He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
How much is a pint in The Everyman Arms these days?
I’m not sure I’ve ever conducted or been subject to a straw poll on a political issue while down the pub. And whenever politics has come up as a pub topic the points of view of people almost never fall neatly into pro or anti.
Massively depends on where you go too. Eg when I'm in the Flask in Hampstead, that's one thing; if I find myself at the Cock in Kilburn, it's quite another. But you're right, in neither would there be much of a consensus on any political issue bar obvious things like what a plank Jacob Rees Mogg is.
So the reason SVP didn't have higher capital buffers was because it was below the threshold for being a Systematically Important Bank. SVB had an asset threshold of $209bn and the threshold was $250bn. This is because Trump deregulated banks in 2018, and upped the threshold from Obama's $50bn.
Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".
Naturlich.
RDS is fellow-traveller along with Boris, Liz, Rishi, etc., etc., on the theoretically libertarian > actually authoritarian bullet train.
This is a good site to ask questions about Ukraine policy, because so many knowledgeable people are here all over every angle of it.
Firstly, is UK government operating a clear policy objective and a clear goal on/for Ukraine? Are we and allies clearly seeing a policy for Ukraine victory, giving them enough for an outright win? Or are we only giving them enough to survive a bit longer and never win? If we are just dragging this out, it is precisely what Vladimir Putin wants, it’s how he eventually gets his way isn’t it?
"This fatal compromise, which even Churchill felt forced to pursue in the hope of an opportunity to strengthen Allied policy into full-blooded intervention, simply protracted the agony." - Antony Beevor, "Russia - Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921" (2022).
The program of Russia disarmament is ongoing. See the Forbes article on tank numbers and this -
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I was just reflecting something similar to @numbertwelve (though I think I'm more on the left than they are).
TLDR; we need to accept more migrants to protect our own way of life, but to do so we need policies within UK that protect the poor who too often bear the brunt of migration.
A few thoughts: - Having listened carefully to the arguments, I think we do need to stop the boats. Not because people are dying, sad though that is, but because the boats are creating a deeply unfair imbalance in who can get to UK (those who can make the arduous and illegal journey, as opposed to those in most need). -There are 100 million displaced people around the world currently. I've had personal experience of what that means for e.g. Turkey (I was in Reyhanli soon after the start of the Syrian civil war, when pretty much overnight it became a 50% Syrian town). Whilst I have sympathy for the argument that it is culturally challenging to accept lots of migrants into UK, I can find no moral justification for why UK should be protected from this cultural upheaval but Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Uganda etc. should have to bear it. Which leads me to conclude we need to find a way to accept a fair share of displaced people into our country. - @Pagan2 is someone on here whose poitical views I listen carefully to, even though we are at either sides of the left-right spectrum. I think Pagan is correct to say that if we continue down the path we are currently on, the logical outcome is fortress Britain (I think the film Children of Men is not far from what we can expect). I don't want to live in a world like that, and I don't want to bring my kids up into that world. Profoundly so. I think we have to make a choice as to whether we want the end result of global movement of people to be fortress Britain, or the painful compromises that come from taking many, many more migrants into UK. I don't think there is another option. - It is a morally and practically important fact that the UK is far more wealthy than most nations on earth. I'd argue a significant part of each of our wealth today is directly as a result of exploitative global trade arragements, particularly during the heiight of empire. But even if you dispute that, I find it very hard to make a moral case for why any of us should be prosperous and comfortable enought to e.g. heat our homes simply because of the accident of where we are born. - It is of course a very thorny political issue as to how we acknowledge the point I have just made, without forcing poorer people in UK to bear the brunt of the good intentions of richer people like me. Therefore the global issue bleeds into our national politics (and for me personally a deep lack of respect for those who are personally wealth and seek to avoid e.g. paying tax). We need to design UK policy to protect both those who are poorer here, and those who arrive on our shores. This isn't easy, but the alternative (fortress Britain) is, I believe, far worse.
A very good and considered post and I agree with the broad thrust of it (it is true I would say I am historically more on the centre right than centre left).
Your point on supporting poorer people particularly chimes with me. This is something that a lot of the sound and fury of the debate conveniently leaves out - on the right because it means spending money, on the left because it is easier to infer bad intentions from someone raising genuine concerns.
Indeed I would say one of the greatest faults of the 2010-2015 government was dismantling a number of local community services ostensibly on cost efficiency grounds whereas what would have been better would have been to look at what was being delivered and how it could be better used to achieve ambitions such as these, without being too constrained by government control once established. This was particularly unfortunate given Cameron’s (I believe genuine) views around the big society - a widely mocked concept but one that had the right underpinnings to it.
Yep - talking about the Big Society while cutting off everything that could support it (Surestart, libraries even) wasn't a good plan.
I will start by saying that I have no qualms on government spending on such items if they make sense. Sadly however because of how politicians of all sides prefer in implementation we often really never know.
We should be demanding a lot more of the following
This is how much it will cost This is what it is designed to achieve This is how we will measure it This is the timescale to get to those results
Then we can drop things if they turn out not to be producing the value claimed for the money. We also need to have those measurements published by someone like ONS so the figures don't get twisted.
An example of this is SureStart....I have heard both it helped poor people and contrariwise that it was mostly used as cheap child care by middle classes and the poor didn't use it in numbers.
Which is true? Damned if I know....somethings will work beyond expectations, somethings won't live upto the hype but unless they are measured against the reasons for doing them how can we know which to expand and which to ditch?
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
On rewilding, I sometimes wonder what species is intended to be the apex predator?
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
How much is a pint in The Everyman Arms these days?
I’m not sure I’ve ever conducted or been subject to a straw poll on a political issue while down the pub. And whenever politics has come up as a pub topic the points of view of people almost never fall neatly into pro or anti.
Massively depends on where you go too. Eg when I'm in the Flask in Hampstead, that's one thing; if I find myself at the Cock in Kilburn, it's quite another. But you're right, in neither would there be much of a consensus on any political issue bar obvious things like what a plank Jacob Rees Mogg is.
Do they still have the PIRA collection boxes in the Cock?
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I'm surprised Refugee gave her an out and didn't throw her out with extreme prejudice ...
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
It really was an atrocious comment . What was she thinking .
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Fine - as long as we reinstate sabre-toothed tiger.
Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Fine - as long as we reinstate sabre-toothed tiger.
Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
Isn't someone trying to regenerate the woolly mammoth?
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.
However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
Tory majority nailed on too I guess? Who need Yougov.
Not at all.
That is the interesting thing.
I'd say 8 of those 10 are not Tories. At all.
Local farming types. All thought Clarkson would do a better job.
For avoidance of doubt, I didn't instigate or get involved in the conversation.
Sympathy for well paid selebs is very low indeed.
...although not for Clarkson apparently.
O/T I am just reading Selling Hitler by Robert Harris and it made me think of you as I believe your business is rare manuscripts etc.
The Hitler diaries fiasco was clearly (according to Harris) a monumental series of mistakes and missed opportunities but it did make me think authentication and the risk of forgeries must be a big headache for you.
Selling Hitler is a fascinating read.
(PS I don't doubt your pub poll for one moment. If I asked our bookclub the same poll I bet it would be 8-0 in favour of Lineker. Different groups, neither representative though.)
The books on the "Hitler Diaries" hoax/scam/farce are full of true hilarity.
For example, description of the scene in the head office of (IIRC) the "Sunday Times" when they called up the distinguished Lord Daycare (sp?) to refute claims that the "diaries" he'd "authenticated" were bogus as a 3-pound note. Only to hear from the horse's (ass's) own lips that that his assurances were horsepoop.
BTW (also FYI) this was not long after Dr. Huge Trevor-Roper had published a book about a notorious literary con artist. Ha! Ha! Ha!
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
Tory majority nailed on too I guess? Who need Yougov.
Not at all.
That is the interesting thing.
I'd say 8 of those 10 are not Tories. At all.
Local farming types. All thought Clarkson would do a better job.
For avoidance of doubt, I didn't instigate or get involved in the conversation.
Sympathy for well paid selebs is very low indeed.
...although not for Clarkson apparently.
O/T I am just reading Selling Hitler by Robert Harris and it made me think of you as I believe your business is rare manuscripts etc.
The Hitler diaries fiasco was clearly (according to Harris) a monumental series of mistakes and missed opportunities but it did make me think authentication and the risk of forgeries must be a big headache for you.
Selling Hitler is a fascinating read.
(PS I don't doubt your pub poll for one moment. If I asked our bookclub the same poll I bet it would be 8-0 in favour of Lineker. Different groups, neither representative though.)
So I'm relatively lucky - the real headache is in modern signatures, pop and sport memorabilia.
My first thought when presented with one is always that a 20th century signature of a famous person is likely to be a fake without cast iron provenance, whilst a seventeenth-century signature of a minor historical character is more likely than not correct. Commerce drives fakes.
That said, we're not immune. Shakespeare documents have been forged for over 200 years, though. William Henry Ireland was prolific! The bigger problem is facsimiles and restoration, which are often not sufficiently well understood. The better technology gets, the more this is going to be a problem.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
Snowflakes!
Sir Stanley Johnson. Knighted for services to I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose What's Wrong With That
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
Maybe he just wanted to thank the people who supported him and share his compassionate and humane approach to refugees? That's how I read it.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Her explanation that she was 'legally obliged' to say so seems odd.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.
However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
Did you not see his final tweet - the idea that he's subject to any actual restrictions is one for the birds.
And yet I thought you were one for free speech. Oops I forgot, the only free speech you like is the one that reflects your worldview,
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
What they really mean is we don’t want any safe routes and want to stop any refugees . What a shameful day for this country . Absolutely disgustingl
So the reason SVP didn't have higher capital buffers was because it was below the threshold for being a Systematically Important Bank. SVB had an asset threshold of $209bn and the threshold was $250bn. This is because Trump deregulated banks in 2018, and upped the threshold from Obama's $50bn.
Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".
De Santis is working hard at proving himself as moronic as Trump. What I found odd was that the Bank suffered a loss on the sale of US bonds that it had to sell to cover a series of withdrawals. These seem to amount to about $2bn which seems a relatively trivial amount for a Bank of that size.
The real problem seems to be that once confidence was lost the withdrawals were large scale and instantaneous. Basically, unlike a lot of banks they had a lot of very cash rich clients who could move around millions at the drop of a hat. I noticed that the UK customer of the UK branch confirmed his business had millions in credit with the bank. Most banks would have a much larger, much flatter, less nimble base. Once Twitter told Finance Managers in that sector there was a problem they were hit with an avalanche.
Personally, I suspect that HSBC have picked up a rather nice bargain here.
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
I do see where you're coming from; your comment makes more sense to me now that I see that.
(Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I mean I can see that FionaBrucegate stemmed from her huge caution and nervousness about being seen to criticise Stanley Johnson who epitomises the right, not least his son.
Another example of the BBC being so nervous about its current approach that it ends up shooting itself in the foot for fear of being seen to be biased.
I'm sure nothing will change with the structure of the BBC in terms of funding and ownership, but it certainly should.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Her explanation that she was 'legally obliged' to say so seems odd.
Particularly as it seemed to be based on incomplete informatrion.
Effectively Bruce was suggesting it’s okay to beat your wife or partner to a pulp as long as it’s a one off .
We live in truly strange times when Lineker who was trying to show some humanity is pulled from the schedules and Bruce green lighting domestic violence as long as it’s only once is still there !
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Sky is hosting the debate tonight with Beth Rigby and this poll will feature in the debate which is on free Sky News across the UK
You may want to be in denial but the SNP are utterly divided as independence recedes into relevance
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak is presumably a compound German noun to describe the trashing your own country while preserving the arses of the undeserving rich.
'During the early part of the 21st century the UK endured a devastating CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak.'
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.
However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
Did you not see his final tweet - the idea that he's subject to any actual restrictions is one for the birds.
And yet I thought you were one for free speech. Oops I forgot, the only free speech you like is the one that reflects your worldview,
Rubbish, I've repeatedly underlined my position over recent days and you know full well that isn't it.
I don't have time to argue with you, as I'm working, but I can see it would be a total waste of my time if I did anyway.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
How much is a pint in The Everyman Arms these days?
I’m not sure I’ve ever conducted or been subject to a straw poll on a political issue while down the pub. And whenever politics has come up as a pub topic the points of view of people almost never fall neatly into pro or anti.
Massively depends on where you go too. Eg when I'm in the Flask in Hampstead, that's one thing; if I find myself at the Cock in Kilburn, it's quite another. But you're right, in neither would there be much of a consensus on any political issue bar obvious things like what a plank Jacob Rees Mogg is.
Do they still have the PIRA collection boxes in the Cock?
The whole thing has gone now actually. Kilburn has lost its ... one of its best known Irish public houses.
I mean I can see that FionaBrucegate stemmed from her huge caution and nervousness about being seen to criticise Stanley Johnson who epitomises the right, not least his son.
Another example of the BBC being so nervous about its current approach that it ends up shooting itself in the foot for fear of being seen to be biased.
I'm sure nothing will change with the structure of the BBC in terms of funding and ownership, but it certainly should.
That I can believe, though presenters are supposed to be able to think on their feet!
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
Snowflakes!
Sir Stanley Johnson. Knighted for services to I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose What's Wrong With That
I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose once. Let's not overstate the offence, eh?
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak is presumably a compound German noun to describe the trashing your own country while preserving the arses of the undeserving rich.
'During the early part of the 21st century the UK endured a devastating CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak.'
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
An attitude that was satirized though Basil Fawlty when ranting at some less-than-satisfied hotel guests: 'Well let me tell you something - this is exactly how Nazi Germany started! A lot of layabouts with nothing better to do than to cause trouble!'
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
As if the last week hadn't caused enough damage to the BBC, Gary Linekar decided that he could not be gracious enough to give his own ego the day off even just briefly on the day the matter was finally settled. But when you decide to make yourself the man that is bigger than the rest of the coporation, you simple undermine it even further in its current form. I am now sure we will not have long to wait until another Linekar twitter controversy blows up and makes life difficult for his BBC bosses and colleagues.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
How much is a pint in The Everyman Arms these days?
I’m not sure I’ve ever conducted or been subject to a straw poll on a political issue while down the pub. And whenever politics has come up as a pub topic the points of view of people almost never fall neatly into pro or anti.
Massively depends on where you go too. Eg when I'm in the Flask in Hampstead, that's one thing; if I find myself at the Cock in Kilburn, it's quite another. But you're right, in neither would there be much of a consensus on any political issue bar obvious things like what a plank Jacob Rees Mogg is.
Do they still have the PIRA collection boxes in the Cock?
The whole thing has gone now actually. Kilburn has lost its ... one of its best known Irish public houses.
Ah seriously? That's a shame.
So you couldn't have found yourself at the Cock but a good rhetorical touch nevertheless.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
+1 - the current landscape of the Dales, Moors and Lakes is because sheep farming not in spite of it.
If sheep weren't there things would rapidly look very different.
Some people seem to agree with both the following statements: "We need more wilderness" and "We need to support hill farmers to stop the land reverting to wilderness".
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
I do see where you're coming from; your comment makes more sense to me now that I see that.
(Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
+1 - the current landscape of the Dales, Moors and Lakes is because sheep farming not in spite of it.
If sheep weren't there things would rapidly look very different.
Some people seem to agree with both the following statements: "We need more wilderness" and "We need to support hill farmers to stop the land reverting to wilderness".
Happy with some of both myself. ATM the Tory view seems to be to have none of either, it sometimes seems.
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
That's where I'm at tbh, football pundits should be free to say whatever they please. No one's forcing me to agree with them.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Fine - as long as we reinstate sabre-toothed tiger.
Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Fine - as long as we reinstate sabre-toothed tiger.
Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
Isn't someone trying to regenerate the woolly mammoth?
They are but I think Johnson's hopes for a return are fading.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
It should be noted that Lineker has agreed to temper it whilst the BBC agree new social media guidelines, and so it should very well be the "final thought" for the next few weeks.
However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
That isn't true at all. The more people that come via any route, the more pull it creates for future migrants via any route. This was demonstrated extremely clearly with Merkel. There isn't a fixed amount of potential migrants that can come given the huge chunk of the world in warzones or dictatorships.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.
But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
I do see where you're coming from; your comment makes more sense to me now that I see that.
(Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
For the avoidance of doubt I do not hold a candle for the BBC management. They have screwed this up royally and have been publicly humiliated as a result. If I was going to accuse my most high profile employees of breaching my guidance I would make very, very sure I was right. If I had guidance which very deliberately had "grey areas" in it from only 3 years ago I would have been extremely cautious. Suspending him in these circumstances was, courageous, to put it kindly.
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is sometthing to be excited about, fill yer boots.
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
What they really mean is we don’t want any safe routes and want to stop any refugees . What a shameful day for this country . Absolutely disgustingl
Would your solution to small boats be to send a big boat to pick everyone up?
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
It really was an atrocious comment . What was she thinking .
It was an atrocious comment.
I would also like to know what was coming from the gallery into her earpiece - was she instructed to say that, and if so, by whom?
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
I for one believe Mortimer, I just don't think his pub poll is likely to be that representative. Anymore than my (somewhat leftie) bookclub would be.
We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
Absolutely. Isn't it every Englishman's right to break his wife's nose? Who are these woke leftists who disagree?
Snowflakes!
Sir Stanley Johnson. Knighted for services to I Only Broke Her Bloody Nose What's Wrong With That
That knighthood is surely to goodness off. Amazing it could ever have been considered. I thought it was a pisstake when I first heard about it. Suppose it was in a sense. Rather like the whole of Boris Johnson's political career.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
As if the last week hadn't caused enough damage to the BBC, Gary Linekar decided that he could not be gracious enough to give his own ego the day off even just briefly on the day the matter was finally settled. But when you decide to make yourself the man that is bigger than the rest of the coporation, you simple undermine it even further in its current form. I am now sure we will not have long to wait until another Linekar twitter controversy blows up and makes life difficult for his BBC bosses and colleagues.
Do you think BBC management was in the least bit "gracious" or intended to make his life anything other than difficult when it wrongly suspended Lineker?
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
Not at its lowest point yet though and you do sound in denial
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I was just reflecting something similar to @numbertwelve (though I think I'm more on the left than they are).
TLDR; we need to accept more migrants to protect our own way of life, but to do so we need policies within UK that protect the poor who too often bear the brunt of migration.
A few thoughts: - Having listened carefully to the arguments, I think we do need to stop the boats. Not because people are dying, sad though that is, but because the boats are creating a deeply unfair imbalance in who can get to UK (those who can make the arduous and illegal journey, as opposed to those in most need). -There are 100 million displaced people around the world currently. I've had personal experience of what that means for e.g. Turkey (I was in Reyhanli soon after the start of the Syrian civil war, when pretty much overnight it became a 50% Syrian town). Whilst I have sympathy for the argument that it is culturally challenging to accept lots of migrants into UK, I can find no moral justification for why UK should be protected from this cultural upheaval but Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Uganda etc. should have to bear it. Which leads me to conclude we need to find a way to accept a fair share of displaced people into our country. - @Pagan2 is someone on here whose poitical views I listen carefully to, even though we are at either sides of the left-right spectrum. I think Pagan is correct to say that if we continue down the path we are currently on, the logical outcome is fortress Britain (I think the film Children of Men is not far from what we can expect). I don't want to live in a world like that, and I don't want to bring my kids up into that world. Profoundly so. I think we have to make a choice as to whether we want the end result of global movement of people to be fortress Britain, or the painful compromises that come from taking many, many more migrants into UK. I don't think there is another option. - It is a morally and practically important fact that the UK is far more wealthy than most nations on earth. I'd argue a significant part of each of our wealth today is directly as a result of exploitative global trade arragements, particularly during the heiight of empire. But even if you dispute that, I find it very hard to make a moral case for why any of us should be prosperous and comfortable enought to e.g. heat our homes simply because of the accident of where we are born. - It is of course a very thorny political issue as to how we acknowledge the point I have just made, without forcing poorer people in UK to bear the brunt of the good intentions of richer people like me. Therefore the global issue bleeds into our national politics (and for me personally a deep lack of respect for those who are personally wealth and seek to avoid e.g. paying tax). We need to design UK policy to protect both those who are poorer here, and those who arrive on our shores. This isn't easy, but the alternative (fortress Britain) is, I believe, far worse.
A very good and considered post and I agree with the broad thrust of it (it is true I would say I am historically more on the centre right than centre left).
Your point on supporting poorer people particularly chimes with me. This is something that a lot of the sound and fury of the debate conveniently leaves out - on the right because it means spending money, on the left because it is easier to infer bad intentions from someone raising genuine concerns.
Indeed I would say one of the greatest faults of the 2010-2015 government was dismantling a number of local community services ostensibly on cost efficiency grounds whereas what would have been better would have been to look at what was being delivered and how it could be better used to achieve ambitions such as these, without being too constrained by government control once established. This was particularly unfortunate given Cameron’s (I believe genuine) views around the big society - a widely mocked concept but one that had the right underpinnings to it.
Yep - talking about the Big Society while cutting off everything that could support it (Surestart, libraries even) wasn't a good plan.
I will start by saying that I have no qualms on government spending on such items if they make sense. Sadly however because of how politicians of all sides prefer in implementation we often really never know.
We should be demanding a lot more of the following
This is how much it will cost This is what it is designed to achieve This is how we will measure it This is the timescale to get to those results
Then we can drop things if they turn out not to be producing the value claimed for the money. We also need to have those measurements published by someone like ONS so the figures don't get twisted.
An example of this is SureStart....I have heard both it helped poor people and contrariwise that it was mostly used as cheap child care by middle classes and the poor didn't use it in numbers.
Which is true? Damned if I know....somethings will work beyond expectations, somethings won't live upto the hype but unless they are measured against the reasons for doing them how can we know which to expand and which to ditch?
This is an interesting one.
You are right of course that when working with finite resource and public funds there is a pressure to show demonstrable outcomes. However I think to fixate too much on this requires too much interventionism and inflexibility.
I can agree that the government should be a facilitator of community services. As someone who has that centre-right belief in personal agency and accountability and is a bit suspicious of top-down directives and micromanagement, I believe the people who run those services are the ones who have the best knowledge of their local communities and how they are engaged and best supported. Yes there needs to be some sort of metric to measure funding formulae (attendance is usually the bluntest but easiest tool), but a lot of the benefits of these services are much harder to measure - e.g a successful youth service might help in reducing anti social behaviour, but it is hard to make the jump from X to Y.
I think I come down on the side of periodic audits, more than anything else.
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
What they really mean is we don’t want any safe routes and want to stop any refugees . What a shameful day for this country . Absolutely disgustingl
Would your solution to small boats be to send a big boat to pick everyone up?
Do you support safe and legal routes ? If you do then that policy needs to be enacted ASAP. By saying no safe and legal routes until the boats have stopped means those routes will never be available.
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
That's where I'm at tbh, football pundits should be free to say whatever they please. No one's forcing me to agree with them.
Or even take any notice of them. The only interest I have in the story is certainly not prompted by any ongoing curiosity about his opinions, even though I agree with his opposition to Braverman's policy.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. What I disagree with is someone who has just had an extremely public fight with his employer deciding the way to move that forward is...another tweet about immigration. Surely you can see that is an entirely gratuitous slap in their face? Basically, I won, you lost and I am going to rub your faces in it.
Maybe he just wanted to thank the people who supported him and share his compassionate and humane approach to refugees? That's how I read it.
You're obviously a much nicer person than me. But then, we knew that already. 😉
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
I for one believe Mortimer, I just don't think his pub poll is likely to be that representative. Anymore than my (somewhat leftie) bookclub would be.
We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
I also view it as a pub situation - in which case it's very likely people are agreeing with Mr "always looking for an argument" because they just wanted a quiet drink.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
As if the last week hadn't caused enough damage to the BBC, Gary Linekar decided that he could not be gracious enough to give his own ego the day off even just briefly on the day the matter was finally settled. But when you decide to make yourself the man that is bigger than the rest of the coporation, you simple undermine it even further in its current form. I am now sure we will not have long to wait until another Linekar twitter controversy blows up and makes life difficult for his BBC bosses and colleagues.
Do you think BBC management was in the least bit "gracious" or intended to make his life anything other than difficult when it wrongly suspended Lineker?
"finally settled" - yes; that's right. It is clearly "settled" with no fall-out to come.
First, I condemn what Fiona Bruce is reported to have said re: Stanley Johnson.
Second, have to think it was a monumental mistake on her part become the talking head for QT.
Third, here in the USA, the only thing that FB is known for, is as (former?) presenter for Antique Road Show. Which is great, indeed much better than the US copy-cat. And she's a major part of the show's appeal, at least on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific)?
What possessed her to say what she said? Somehow doubt it was due to desire to propitiate Tory establishment, seeing has how most of them likely have same fond view of Boris Johnson (in private anyway) as the Republican establishment currently has (ditto) of Donald Trump.
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is sometthing to be excited about, fill yer boots.
You're assuming the SNP is at its lowest point.
Well, you're perfectly entitled to assume it isn't, but I'm not sure how credible your insights in the matter are. Fyi the polling gap between Yes and No has been greater than 8pts over twenty times since 2014, and that's not including the laughable Scotland in Union efforts.
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
I for one believe Mortimer, I just don't think his pub poll is likely to be that representative. Anymore than my (somewhat leftie) bookclub would be.
We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
Well the clientele are apparently "local farming types who think Clarkson would do a better job on MOTD".
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is sometthing to be excited about, fill yer boots.
You're assuming the SNP is at its lowest point.
Well, you're perfectly entitled to assume it isn't, but I'm not sure how credible your insights in the matter are. Fyi the polling gap between Yes and No has been greater than 8pts over twenty times since 2014, and that's not including the laughable Scotland in Union efforts.
I'm not assuming anything either way. The SNP leadership candidates' comments in recent days on future referendum dates are quite interesting.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.
But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
Personally think the "Lineker did not use the N-word" is a load of hooey, as it's obvious (at least to me) that his tweet was carefully crafted to NOT directly say "Nazi" but to make it crystal clear (that is, Kristallnacht clear) precisely to whom he was referring.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.
But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
I'm not sure there is any such rule against such comparisons. It always depends on the situation. eg here's the Independent comparing Katie Hopkins to Hitler, despite Katie Hopkins not being responsible for murdering 6 million people:
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
That isn't true at all. The more people that come via any route, the more pull it creates for future migrants via any route. This was demonstrated extremely clearly with Merkel. There isn't a fixed amount of potential migrants that can come given the huge chunk of the world in warzones or dictatorships.
Yep, the idea that taking 100k from the dreadful camps around the disaster that was Syria would reduce the number seeking to cross the channel at all is absurdly optimistic, actually naive.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
If for real, that’s an awful poll for the Tories, but it’s claiming fieldwork today?
If other firms follow suit, the “clear blue water between Tory and Labour on unfettered illegal immigration” push from Tory’s has dramatically blown up in their faces 😟
This is not about small boats. Only a few right wing Tory obsessives care about small boats. This is now much bigger than that. It's about whether the NASTY PARTY is back and what the public make of it.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
There’s a reason traditional Guernsey jumpers were knitted with individual patterns unique to each fisherman - after a couple of days in the sea it’s often the only way a body is readily identifiable.
My wife says that all her aunts had their own patterns that they put into their 'gansey's for their husband's and they would have recognised their own work
My wife's father had 8 brothers all Lossiemouth fishermen, 2 sisters, and 2 died in infancy
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Given that the stories I've heard were from residents of the Shetlands - urban myth isn't quite correct.
I think 'urban' is not being used in the context of town/city in the phrase 'urban legend/myth'.
The fact that no one was actually recognised from their jersey doesn't stop people from making jerseys which would make that possible. It's a bit like prayer!
True, but its an oft repeated tale that has no basis. Different knitters had their patterns, but not for the reason of identifying their dead loved ones...
Tell you what. One of the best things about this country are the snap polls that take place at the end of every evening in the sort of “Everyman” pub @Mortimer frequents and that the rest of us as strangers to.
The most interesting thing about the whole affair, IMO, is that Lineker was doing what many people do - including any number of journalists and the most senior politicians: comparing something they don't like to the Nazis. It's a point of reference that's ingrained into UK discourse and culture. It really only gets tackled with history teaching providing more reference points and better context. For understandable reasons, we obsess about WW2 and the lead up to it in the UK, but it does then cloud judgement and perspective.
Comparing or linking anything with Nazis (short of the Goebbels Diaries anyway) is highly problematic ANYWHERE, at least in English-speaking world. Because 99% of the time it is counter-productive due to backlash and blowback, for being ipso facto over the top.
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
Point of order: Linekler did not use the N-word.
But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
Personally think the "Lineker did not use the N-word" is a load of hooey, as it's obvious (at least to me) that his tweet was carefully crafted to NOT directly say "Nazi" but to make it crystal clear (that is, Kristallnacht clear) precisely to whom he was referring.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
Can't really be arsed engaging on this subject with people who dumped the huge CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak shitberg in the sewers of UK politics (and vicariously on my country without the inconvenience of requiring democratic support). A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
Smarting from that poll much?
Low information long distance drivellers, tenshun!
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
Feels like the trend is our friend.
Unionists that is.
Not those who want to tear up this great country.
I salute the efforts of you and others who kept pumping CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak down your lavvies, your contributions to tearing up this great(sic) country have been inestimable.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
I feel a bit for her because I don’t think she was actually trying to make excuses for him, I think she was caught in a tricky situation on live telly and panicked and she accidentally engaged the “both sides of the argument” brain when she should have just said something a bit non-committal and disclaimer-y.
Comments
RDS is fellow-traveller along with Boris, Liz, Rishi, etc., etc., on the theoretically libertarian > actually authoritarian bullet train.
https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/
We should be demanding a lot more of the following
This is how much it will cost
This is what it is designed to achieve
This is how we will measure it
This is the timescale to get to those results
Then we can drop things if they turn out not to be producing the value claimed for the money. We also need to have those measurements published by someone like ONS so the figures don't get twisted.
An example of this is SureStart....I have heard both it helped poor people and contrariwise that it was mostly used as cheap child care by middle classes and the poor didn't use it in numbers.
Which is true? Damned if I know....somethings will work beyond expectations, somethings won't live upto the hype but unless they are measured against the reasons for doing them how can we know which to expand and which to ditch?
Another front in the BBC wars.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
However, no doubt he'll be goaded by his core base to do more, and he might well succumb to that.
For example, description of the scene in the head office of (IIRC) the "Sunday Times" when they called up the distinguished Lord Daycare (sp?) to refute claims that the "diaries" he'd "authenticated" were bogus as a 3-pound note. Only to hear from the horse's (ass's) own lips that that his assurances were horsepoop.
BTW (also FYI) this was not long after Dr. Huge Trevor-Roper had published a book about a notorious literary con artist. Ha! Ha! Ha!
https://www.amazon.com/Hermit-Peking-Hidden-Edmund-Backhouse/dp/190601101X
Forgery of books is almost non existent (the exceptions really prove the rule: https://www.openculture.com/2014/02/how-a-book-thief-forged-a-rare-edition-of-galileos-scientific-work-and-almost-pulled-it-off.html)
So I'm relatively lucky - the real headache is in modern signatures, pop and sport memorabilia.
My first thought when presented with one is always that a 20th century signature of a famous person is likely to be a fake without cast iron provenance, whilst a seventeenth-century signature of a minor historical character is more likely than not correct. Commerce drives fakes.
That said, we're not immune. Shakespeare documents have been forged for over 200 years, though. William Henry Ireland was prolific! The bigger problem is facsimiles and restoration, which are often not sufficiently well understood. The better technology gets, the more this is going to be a problem.
And yet I thought you were one for free speech. Oops I forgot, the only free speech you like is the one that reflects your worldview,
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
What they really mean is we don’t want any safe routes and want to stop any refugees . What a shameful day for this country . Absolutely disgustingl
OR will the vote be . . . postponed?
The real problem seems to be that once confidence was lost the withdrawals were large scale and instantaneous. Basically, unlike a lot of banks they had a lot of very cash rich clients who could move around millions at the drop of a hat. I noticed that the UK customer of the UK branch confirmed his business had millions in credit with the bank. Most banks would have a much larger, much flatter, less nimble base. Once Twitter told Finance Managers in that sector there was a problem they were hit with an avalanche.
Personally, I suspect that HSBC have picked up a rather nice bargain here.
A period of silent reflection from them would be too much to ask, but taking seriously their low information long distance drivel, nah.
(Forgive me though if I can't help but smile at the thought of the BBC management, having cravenly given in to Braverman, Dorris et al and monumentally f*cked up the whole affair, receiving a final dig from Lineker to remind them who has won here.)
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
Another example of the BBC being so nervous about its current approach that it ends up shooting itself in the foot for fear of being seen to be biased.
I'm sure nothing will change with the structure of the BBC in terms of funding and ownership, but it certainly should.
He has agreed to abide by the existing guidelines, which allowed him to Tweet in the first place.
We live in truly strange times when Lineker who was trying to show some humanity is pulled from the schedules and Bruce green lighting domestic violence as long as it’s only once is still there !
You may want to be in denial but the SNP are utterly divided as independence recedes into relevance
'During the early part of the 21st century the UK endured a devastating CameronBrexitMayJohnsonTrussSunak.'
He has agreed to stick by the current guidelines whilst the review is undertaken. So I think this means he will cool it.
I don't have time to argue with you, as I'm working, but I can see it would be a total waste of my time if I did anyway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/13/democrats-senate-michigan-stabenow-slotkin-00086655
So you couldn't have found yourself at the Cock but a good rhetorical touch nevertheless.
"We need more wilderness" and "We need to support hill farmers to stop the land reverting to wilderness".
Garygate is interesting because, thanks to masterful handing by BBB on behalf of HMG, it is the EXCEPTION that proves this rule.
Is there really much doubt, that IF the Beeb and Tories had simply gone the usual route, of attacking Lineker's use of the N-word but NOT demanding his head on a pike, this would have been at best a one-day wonder, with the onus being on GL?
The DG himself referred to 'ambiguity'.
The idea, suggested upthread, that the BBC will slowtime the review, to shut people up in the meantime, seems misguided.
But yes, the BBC and HMG went full Streisand on this with predictable results.
I remember you crowing mistakenly over an indy poll that turned out to be several months old. If you think a poll taken when the SNP is at its lowest point that has support of the Union lower than at the referendum is something to be excited about, fill yer boots.
But that does not excuse Lineker being an arse.
I would also like to know what was coming from the gallery into her earpiece - was she instructed to say that, and if so, by whom?
We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
Women in Berlin allowed to go topless in swimming pools, says state government
https://news.sky.com/story/women-in-berlin-allowed-to-go-topless-in-swimming-pools-says-state-government-12832913
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1635294392474013696
You are right of course that when working with finite resource and public funds there is a pressure to show demonstrable outcomes. However I think to fixate too much on this requires too much interventionism and inflexibility.
I can agree that the government should be a facilitator of community services. As someone who has that centre-right belief in personal agency and accountability and is a bit suspicious of top-down directives and micromanagement, I believe the people who run those services are the ones who have the best knowledge of their local communities and how they are engaged and best supported. Yes there needs to be some sort of metric to measure funding formulae (attendance is usually the bluntest but easiest tool), but a lot of the benefits of these services are much harder to measure - e.g a successful youth service might help in reducing anti social behaviour, but it is hard to make the jump from X to Y.
I think I come down on the side of periodic audits, more than anything else.
The only interest I have in the story is certainly not prompted by any ongoing curiosity about his opinions, even though I agree with his opposition to Braverman's policy.
Heck I do that fairly often...
Second, have to think it was a monumental mistake on her part become the talking head for QT.
Third, here in the USA, the only thing that FB is known for, is as (former?) presenter for Antique Road Show. Which is great, indeed much better than the US copy-cat. And she's a major part of the show's appeal, at least on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific)?
What possessed her to say what she said? Somehow doubt it was due to desire to propitiate Tory establishment, seeing has how most of them likely have same fond view of Boris Johnson (in private anyway) as the Republican establishment currently has (ditto) of Donald Trump.
Fyi the polling gap between Yes and No has been greater than 8pts over twenty times since 2014, and that's not including the laughable Scotland in Union efforts.
Unionists that is.
Not those who want to tear up this great country.
"I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand
At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
Mine's a SWIFT half!
Certainly NOT the German Bund of Birdwatchers!
eg here's the Independent comparing Katie Hopkins to Hitler, despite Katie Hopkins not being responsible for murdering 6 million people:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-enough-enough-10186490.html
headline:
'Katie Hopkins has just written a piece so hateful that it might give Hitler pause – why was it published?'
Archaeologists hail ‘once in a lifetime’ discovery of Roman and Saxon site dating back 1,600 years
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/13/remains-roman-aristocrat-extraordinary-cemetery-leeds
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !