get involved in. State control isn't good.

    If you actually want a state controlled economy then that's fine. You'll hate the consequences though.
    Corbyn style ?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    MrEd said:

    MaxPB said:

    On Channel 4 - my understanding of it is that no one wants to buy it and also invest money in programming. Also £1bn is a fantasy valuation. Anyone with £1bn to spend is buying 7-9 production houses that can make 5-6 seasons of something per year which they can sell to Netflix for £60-90m per season.

    The government is on a hiding to nothing with C4. They would have been better giving it away but on the provision of a minimum investment in UK production as part of the deal.

    Not necessarily so. ITV is quite keen apparently as is Sky due to the synergy /consolidation of the market angle. A bit harder to see the economics for an outside player.
    But that's not going to get it to £1bn and ITV will be faced with competition concerns. Sky may just want it for the slot on terrestrial. C4 owns very little of the content it shows, it's merely an aggregator of other people's content. The value is minimal.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813
    @ChassNews
    The mood in France, according to veteran pollster @BriceTeinturier : "More people say the country and their personal situation would improve if Marine Le Pen is president than if it it is Macron"


    https://twitter.com/ChassNews/status/1511750591218913290
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,466

    Omnium said:

    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
    You're right CHB. CoL issues are really important, but it's just not something politicians should get involved in. State control isn't good.

    If you actually want a state controlled economy then that's fine. You'll hate the consequences though.
    Corbyn style ?
    Or, indeed, Brexit style. Government deciding how many immigrants in which sectors businesses need. Nothing like a good quota. Are we onto Five Year Plans yet?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    Farooq said:

    Omnium said:

    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
    You're right CHB. CoL issues are really important, but it's just not something politicians should get involved in. State control isn't good.

    If you actually want a state controlled economy then that's fine. You'll hate the consequences though.
    Corbyn style ?
    Or, indeed, Brexit style. Government deciding how many immigrants in which sectors businesses need. Nothing like a good quota. Are we onto Five Year Plans yet?
    I agree with you and we should move nearer to a Norway style deal
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    You may well be right. Johnson is good at clear simple positions* on complicated issues and many people seem to like that. Same with Brexit, too.

    *of course, he changes his clear simple positions quite often, border in Irish sea etc...
    Indeed but this is the first time I have heard him clearly set out his position
    'clearly'? It's impossible to be clear and simple on a complex matter. If you believe him, he's conning you.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    TimT said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Even the most ghastly regime can't be held responsible for the acts of individuals under its command. I suspect there are Russian soldiers out there trying not to blindly kill. I certainly don't see Putin as responsible for their acts.
    But troop discipline is the responsibility of states. One bad actor, who is suitably tracked down and punished, is one thing, and you could argue the state was not at fault. This level of raping, looting and pillaging - absolutely, the state bears responsibility.
    Yes, the systemic and indiscriminate nature of their operations against civilians generally inform how frequent more individualised atrocities are likely to be, I suspect.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    edited April 6
    I love that GG brands himself as being in outer space:



    Was this down to the show, or branding his son's hairdo with a Z, like a Russian tank?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,327
    I liked this one. Reminds me of our dear friend, the Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammad al-Sahhaf, a.k.a. Comical Ali

    Sputnik
    @Sputnik_Not
    ·
    1h
    Kremlin says presenting evidence of secret NATO bases in Ukraine is difficult as they are disguised as bio labs which are disguised as Azov bases which are disguised as residential buildings which are protected by weaponized birds
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Just listened to Boris on Sky on transgender and partygate debates..

    On transgender he said

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc


    On partygate

    He said he will not comment before the police have concluded their investigations at which time he will make a statement on the subject


    On transgender he seems to have made a sensible statement

    On partygate is he thinking if he receives a FPN will he confound everyone and decide to give notice to the conservative party to commence the election of his successor at which time he will stand down

    This is a betting site and as improbable as it seems it is not impossible

    On transgender, let us pick apart those views:

    He does not agree children should face conversion therapy as this should be a parental decision
    - If by 'conversion therapy' he means puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones then it's an interesting one. When do you need to use puberty blockers to be effective? In childhood (cross-sex hormones are not available until post-16 anyway, afaik)

    He said that male transgender women should not compete in women's events
    - Not sure quite what that means - transgender women still with male anatomy? For me, I'd base decisions on whether there is likely to be an advantage beyond normal variation - for many sports of strength/stamina there may well be, certainly for anyone who reached adulthood as a man. But for a birth male who got puberty blockers pre-puberty and cross-sex hormones at 16? Maybe there is still an advantage, I do not know.

    He believes women should have safe space in toilets, prisons etc
    - Indeed. What about transgender women? Are they safe in male toilets/prisons etc?

    I'm not necessarily taking the opposite viewpoint, although it may appear that way. But these are complicated issues that don't have quick soundbite answers. Should a Gillick competent 13 year old female who wants to be a male be denied treatment that would prevent breast growth until they are 16 and already have breasts? On the other hand, is a 13 year old really able to choose treatment that might make them infertile for life?

    Complicated issues, without easy answers.
    It seems complicated to some but Boris laid out a clear position that I suspect is the position of many
    You may well be right. Johnson is good at clear simple positions* on complicated issues and many people seem to like that. Same with Brexit, too.

    *of course, he changes his clear simple positions quite often, border in Irish sea etc...
    Indeed but this is the first time I have heard him clearly set out his position
    'clearly'? It's impossible to be clear and simple on a complex matter. If you believe him, he's conning you.
    Seems he has pleased Mumsnet

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1511731514584805390?t=JwSXx1QG08O7a85uprTG-g&s=19
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053

    Cost of living? Crickets

    How about the cost of dead crickets?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited April 6
    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,506
    What would President Le Pen mean for Britain? I mean if we have to now start treating it as a real possibility.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,176

    Cost of living? Crickets

    How about the cost of dead crickets?
    Oh fuck off, grasshopper
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:

    @annettepacey
    Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen


    https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237

    No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
    Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.

    The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.

    Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.

    https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536

    I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.

    Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.

    ISTM very important that required time is taken.

    This is an even longer version than the one I linked.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
  • Farooq said:

    Omnium said:

    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
    You're right CHB. CoL issues are really important, but it's just not something politicians should get involved in. State control isn't good.

    If you actually want a state controlled economy then that's fine. You'll hate the consequences though.
    Corbyn style ?
    Or, indeed, Brexit style. Government deciding how many immigrants in which sectors businesses need. Nothing like a good quota. Are we onto Five Year Plans yet?
    I agree with you and we should move nearer to a Norway style deal
    You're trolling now aren't you.

    You were one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Brexit deal we have now, I remember specifically you being told Norway would be better and you dismissed it.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
    The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,749
    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Ghastly but not outside the realms of what goes on on the battlefield. There's a whole riff in Mailer's The Naked and the Dead about a US platoon prising gold teeth out of dead Japanese mouths based on a fairly common practice.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise.
    Did Taboo do that well? It was shit. You could hardly hear what anyone was saying, which given what you could make out, was probably an advantage.

    The Bodyguard is a different kettle of fish.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,692

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    glw said:

    TV is going through a period of huge change. What does any enterprise need to weather and indeed thrive in a period of such change? They need a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response. Now is the worst time to start tinkering with those foundations.

    They don't have "a stable foundation, a secure financial footing, which allows them to innovate and evolve in response." They have a pittance to spend when compared to their new competitors. I've mentioned it before but Amazon are spending roughly as much on the first season of their Lord of the Rings series as the BBC spends on drama in an entire year. British broadcasters have never faced such well funded competition before, and unlike in the past those mostly US competitors can access the UK market directly.
    https://www.nme.com/news/tv/uk-viewers-watched-three-times-more-bbc-than-netflix-in-2021-3150727

    So, Netflix and other streamers have massively bigger budgets, but way more watch the BBC. Looks to me like the BBC is a model of efficiency we should be celebrating then!
    Except a) nobody actually fully knows for certain Netflix viewership as they never release it and b) there is an absolutely huge demographic split. Oldies continue to watch linear tv, but middle aged and younger people don't at anywhere near the same amount.

    Media is having the same revolution as the globalisation of every other industry over the past 20-30 years, and many seem to want to try and repeat the mistake of those industries holding onto this yes but we are the best mantra, no need to change.
    There is a common fallacy in political thinking. It goes like this... Something needs to change. This is something. So we should do it.

    The BBC and Channel 4 are well aware that the broader industry is changing and changing rapidly. The BBC and Channel 4 are changing.

    Nadine Dorries thinks that privatising Channel 4 is the change that is needed. Dorries didn't even know how Channel 4 was funded some months ago. Why should I believe that Dorries now knows better what change is needed than the people in Channel 4 and the wider industry, who largely don't think this is the change that is needed?

    I don't think Government automatically knows best. I think there are plenty of contexts where Government should step back and let enterprises get on with the job.
    My original comment was exactly this.....I linked to an article was saying yes aware of the elephant in the room, but there is never any suggestion of how to adapt. Its instant we can't change this way because yadda yadda yadda. Ok, and so how do you suggest changing, and there is tumbleweed.

    How are BBC or CH4 adapting? BBC Three coming back, genius. 4k / HDR still in "beta" for years and the system failed on iPlayer for Euro final. Sky / BT / Netflix have had 4k for years now.
    https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/annualplan

    https://www.channel4.com/corporate/future4

    Privatising Channel 4 isn't going to turn it into Netflix. How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
    Channel 4 one.....Waffle waffle buzz word waffle....no mention 4k, no mention HDR,

    "Using a more viewer-centric approach to inform activity and decisions across Channel 4".."Rolling out personalisation features on All 4, including smarter recommendations"

    F##k me, they are like 10 years behind the rest of the normal world is that if their "future goals" for 2025. Just more evidence their tech is just garbage.
    How is Nadine Dorries's change going to solve the disappearance of linear TV?
    AGAIN.....nobody is answering my question.....any suggestion of change is met we no we can't do that / that would be bad....so what are the proposals.

    You linked to their plans, and its a joke. Buzz word salad and the some vague realisation that Machine learning exists and that perhaps in 3 years time they might have a basic recommendation service, which Netflix, Spotify etc etc etc have had from their inception and which the likes of TikTok absolutely smash.
    This is politicalbetting.com, not broadcastingprofessionals.com, so forgive us all if there's more focus on the political aspects. The change that has been proposed by Dorries is to sell Channel 4, to take it out of public ownership, to dismantle Thatcher's legacy.

    Does Dorries's change solve the challenges you tell us about? No.

    That those very significant challenges still exist is an important point, but they are somewhat tangential.
    That is just trying to side step the issue. There is zero evidence the BBC or CH4 have an real idea how to adapt to this changed world.
    I posted a link earlier showing how way more people watch the BBC than Netflix. Channel 4 was tied with Netflix, IIRC, despite spending far less. So, the world has changed and the BBC and Channel 4 are doing more than OK.

    You say "changed world" above. You are probably going to reply talking about trajectory and future changes to come. You probably should've said "changING world".

    If you want to talk about the future, explain how a privatised Channel 4 or BBC would adapt better. ITV is privatised and is doing a terrible job of adapting!
    And we circle right back around to my initial point. Those who want to fight against this privatisation need to propose a coherent plan for the future, and the key problem is they never do. It is classic Sir Humphrey, we can't do that reply, look at what we did 30 years ago.

    So either the government will get its way or they will U-Turn, the CH4 supporters will celebrate initially and I bet they don't adapt.
    Donald Trump once suggested injecting bleach to cure COVID-19. Sometimes ideas suggest by politicians are stupid and it's fine to say they're wrong, without providing a detailed alternate solution to all other problems.
    Taz said:

    Alistair said:

    Why does Channel 4 need to make a profit? It doesn't cost us anything.

    You might want to rethink that logic.

    If it didn't, then how would it not cost us anything? Who would be paying for it?
    Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.

    https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-responsibly/freedom-information/frequently-asked-questions
    Today, yes, but their entire business model is being destroyed. Anyone who knows anything understands that what is true today might not be the same in the future.

    Either they embrace the future, or they die. That their erstwhile "defenders" of the status quo want to defend it as being able to make money via commercials today isn't a really good endorsement for it adapting for the future.
    The problem is neither the Beeb or C4 see this or accept this. They just want to cling on to the past model irrespective of how the market is changing. But this is industry is notorious for it. Be it home taping, VHS video, Napster. Any technological change or innovation is resisted. Even the migration from black and white to colour TV was a problem.
    This is just nonsense. The BBC and C4 are very aware of how the industry is changing. Neither is proposing doing nothing. Both have embraced technological change and innovation. What they are opposing is a specific change in how they are funded. Given no-one in this thread can explain why these changes in funding model would solve any of the global challenges in broadcasting, I sympathise with their positions.

    There's a political ideology called conservatism that recognises the value of established institutions and suggests we should be wary of tinkering with the fundamentals. It often champions this country's success stories. It used to have a lot of MPs in Parliament. I wonder where they all went?
    You have to be careful here as it's easy to get things mixed up.

    Privatising C4 doesn't change it's funding model - it changes it's ownership.

    BBC is a bigger problem as it does need to change it's funding model but how you do that has been an issue for over 20 years and no one has come up with a solution...
    Ownership and funding are linked though as the funding model that C4 has been relying upon is dying - fast. And so either it evolves under ownership that is ready to adapt to that and generates alternative funding sources - or the owners will be liable for losses or winding it up when the funding dries up.

    Realistically the state isn't best placed to generate the alternative funding sources - and left to its own devices under its current ownership their plans for the future are embarrassing at best, so an alternative ownership is needed to get the funding in place for the future. The two are intrinsically linked.
    How can you say it's dying when they are making a profit right now, in the present, in the teeth of Netflix/Amazon. Ah the future, streaming, you say. But you could as easily say that people will get sick of paying a subscription for a streaming service only 3% of which they ever use.

    Both a subscription model and ad-funded are of course commercial models and there may well be room for both in the market so I'm not sure why you say "Commercial TV has failed". And as I noted above, there is probably a large number of people who would put up with adverts in order to get "free" tv.

    Be against government ownership of TV companies (I am) by all means but your strange arguments around "Commercial TV" and the streaming services does your case no good if you conflate as @eek notes, ownership and business models.
    By "commercial" TV I was quite clearly referring to, as I had already pointed out, TV funded by commercials as opposed to alternatives.

    The owners need to find another business model as C4's is dying. Yes its running a profit today, I don't deny that, but its not going to in five or ten years time if nothing changes.

    You're like somebody in 2005 saying that Blockbuster is making a profit from its video stores so it has no reason to consider changing.
    Basically you have just copied and pasted the Government defence rationale for privatising C4 as proposed yesterday.

    What is the point?
    In fact, people asked that question about starting a second TV channel in the 1950s.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited April 6
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
    The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....
    They currently doing neither. They are spending money on an IP, then even if it does well, they don't leverage it. No other company would have taken 10 years to make 36 episodes of Peaky Blinders, 5 years between Bodyguard S1 and S2, etc etc etc.

    In the meantime not only are other people making higher quality shows, they are making them faster and more regularly.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    MaxPB said:

    On Channel 4 - my understanding of it is that no one wants to buy it and also invest money in programming. Also £1bn is a fantasy valuation. Anyone with £1bn to spend is buying 7-9 production houses that can make 5-6 seasons of something per year which they can sell to Netflix for £60-90m per season.

    The government is on a hiding to nothing with C4. They would have been better giving it away but on the provision of a minimum investment in UK production as part of the deal.

    Not necessarily so. ITV is quite keen apparently as is Sky due to the synergy /consolidation of the market angle. A bit harder to see the economics for an outside player.
    But that's not going to get it to £1bn and ITV will be faced with competition concerns. Sky may just want it for the slot on terrestrial. C4 owns very little of the content it shows, it's merely an aggregator of other people's content. The value is minimal.
    It's value is literally access to it's back catalogue (i.e. what's on All 4), it's prime TV slots on the EPGs and it's advertising sales team. None of that is worth anything close to £1bn.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Farooq said:

    Omnium said:

    Applicant said:

    Tories behind in the polls? Johnson and Sunak sinking?

    I know, play the trans culture war card!

    And, once again, the Left having started a culture war complains when the Right responds.
    The public are going "WTF" and abandoning the Tories.

    How about addressing real issues like cost of living. Anything yet?
    You're right CHB. CoL issues are really important, but it's just not something politicians should get involved in. State control isn't good.

    If you actually want a state controlled economy then that's fine. You'll hate the consequences though.
    Corbyn style ?
    Or, indeed, Brexit style. Government deciding how many immigrants in which sectors businesses need. Nothing like a good quota. Are we onto Five Year Plans yet?
    I agree with you and we should move nearer to a Norway style deal
    You're trolling now aren't you.

    You were one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Brexit deal we have now, I remember specifically you being told Norway would be better and you dismissed it.
    I do not need to justify myself to you

    I am not wanting to rejoin the EU but if you read my posts over the last few months I have consistently said we and the EU need a closer and more cooperative association and have mentioned Norway before

    I do not want to enter into a constant argument with you as it becomes tedious
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,221
    kle4 said:

    I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.

    When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.

    The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.

    Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch. ;)

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.

    Elementary, not so much?
    Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
    That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?

    In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,176
    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:

    @annettepacey
    Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen


    https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237

    No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
    Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.

    The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.

    Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.

    https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536

    I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.

    Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.

    ISTM very important that required time is taken.

    Well that's right. It's dead easy to tell if you are gay or straight, just check your apps and see whether you have grindr or tinder. it's much less easy to tell if you are an x trapped in a y's body and if so what you want to do about it, but if conversion therapy is made illegal then nobody is allowed to recognise that. The instant someone says I'm trans it becomes illegal to say You might just be a fat tory in a fix had you thought of that hush ma big mouf
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.
    The BBC can either produce a lot of TV cheaply or less TV very expensively. You seem to favour the latter while the BBC (up to now) has tended to do the former....
    They currently doing neither. They are spending money on an IP, then even if it does well, they don't leverage it. No other company would have taken 10 years to make 36 episodes of Peaky Blinders, 5 years between Bodyguard S1 and S2, etc etc etc.
    To do that requires signing everyone involved in every TV show up with First Call contracts. And that costs shed loads of money which means less TV is produced on the off chance that the show is a massive hit.

    And for every massive hit the BBC has multiple shows that don't for one reason or another hit their target.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cost of living? Crickets

    How about the cost of dead crickets?
    Oh fuck off, grasshopper
    I see your taste in friends remains consistent. How odd that it should end this way for us, after so many stimulating encounters. I almost regret it. Where shall I find a new adversary so close to my own level?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309
    edited April 6

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,692
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Dead Russian soldier allegedly found with “extracted gold crowns” on his person

    https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1511736510982332419?s=21&t=iI5Kps6SxtiMs3WONmCRWQ

    Even the most ghastly regime can't be held responsible for the acts of individuals under its command. I suspect there are Russian soldiers out there trying not to blindly kill. I certainly don't see Putin as responsible for their acts.
    That argument would be more convincing had there not been similar atrocities committed by the Russians in Syria and Chechnya and Salisbury and indeed by the Putin regime against its own people.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513

    I have binned Apple TV (two shows I watch); I have binned Disney+ (zero shows); I subscribe to Netflix and Prime which just about justify their fees (but it’s close).

    Beeb is still decent value for money.

    The best value for money by a country mile are Sky Sports and BT Sport. I watch tons of live sport and they have a lot. I find it baffling that purported sports fans don’t subscribe to them. How do they watch any sport?

    I knit, which is an activity well-suited to combining with watching TV (I did a lot of sock-knitting during Euro I can't believe it's not 2020), but I don't know where you get the time to watch so much TV.

    We're sort of half using our Netflix subscription, and there are the occasional thing that we watch on BBC, but we're partway through a number of series and I can't imagine adding a sports subscription and another streaming service.

    In terms of sport, I listen to TMS for Test cricket and the County Championship (starting again tomorrow!) is on free streams available via the ECB or the County websites. What other sport is there?
    My point is exactly that: I don’t watch that much TV, I cannot believe how anyone could watch so much as some people on PB seem to claim, therefore the Netflix and Prime subscriptions are barely worth it.

    TMS is great, and I listen to it, but as a cricket fan presumably you actually want to watch Test match cricket too?

    I find the idea that purported sports fans refuse to pay a round of drinks a month to watch professional sport absolutely baffling.
    Sure, I can see the attraction of watching Test cricket too, but I don't have limitless resources, and have you seen the price of quality knitting yarn?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308

    kle4 said:

    I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.

    When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.

    The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.

    Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch. ;)

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.

    Elementary, not so much?
    Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
    That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?

    In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
    Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited April 6

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.

    Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.

    The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    It's striking how much support Boris Johnson is getting for his comments on trans issues from people who are not his natural supporters. This one is typical:

    @annettepacey
    Oh god oh no someone I loathe just made a really good point. Still could never bring myself to vote for the bastard but this is what happens when Labour turn their backs on women and leave an open goal #labourlosingwomen


    https://twitter.com/annettepacey/status/1511691419647455237

    No, I've been told by PB experts that saying women have cocks won't hurt Labour.
    Boris's comments are quite good and thoughtful.

    The Trans Activist usual approach is to ram through their preferred measures before anyone gets any time to reflect properly upon the issue, and this is more considered.

    Here is what BJ said. This is I think the full video of 1:39. Sky also seem to be putting out a truncated one at 1:04 length.

    https://news.sky.com/story/pm-says-biological-males-should-not-compete-in-female-sport-and-venues-should-have-women-only-spaces-12583536

    I haven't got my head around the latest kerfuffle.

    Does, for example, the (Aiui) long-held Trans-Activist demand to be allowed to medicate without supervision children who are deemed by their parents to be trans count as Conversion Therapy? If so, the various organisations are demanding that this be banned.

    ISTM very important that required time is taken.

    This is an even longer version than the one I linked.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1511669445877551104
    As far as I can ascertain, the Tories are simply aligning with the Labour position. Rachel Reeves said pretty much the same last week.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775

    Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation.
    Nor has the government.
    The $1bn is neither here nor there.

    Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).

    I’m not a BBC basher although you may consider me one. I just think it’s funding model is unfair.

    I’m glad the BBC has a good reputation in the US. I believe BBC select is available there for an, optional, subscription of 5 dollars.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347

    kle4 said:

    I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.

    When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.

    The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.

    Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch. ;)

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.

    Elementary, not so much?
    Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
    That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?

    In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
    Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
    I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,221

    kle4 said:

    I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.

    When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.

    The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.

    Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch. ;)

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.

    Elementary, not so much?
    Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
    That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?

    In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
    Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
    We do not often agree, but on this I fully agree.

    However, I can recommend at least the first two seasons of 'Elementary'. A thoroughly modern Sherlock, without (mostly) the horse dung.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,115

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    It also follows from the tendency to have shows created by a single writer or small team- there's a limit to how much creative juice you can squeeze per year. Probably not the most efficient way to create hours of television, but more distinctive to watch.

    British TV doesn't need to be like American TV to succeed. Indeed, trying to play that game, rather than trying to play its own game well, is setting itself up for failure.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    In a different part of the forest, 18 year old students were fined £10K for making the same "mistake" as Party Marty.

    No job in the FO for them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servants
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    No vacancies at the DfE?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.

    Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.

    The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
    Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    In a different part of the forest, 18 year old students were fined £10K for making the same "mistake" as Party Marty.

    No job in the FO for them.
    Do we know if he has been fined yet
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775

    glw said:

    Nobody on here has made the case for Channel 4’s privatisation.
    Nor has the government.
    The $1bn is neither here nor there.

    Meanwhile, I see the BBC bashers are out in force. Based on my sample of New York parents at the school gate, the BBC has a very good reputation, albeit niche. Probably on the same level as HBO (who are also struggling against the giants, but continue to make fantastic content).

    It's post like this that demonstrate why the BBC and Channel 4 are basically doomed. Merely observing reality (broadcast TV has already lost the young) is "BBC bashing". No amount of good will in New York will save them, as those New Yorkers contribute essentially nothing to the BBC and Channel 4 coffers.

    I like the BBC a lot, mainly radio and the website, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it has a future as it is.
    I’m very interested in ideas for how the BBC could change, but the dominant tone on here is by people who dismiss the notion of public service or state owned broadcasting altogether.

    So I just ignore them as (to my mind) bad faith debaters.

    Anyway, my post was intended as a rebuttal to the idea that the BBC has no brand, nothing more.
    My core argument is always the licence fee is in the modern world a) totally unenforceable and b) totally outdated idea I have to pay a licence to watch telly, even if I don't watch the 4 BBC channels i.e. I only want to watch Sky Sports.

    The debate is then how do you replace the licence fee. There are a range of options.
    My view is fund the public service remit from general taxation but let that be open to anyone who puts In the best case, not bids the most cash. The local TV stations and local radio network could do it.

    How the BBC funds itself is down to,it as long as it is not a compulsory license.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servants
    I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.

    Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.

    The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
    Another promising series that disappeared as soon as it came was the recent Dracula. That seemed to be being set up for a series, but never came to anything for some reason.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,002
    ydoethur said:

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servants
    I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.
    Hasn't one of them already gone to the private sector?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    Its not just the 6 episode format, it is the ridiculous gap between seasons.

    Can you imagine if you had the most shit hot new widget and then said yeah well we only made a few, come back in 5 years.....while acme industries down the street is also making shit hot new widgets, but they ensure they continually have new ones.

    The massive bucks are available if can get a show syndicated worldwide. In order to do that normally need to have a significant back catalogue. They did that with Top Gear and made a load of money. The problem is drama is now gone that way too.
    Most series are better off with sticking to just one season. There are exceptions, but in general the greats of TV just decline after season one.
    Dad's Army didn't really hit its stride until about season 4. Similarly all the Star Trek series start to get really good from about season 3.5 onwards. (Well, apart from Enterprise.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,308
    ydoethur said:

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    No vacancies at the DfE?
    Many, but no job vacancies.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    It also follows from the tendency to have shows created by a single writer or small team- there's a limit to how much creative juice you can squeeze per year. Probably not the most efficient way to create hours of television, but more distinctive to watch.

    British TV doesn't need to be like American TV to succeed. Indeed, trying to play that game, rather than trying to play its own game well, is setting itself up for failure.
    Most novels can and should be perfectly well adapted within six or seven episodes. Classic example: Big Little Lies. An absolute masterpiece. There was no book left for Season Two, and as such it served only to sully its magnificent predecessor.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    ydoethur said:

    Always good to see properly punished.....

    Among the post-Partygate clear-out of Boris’s top team in No. 10 was his PPS Martin Reynolds, whose infamous ‘BYOB’ email invite – leaked to ITV – swiftly earned him the SW1 nickname of “Party Marty”. Instead of being fired he was foundy a comfy Foreign Office role…

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/06/no-10-levels-down-nicknames/

    Sue Gray's report will be the defining moment for not only Boris but many senior civil servants
    I trust that in the case of many of them it will be realised that paying their salaries is, in their own words, not an appropriate use of public money.
    Hasn't one of them already gone to the private sector?
    Wetherspoons?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843

    MaxPB said:

    To prove my point....in production.

    SLOW HORSES S02
    https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-1290-thursday-march-17-2022-199-listings-45-pages/

    None of this, Gary (Oldman) and Kristin (Scott Thomas), could you possibly give us a date when you fancy making some more of these, I know you might be busy, could you possibly fit us in perhaps 2024....

    That takes money and the BBC is limited by the licence fee. There's not much else to it.
    My point is BBC still trying to do things the old way, 6 episode season, a mate of a mate who is a big name will do you a favour and star in it for cheap, then you get stupid situations where you have Tom Hardy make a season of Taboo, that does pretty well, and then it is 5 years before he can fit you in again for season 2.

    They have to decide, either not to go down that route in the first place and not use the star talent or modernise. When the big players decide to go with these projects they are going to ensure they get their 5 seasons in 5 years.

    The BBC are setting light to money starting an IP and then leaving it years.
    Most series are drastically overlong and are flogged to within an inch of their lives. The Beeb’s six episode format - to use an absolutely horrible PB cliche - is a feature not a bug.
    I disagree. Sometimes a mini series is all you need - Chernobyl is a great example, one of the best tv shows I've seen in years. And even a 10-13 episode show might have plenty of padding (though is my preferred length).

    But that's a question of good or bad writing. If you could guarantee the BBC traditional 6 episode or whatever format resulted in a higher amount of quality per episode, you might have an argument, but that's not the case - plenty of 6 episode shows are still very bad, and they are short and often sporadic on top of that.

    Sure, plenty of long format shows are no good either, but many are good, and there are benefits to being able to develop arcs over a multi year period, or just develop the characters more thoroughly over that number of episodes and time. Going on too long is an unfortunate potential risk, to be sure, but personally I'd say was worth it for the greater number and depth of content earlier on.

    I think the cheerleading for short format stuff is a crutch, frankly. There's no reason longer stuff cannot be good, and plenty of short stuff which is bad, so it's not a feature at all.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    "the fuckers even... took my aftershave"

    Comment by one resident about RU scum in Trostyanets.


    Guardian.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    edited April 6

    kle4 said:

    I've recently been watching 'Elementary' on Prime; CBS's take on Sherlock Holmes, with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson.

    When I compare it with the BBC's awful 'Sherlock', it shows where the BBC often goes wrong. Elementary takes the Sherlock Holmes idea and thoroughly modernises it. They made 154 episodes over nine years, allowing meaningful plot and character development.

    The BBC's Sherlock is all about the *star*. The plotlines are ludicrous, and they made just 13 episodes in seven years, allowing little plot or character development.

    Also: Jonny Lee Miller is a much better actor than Benedict Cumberbatch. ;)

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, in fact you’re right - but Sherlock was a big hit around the world.

    Elementary, not so much?
    Perhaps not, but ran for 7 years and it is better, not just that theres more of it. The first season in particular - did a far better job showing how a Holnes/Watson dynamic could realistically develop when one is such an arse.
    That's a really good point. From memory, in the books, Watson is very much his own man. A successful and respected doctor in his own right, who at times shares a flat with the protagonist, and at others is married (ooer missus!). In Sherlock, he is a broken man, and it is unclear why he hangs around Sherlock. I mean, why, given Cumberbatch's Holmes has no redeeming features?

    In Elementary, the characterisations make it much clearer: initially watson is paid to put up with him, and does so through a feeling of guilt for her own mistake. Later, Holmes tries to make up for his character defects, and becomes a much more interesting character (note: I am only on season 2).
    Nothing beats Jeremy Brett's portrayal for me. I've never got into Sherlock though I can see it's merits.
    I’ll be honest, Jeremy Brett for a classic feel, and set in the original era (hat tip to Tom Baker as the Doctor as Sherlock Holmes in the Talons of Weng Chiang, present concerns about horrific racist portrayal and yellow face excepted), Sherlock is fun, but could never be a series machine in the American way, whereas Elementary has room to breath and allows you to get to love the cast. All have their place.
    Talons of Weng Chiang is essentially a mix of Baker playing a Sherlock Holmes character and John Bennett playing Fu Manchu.

    You also have Louise Jameson as Eliza Doolittle.

    I’d dispute the show is horrifically racist it has racial stereotypes based on the Fu Manchu stories, that period was full of rip offs/tributes to classic novels and sci fi. It’s an homage. Horrifically is a dramatic overstatement. It’s a subject fandom still debates to this day.

    We may as well ban the Celestial Toymaker too.

    Tom also played Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, pretty well, his first job on leaving Dr Who. Caroline John was also in it.
This discussion has been closed.