The press love anything that sells papers in the silly season, they love sex scandals at any time, they love moralising about sex scandals and they love talking about themselves.
Of course they would find this one irresistible.
Also the media love talking about the media....
And media groups with rival broadcasting arms love bashing the BBC.
Well it goes both ways.
After thinking about it for 30 seconds, I'm not sure it does go both ways. Does the BBC habitually attack Fleet Street or other media groups?
ETA a quick glance at the Telegraph and Times home pages finds two other anti-BBC stories, unrelated to this one. Where is the BBC's equivalent?
None of the BBC's rivals are extracting money with menaces from the BBC's customers. You might not agree with the editorial position of, say, The Telegraph or The Guardian, but you are freenit to consume them in a way you are not with the BBC. Not surprising if anti-beebery is only one way. That said, the Beeb was right on board when Hugh Grant was trying to limit the power of the press. The BBC are keen to hit back when they can. The Beeb are very much of the view that life would be better if they were the only arbiter of the news agenda.
True and they even have their own fact check service set up with BBC Verify.
It’s time we found an alternative way to fund the BBC removing the license fee and funding the means of transmission via taxation.
Richard Sharp, yesterday, was saying the ‘well off’ should pay more for the BBC than poorer households. No. The BBC is losing listeners and viewers. The license fee in its current form is untenable. You cannot demand people pay more for a service they use less and less.
I've been saying this for years, and the reaction from many was "You just hate the BBC!"
Which is rubbish. I love the BBC. I personally have zero problem with paying the licence fee, and believe I get value for it from BBC 4 alone.
But I'm not everyone, and the world has become a much more exciting place, media-wise. People can get their entertainment and news from so many more sources, and the licence fee increasingly looks like an anachronism of little relevance to large sectors of the population.
I don't know what the answer is, but people who proclaim to love the BBC should be asking whether insisting on keeping the licence fee is actually going to kill the thing they love.
We used to pay for Sky but we found that the only channels we watched live were BBC/Sky News channels and music channels on in the background. Everything else we watched on catch up. We gradually realised how much money we were wasting by not watching broadcast TV so cancelled our subscription and decided to do without broadcast telly completely, cancelling the TV licence as well. We now watch far less TV, only watching YouTube/Netflix/Prime and that tends to be only for an hour or two in the evening. I didn't cancel the TV licence because I hate the BBC, but because we don't watch 99% of their output, same as Sky. The majority of sports are all pay per view anyway, but we're not allowed to pay for it and watch it live by a recognised broadcaster as we don't have a TV licence, so that means I can't pay 6 quid for Discovery Plus to watch the Mountain Biking Downhill World Cup because I don't pay the BBC 160 quid! Last year, when RedBull had the rights, they broadcast it live free, so we could watch it because they're not a recognised broadcaster (although that's quite a grey area). The internet does mean you can always find a stream to watch somewhere, but that's piracy and a very bad thing. My 3 boys never, ever watch broadcast TV, but know all about current programmes and "stars" because of the internet. They'll never pay the TC licence and I suspect it's the same for most of they're friends. The BBC need to find an alternative.
Many moons ago, a colleague of mine got married. He had been living with his fiancé for years, and just before they tied the knot, they decided to rationalise their affairs; get wills done etc.
He had taken out a sky subscription a decade previously, on a basic sports package. But over the years, as special offers on events had occurred, he had taken out more and more subs - to the extent it was costing a fortune each month. Since they were both well-paid engineers he had not really noticed the outgoings.
So he tried to think back to what they had watched over the previous few months, realised it was next to nothing, and cancelled the lot. The thinking being that he could always get a new subscription if he wanted.
I fear it is very easy for these things to get out of hand.
FWIW I hardly ever watch telly at all because there is too much of it and the quality is pretty dire compared with reading a book, or the radio. Or indeed watching a dormouse sleeping.
I use radio a lot. We have a TV licence - like most older people - partly because of Gardeners World and bits of other live broadcasting, and the times that BBC TV news service is just sort of essential.
Radio is free, but a mix of R4, R3, R5, TMS, and World Service is easily worth double the licence fee. I use LBC a bit but the intrusive advertising is just abysmal. So long live the BBC with all its faults.
Serious question: What do politics anoraks without a TV licence do at 10pm on General Election night?
Personally, on election nights, I'm on here. Coverage is far better, more intelligent and more even handed. 90% of the time talking political heads say exactly what you would have expected them to say.
That said, last election, I was so nervous I couldn't watch anything except the price of the pound. Once it became apparent that that had gone up a bit, it was apparent enough that my worst case scenario had been avoided. I watched a bit of the BBC coverage, but it was like watching a funeral, so I turned over to ITV, where the coverage was surprisingly good. The Balls/Osborne double act, in particular, was excellent, as was Alan Johnson. That would have been worth paying for, except that because of the unique way ITV is funded, you don't have to.
Anyway - a quick audit of my viewing habits over the past fortnight puts Amazon prime well out in front, because I'm re-watching Parks and Recreation from the start - but in second place is Channel 5 and its moderately interesting real life shows about the emergency services or railways or life in picturesque parts of England. TV that doesn't hate you.
Point taken re election night, in part I do the same; but PB content on election night is, in general, an informed distillation from material coming in from multiple media sources, so it won't do on its own. For me - a traditionalist - the BBC remains the best single constant source, though not the quickest, on election night. Though it has dire moments.
Election night is ritual as well as information. BBC does this best still.
Sorry but the BBC is no better at that than Sky or other sources, let alone PB which is far, far better.
The days of the BBC being somehow without peer are long, long gone.
Unfair comparison. PB (comments) is almost exclusively relying on the reporting of the BBC and others, so of course it is more up to date than any one source, but they are primary sources with people on the ground - say if the PA makes a mistake, the reporters can often see that there's been an error, while all data service users can do is speculate.
Sorry but no, PB is normally well ahead of the BBC. Hence why PBers can make good money on election nights, by being ahead of the curve.
But if you wish to compare the BBC to other on the ground sources, there seems little to no difference between election night reporting from the BBC or from Sky News.
Not sure what your disagreement is. PB (comments) is only as up to date as the sum of all media sources. The BBC could do the same if they began just republishing ITV / Sky work, which is probably against professional courtesy. But the fallacy that the Internet is smarter than media really bugs me.
The disagreement is with the idea that the BBC is somehow 'better'.
The BBC is no better than Sky/ITV.
That PB is better than the BBC is not a fallacy, because collating multiple sources including Press Association etc that aren't on TV immediately is better than relying upon a single, solitary, inferior source like the BBC - or any other single, solitary source.
Some of us made a lot of money because the legacy media where miles behind on Brexit analysis. For hours and hours after it was clear what the result was (thanks to Andy magic spreadsheet) they were still talking about well if this part of London votes heavily Remain etc etc etc.
This wasn't based on rumours, it was based on the official results.
The press love anything that sells papers in the silly season, they love sex scandals at any time, they love moralising about sex scandals and they love talking about themselves.
Of course they would find this one irresistible.
Also the media love talking about the media....
And media groups with rival broadcasting arms love bashing the BBC.
Well it goes both ways.
After thinking about it for 30 seconds, I'm not sure it does go both ways. Does the BBC habitually attack Fleet Street or other media groups?
ETA a quick glance at the Telegraph and Times home pages finds two other anti-BBC stories, unrelated to this one. Where is the BBC's equivalent?
None of the BBC's rivals are extracting money with menaces from the BBC's customers. You might not agree with the editorial position of, say, The Telegraph or The Guardian, but you are freenit to consume them in a way you are not with the BBC. Not surprising if anti-beebery is only one way. That said, the Beeb was right on board when Hugh Grant was trying to limit the power of the press. The BBC are keen to hit back when they can. The Beeb are very much of the view that life would be better if they were the only arbiter of the news agenda.
True and they even have their own fact check service set up with BBC Verify.
It’s time we found an alternative way to fund the BBC removing the license fee and funding the means of transmission via taxation.
Richard Sharp, yesterday, was saying the ‘well off’ should pay more for the BBC than poorer households. No. The BBC is losing listeners and viewers. The license fee in its current form is untenable. You cannot demand people pay more for a service they use less and less.
I've been saying this for years, and the reaction from many was "You just hate the BBC!"
Which is rubbish. I love the BBC. I personally have zero problem with paying the licence fee, and believe I get value for it from BBC 4 alone.
But I'm not everyone, and the world has become a much more exciting place, media-wise. People can get their entertainment and news from so many more sources, and the licence fee increasingly looks like an anachronism of little relevance to large sectors of the population.
I don't know what the answer is, but people who proclaim to love the BBC should be asking whether insisting on keeping the licence fee is actually going to kill the thing they love.
We used to pay for Sky but we found that the only channels we watched live were BBC/Sky News channels and music channels on in the background. Everything else we watched on catch up. We gradually realised how much money we were wasting by not watching broadcast TV so cancelled our subscription and decided to do without broadcast telly completely, cancelling the TV licence as well. We now watch far less TV, only watching YouTube/Netflix/Prime and that tends to be only for an hour or two in the evening. I didn't cancel the TV licence because I hate the BBC, but because we don't watch 99% of their output, same as Sky. The majority of sports are all pay per view anyway, but we're not allowed to pay for it and watch it live by a recognised broadcaster as we don't have a TV licence, so that means I can't pay 6 quid for Discovery Plus to watch the Mountain Biking Downhill World Cup because I don't pay the BBC 160 quid! Last year, when RedBull had the rights, they broadcast it live free, so we could watch it because they're not a recognised broadcaster (although that's quite a grey area). The internet does mean you can always find a stream to watch somewhere, but that's piracy and a very bad thing. My 3 boys never, ever watch broadcast TV, but know all about current programmes and "stars" because of the internet. They'll never pay the TC licence and I suspect it's the same for most of they're friends. The BBC need to find an alternative.
Many moons ago, a colleague of mine got married. He had been living with his fiancé for years, and just before they tied the knot, they decided to rationalise their affairs; get wills done etc.
He had taken out a sky subscription a decade previously, on a basic sports package. But over the years, as special offers on events had occurred, he had taken out more and more subs - to the extent it was costing a fortune each month. Since they were both well-paid engineers he had not really noticed the outgoings.
So he tried to think back to what they had watched over the previous few months, realised it was next to nothing, and cancelled the lot. The thinking being that he could always get a new subscription if he wanted.
I fear it is very easy for these things to get out of hand.
FWIW I hardly ever watch telly at all because there is too much of it and the quality is pretty dire compared with reading a book, or the radio. Or indeed watching a dormouse sleeping.
I use radio a lot. We have a TV licence - like most older people - partly because of Gardeners World and bits of other live broadcasting, and the times that BBC TV news service is just sort of essential.
Radio is free, but a mix of R4, R3, R5, TMS, and World Service is easily worth double the licence fee. I use LBC a bit but the intrusive advertising is just abysmal. So long live the BBC with all its faults.
Serious question: What do politics anoraks without a TV licence do at 10pm on General Election night?
Personally, on election nights, I'm on here. Coverage is far better, more intelligent and more even handed. 90% of the time talking political heads say exactly what you would have expected them to say.
That said, last election, I was so nervous I couldn't watch anything except the price of the pound. Once it became apparent that that had gone up a bit, it was apparent enough that my worst case scenario had been avoided. I watched a bit of the BBC coverage, but it was like watching a funeral, so I turned over to ITV, where the coverage was surprisingly good. The Balls/Osborne double act, in particular, was excellent, as was Alan Johnson. That would have been worth paying for, except that because of the unique way ITV is funded, you don't have to.
Anyway - a quick audit of my viewing habits over the past fortnight puts Amazon prime well out in front, because I'm re-watching Parks and Recreation from the start - but in second place is Channel 5 and its moderately interesting real life shows about the emergency services or railways or life in picturesque parts of England. TV that doesn't hate you.
Point taken re election night, in part I do the same; but PB content on election night is, in general, an informed distillation from material coming in from multiple media sources, so it won't do on its own. For me - a traditionalist - the BBC remains the best single constant source, though not the quickest, on election night. Though it has dire moments.
Election night is ritual as well as information. BBC does this best still.
Sorry but the BBC is no better at that than Sky or other sources, let alone PB which is far, far better.
The days of the BBC being somehow without peer are long, long gone.
Unfair comparison. PB (comments) is almost exclusively relying on the reporting of the BBC and others, so of course it is more up to date than any one source, but they are primary sources with people on the ground - say if the PA makes a mistake, the reporters can often see that there's been an error, while all data service users can do is speculate.
Agree you do need the people on the ground (or at least, we benefit from them). It's just no longer obviously the case that the BBC do it any better than anyone else. For my tastes, they're slightly less good than their direct competitors at ITN and Sky.
Beyond the basic duty of journalistic monitoring of elections, an election night is a live entertainment product where what's good is subjective. I see it like live sports. The pure fact and analysis takes a back seat behind covering moments of drama and narrative.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
If Macquarie sold its final stake six years ago (so from a reading of that began selling even further back) then its not their responsibility.
Presumably whoever bought the stock six or more years ago did their due diligence at the time of purchase?
They loaded the company with debt (a fair amount of which they allegedly still hold) partially in order to pay themselves outsize dividends. So the current financial state uf the company is very much their doing. Legally they escape responsibility, as they have passed the equity in the whole mess on to some other suckers.
Those in charge of regulator which allowed them to do so is also responsible - though again will avoid any consequences.
Privatisation of monopoly utilities is a heads they win, tails the customer loses, proposition. Utterly indefensible.
Sorry but they sold their stake to private firms who did their own due diligence and decided it was worth investing in.
Now maybe that due diligence was flawed, but if it was it was there responsibility, not the taxpayers and not Macquaries.
Though you haven't said how the customer loses if Thames goes bust. The losers will be the 'suckers' who failed to do good enough due diligence presumably, and the bondholders, not the customers. If Thames goes bust and gets nationalised for £1 with the bondholders and the shareholders wiped out then the losses will be purely in the private sector, not the taxpayer or customer's burden.
You are missing the point. What irks me is that the regulator has allowed outsize profits and dividends in a monopoly industry - at the same time as large amounts if debt were run up.
It would bother me if Thames went bust and were taken into emergency public ownership. That's probably the best deal for customers now.
What looks more likely is that the regulator will allow prices to be bumped up in order to keep paying private share and bond holders.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
Used to a long time ago. Don't now and haven't for a very, very long time. @HYUFD and I get on very well now with which I think he will agree. We obviously discuss things but it is always very amicable now and are more likely to like each others posts than argue. I really can't think of the last time we had a spat, but I do agree we used to. Can't think of a single other person really. I suppose occasionally with Leon, but that is mainly banter.
Also, which I should have said, I can't take credit for all of that. There is at least 50% credit due to @hyufd.
I'm embarrassed that you remember that @TOPPING , especially after so much time.
It's 50% each. But only when you exclude the don't-knows.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
I have discovered you can cancel and reclaim. So I got a licence at the beginning of the month (cricket tdf Wimbledon) and am stopping it on 1 August, whereupon the hectoring letters will no doubt resume.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
If Macquarie sold its final stake six years ago (so from a reading of that began selling even further back) then its not their responsibility.
Presumably whoever bought the stock six or more years ago did their due diligence at the time of purchase?
They loaded the company with debt (a fair amount of which they allegedly still hold) partially in order to pay themselves outsize dividends. So the current financial state uf the company is very much their doing. Legally they escape responsibility, as they have passed the equity in the whole mess on to some other suckers.
Those in charge of regulator which allowed them to do so is also responsible - though again will avoid any consequences.
Privatisation of monopoly utilities is a heads they win, tails the customer loses, proposition. Utterly indefensible.
Sorry but they sold their stake to private firms who did their own due diligence and decided it was worth investing in.
Now maybe that due diligence was flawed, but if it was it was there responsibility, not the taxpayers and not Macquaries.
Though you haven't said how the customer loses if Thames goes bust. The losers will be the 'suckers' who failed to do good enough due diligence presumably, and the bondholders, not the customers. If Thames goes bust and gets nationalised for £1 with the bondholders and the shareholders wiped out then the losses will be purely in the private sector, not the taxpayer or customer's burden.
You are missing the point. What irks me is that the regulator has allowed outsize profits and dividends in a monopoly industry - at the same time as large amounts if debt were run up.
It would bother me if Thames went bust and were taken into emergency public ownership. That's probably the best deal for customers now.
What looks more likely is that the regulator will allow prices to be bumped up in order to keep paying private share and bond holders.
Let's not forget the law is that dividends can only be paid out of taxed profits.
You can't just run a loss, borrow money, and pay out dividends.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
The press love anything that sells papers in the silly season, they love sex scandals at any time, they love moralising about sex scandals and they love talking about themselves.
Of course they would find this one irresistible.
Also the media love talking about the media....
And media groups with rival broadcasting arms love bashing the BBC.
Well it goes both ways.
After thinking about it for 30 seconds, I'm not sure it does go both ways. Does the BBC habitually attack Fleet Street or other media groups?
ETA a quick glance at the Telegraph and Times home pages finds two other anti-BBC stories, unrelated to this one. Where is the BBC's equivalent?
None of the BBC's rivals are extracting money with menaces from the BBC's customers. You might not agree with the editorial position of, say, The Telegraph or The Guardian, but you are freenit to consume them in a way you are not with the BBC. Not surprising if anti-beebery is only one way. That said, the Beeb was right on board when Hugh Grant was trying to limit the power of the press. The BBC are keen to hit back when they can. The Beeb are very much of the view that life would be better if they were the only arbiter of the news agenda.
True and they even have their own fact check service set up with BBC Verify.
It’s time we found an alternative way to fund the BBC removing the license fee and funding the means of transmission via taxation.
Richard Sharp, yesterday, was saying the ‘well off’ should pay more for the BBC than poorer households. No. The BBC is losing listeners and viewers. The license fee in its current form is untenable. You cannot demand people pay more for a service they use less and less.
I've been saying this for years, and the reaction from many was "You just hate the BBC!"
Which is rubbish. I love the BBC. I personally have zero problem with paying the licence fee, and believe I get value for it from BBC 4 alone.
But I'm not everyone, and the world has become a much more exciting place, media-wise. People can get their entertainment and news from so many more sources, and the licence fee increasingly looks like an anachronism of little relevance to large sectors of the population.
I don't know what the answer is, but people who proclaim to love the BBC should be asking whether insisting on keeping the licence fee is actually going to kill the thing they love.
We used to pay for Sky but we found that the only channels we watched live were BBC/Sky News channels and music channels on in the background. Everything else we watched on catch up. We gradually realised how much money we were wasting by not watching broadcast TV so cancelled our subscription and decided to do without broadcast telly completely, cancelling the TV licence as well. We now watch far less TV, only watching YouTube/Netflix/Prime and that tends to be only for an hour or two in the evening. I didn't cancel the TV licence because I hate the BBC, but because we don't watch 99% of their output, same as Sky. The majority of sports are all pay per view anyway, but we're not allowed to pay for it and watch it live by a recognised broadcaster as we don't have a TV licence, so that means I can't pay 6 quid for Discovery Plus to watch the Mountain Biking Downhill World Cup because I don't pay the BBC 160 quid! Last year, when RedBull had the rights, they broadcast it live free, so we could watch it because they're not a recognised broadcaster (although that's quite a grey area). The internet does mean you can always find a stream to watch somewhere, but that's piracy and a very bad thing. My 3 boys never, ever watch broadcast TV, but know all about current programmes and "stars" because of the internet. They'll never pay the TC licence and I suspect it's the same for most of they're friends. The BBC need to find an alternative.
Many moons ago, a colleague of mine got married. He had been living with his fiancé for years, and just before they tied the knot, they decided to rationalise their affairs; get wills done etc.
He had taken out a sky subscription a decade previously, on a basic sports package. But over the years, as special offers on events had occurred, he had taken out more and more subs - to the extent it was costing a fortune each month. Since they were both well-paid engineers he had not really noticed the outgoings.
So he tried to think back to what they had watched over the previous few months, realised it was next to nothing, and cancelled the lot. The thinking being that he could always get a new subscription if he wanted.
I fear it is very easy for these things to get out of hand.
FWIW I hardly ever watch telly at all because there is too much of it and the quality is pretty dire compared with reading a book, or the radio. Or indeed watching a dormouse sleeping.
I use radio a lot. We have a TV licence - like most older people - partly because of Gardeners World and bits of other live broadcasting, and the times that BBC TV news service is just sort of essential.
Radio is free, but a mix of R4, R3, R5, TMS, and World Service is easily worth double the licence fee. I use LBC a bit but the intrusive advertising is just abysmal. So long live the BBC with all its faults.
Serious question: What do politics anoraks without a TV licence do at 10pm on General Election night?
Personally, on election nights, I'm on here. Coverage is far better, more intelligent and more even handed. 90% of the time talking political heads say exactly what you would have expected them to say.
That said, last election, I was so nervous I couldn't watch anything except the price of the pound. Once it became apparent that that had gone up a bit, it was apparent enough that my worst case scenario had been avoided. I watched a bit of the BBC coverage, but it was like watching a funeral, so I turned over to ITV, where the coverage was surprisingly good. The Balls/Osborne double act, in particular, was excellent, as was Alan Johnson. That would have been worth paying for, except that because of the unique way ITV is funded, you don't have to.
Anyway - a quick audit of my viewing habits over the past fortnight puts Amazon prime well out in front, because I'm re-watching Parks and Recreation from the start - but in second place is Channel 5 and its moderately interesting real life shows about the emergency services or railways or life in picturesque parts of England. TV that doesn't hate you.
Point taken re election night, in part I do the same; but PB content on election night is, in general, an informed distillation from material coming in from multiple media sources, so it won't do on its own. For me - a traditionalist - the BBC remains the best single constant source, though not the quickest, on election night. Though it has dire moments.
Election night is ritual as well as information. BBC does this best still.
Sorry but the BBC is no better at that than Sky or other sources, let alone PB which is far, far better.
The days of the BBC being somehow without peer are long, long gone.
Unfair comparison. PB (comments) is almost exclusively relying on the reporting of the BBC and others, so of course it is more up to date than any one source, but they are primary sources with people on the ground - say if the PA makes a mistake, the reporters can often see that there's been an error, while all data service users can do is speculate.
Agree you do need the people on the ground (or at least, we benefit from them). It's just no longer obviously the case that the BBC do it any better than anyone else. For my tastes, they're slightly less good than their direct competitors at ITN and Sky.
Beyond the basic duty of journalistic monitoring of elections, an election night is a live entertainment product where what's good is subjective. I see it like live sports. The pure fact and analysis takes a back seat behind covering moments of drama and narrative.
Well that's true too. And some of the fun on here is of the 'who is this gobshite' sort rather than the 'look at the size of that swing' sort.
And I'd think we'd all think it peculiar if a news service didn't cover it.
I just don't think it's the case that the BBC do it better, or even, all things considered, particularly well at all.
Partly its a personality thing. I find Huw Edwards a bit grating compared to his counterparts on ITV and Sky.
The press love anything that sells papers in the silly season, they love sex scandals at any time, they love moralising about sex scandals and they love talking about themselves.
Of course they would find this one irresistible.
Also the media love talking about the media....
And media groups with rival broadcasting arms love bashing the BBC.
Well it goes both ways.
After thinking about it for 30 seconds, I'm not sure it does go both ways. Does the BBC habitually attack Fleet Street or other media groups?
ETA a quick glance at the Telegraph and Times home pages finds two other anti-BBC stories, unrelated to this one. Where is the BBC's equivalent?
None of the BBC's rivals are extracting money with menaces from the BBC's customers. You might not agree with the editorial position of, say, The Telegraph or The Guardian, but you are freenit to consume them in a way you are not with the BBC. Not surprising if anti-beebery is only one way. That said, the Beeb was right on board when Hugh Grant was trying to limit the power of the press. The BBC are keen to hit back when they can. The Beeb are very much of the view that life would be better if they were the only arbiter of the news agenda.
True and they even have their own fact check service set up with BBC Verify.
It’s time we found an alternative way to fund the BBC removing the license fee and funding the means of transmission via taxation.
Richard Sharp, yesterday, was saying the ‘well off’ should pay more for the BBC than poorer households. No. The BBC is losing listeners and viewers. The license fee in its current form is untenable. You cannot demand people pay more for a service they use less and less.
I've been saying this for years, and the reaction from many was "You just hate the BBC!"
Which is rubbish. I love the BBC. I personally have zero problem with paying the licence fee, and believe I get value for it from BBC 4 alone.
But I'm not everyone, and the world has become a much more exciting place, media-wise. People can get their entertainment and news from so many more sources, and the licence fee increasingly looks like an anachronism of little relevance to large sectors of the population.
I don't know what the answer is, but people who proclaim to love the BBC should be asking whether insisting on keeping the licence fee is actually going to kill the thing they love.
We used to pay for Sky but we found that the only channels we watched live were BBC/Sky News channels and music channels on in the background. Everything else we watched on catch up. We gradually realised how much money we were wasting by not watching broadcast TV so cancelled our subscription and decided to do without broadcast telly completely, cancelling the TV licence as well. We now watch far less TV, only watching YouTube/Netflix/Prime and that tends to be only for an hour or two in the evening. I didn't cancel the TV licence because I hate the BBC, but because we don't watch 99% of their output, same as Sky. The majority of sports are all pay per view anyway, but we're not allowed to pay for it and watch it live by a recognised broadcaster as we don't have a TV licence, so that means I can't pay 6 quid for Discovery Plus to watch the Mountain Biking Downhill World Cup because I don't pay the BBC 160 quid! Last year, when RedBull had the rights, they broadcast it live free, so we could watch it because they're not a recognised broadcaster (although that's quite a grey area). The internet does mean you can always find a stream to watch somewhere, but that's piracy and a very bad thing. My 3 boys never, ever watch broadcast TV, but know all about current programmes and "stars" because of the internet. They'll never pay the TC licence and I suspect it's the same for most of they're friends. The BBC need to find an alternative.
Many moons ago, a colleague of mine got married. He had been living with his fiancé for years, and just before they tied the knot, they decided to rationalise their affairs; get wills done etc.
He had taken out a sky subscription a decade previously, on a basic sports package. But over the years, as special offers on events had occurred, he had taken out more and more subs - to the extent it was costing a fortune each month. Since they were both well-paid engineers he had not really noticed the outgoings.
So he tried to think back to what they had watched over the previous few months, realised it was next to nothing, and cancelled the lot. The thinking being that he could always get a new subscription if he wanted.
I fear it is very easy for these things to get out of hand.
FWIW I hardly ever watch telly at all because there is too much of it and the quality is pretty dire compared with reading a book, or the radio. Or indeed watching a dormouse sleeping.
I use radio a lot. We have a TV licence - like most older people - partly because of Gardeners World and bits of other live broadcasting, and the times that BBC TV news service is just sort of essential.
Radio is free, but a mix of R4, R3, R5, TMS, and World Service is easily worth double the licence fee. I use LBC a bit but the intrusive advertising is just abysmal. So long live the BBC with all its faults.
Serious question: What do politics anoraks without a TV licence do at 10pm on General Election night?
Personally, on election nights, I'm on here. Coverage is far better, more intelligent and more even handed. 90% of the time talking political heads say exactly what you would have expected them to say.
That said, last election, I was so nervous I couldn't watch anything except the price of the pound. Once it became apparent that that had gone up a bit, it was apparent enough that my worst case scenario had been avoided. I watched a bit of the BBC coverage, but it was like watching a funeral, so I turned over to ITV, where the coverage was surprisingly good. The Balls/Osborne double act, in particular, was excellent, as was Alan Johnson. That would have been worth paying for, except that because of the unique way ITV is funded, you don't have to.
Anyway - a quick audit of my viewing habits over the past fortnight puts Amazon prime well out in front, because I'm re-watching Parks and Recreation from the start - but in second place is Channel 5 and its moderately interesting real life shows about the emergency services or railways or life in picturesque parts of England. TV that doesn't hate you.
Point taken re election night, in part I do the same; but PB content on election night is, in general, an informed distillation from material coming in from multiple media sources, so it won't do on its own. For me - a traditionalist - the BBC remains the best single constant source, though not the quickest, on election night. Though it has dire moments.
Election night is ritual as well as information. BBC does this best still.
Sorry but the BBC is no better at that than Sky or other sources, let alone PB which is far, far better.
The days of the BBC being somehow without peer are long, long gone.
Unfair comparison. PB (comments) is almost exclusively relying on the reporting of the BBC and others, so of course it is more up to date than any one source, but they are primary sources with people on the ground - say if the PA makes a mistake, the reporters can often see that there's been an error, while all data service users can do is speculate.
Sorry but no, PB is normally well ahead of the BBC. Hence why PBers can make good money on election nights, by being ahead of the curve.
But if you wish to compare the BBC to other on the ground sources, there seems little to no difference between election night reporting from the BBC or from Sky News.
Not sure what your disagreement is. PB (comments) is only as up to date as the sum of all media sources. The BBC could do the same if they began just republishing ITV / Sky work, which is probably against professional courtesy. But the fallacy that the Internet is smarter than media really bugs me.
The disagreement is with the idea that the BBC is somehow 'better'.
The BBC is no better than Sky/ITV.
That PB is better than the BBC is not a fallacy, because collating multiple sources including Press Association etc that aren't on TV immediately is better than relying upon a single, solitary, inferior source like the BBC - or any other single, solitary source.
Some of us made a lot of money because the legacy media where miles behind on Brexit analysis. For hours and hours after it was clear what the result was (thanks to Andy magic spreadsheet) they were still talking about well if this part of London votes heavily Remain etc etc etc.
Yes, there is a niche case where super up-to-date information helps gamblers and investors take money off each other. Note, no real PUBLIC interest is involved; at this short horizon it's pretty much a zero-sum game as the result will be revealed rapidly anyway. But even in that case, someone needed to report the results from Sunderland and Newcastle, and it wasn't PB comments.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
If Macquarie sold its final stake six years ago (so from a reading of that began selling even further back) then its not their responsibility.
Presumably whoever bought the stock six or more years ago did their due diligence at the time of purchase?
They loaded the company with debt (a fair amount of which they allegedly still hold) partially in order to pay themselves outsize dividends. So the current financial state uf the company is very much their doing. Legally they escape responsibility, as they have passed the equity in the whole mess on to some other suckers.
Those in charge of regulator which allowed them to do so is also responsible - though again will avoid any consequences.
Privatisation of monopoly utilities is a heads they win, tails the customer loses, proposition. Utterly indefensible.
Sorry but they sold their stake to private firms who did their own due diligence and decided it was worth investing in.
Now maybe that due diligence was flawed, but if it was it was there responsibility, not the taxpayers and not Macquaries.
Though you haven't said how the customer loses if Thames goes bust. The losers will be the 'suckers' who failed to do good enough due diligence presumably, and the bondholders, not the customers. If Thames goes bust and gets nationalised for £1 with the bondholders and the shareholders wiped out then the losses will be purely in the private sector, not the taxpayer or customer's burden.
You are missing the point. What irks me is that the regulator has allowed outsize profits and dividends in a monopoly industry - at the same time as large amounts if debt were run up.
It would bother me if Thames went bust and were taken into emergency public ownership. That's probably the best deal for customers now.
What looks more likely is that the regulator will allow prices to be bumped up in order to keep paying private share and bond holders.
Let's not forget the law is that dividends can only be paid out of taxed profits.
You can't just run a loss, borrow money, and pay out dividends.
When you say taxed profits I assume you mean this year's taxed profits and retained earnings from prior years.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Explain what exactly? That you don't have to be in the EU to trade with it? That scientific cooperation does not require EU membership? I'd turn it around, if NZ can work with the EU from outside it, then why shouldn't we? It seems like you can work with the EU without signing up for all of the political BS and ever-closer union nonsense.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
If Macquarie sold its final stake six years ago (so from a reading of that began selling even further back) then its not their responsibility.
Presumably whoever bought the stock six or more years ago did their due diligence at the time of purchase?
They loaded the company with debt (a fair amount of which they allegedly still hold) partially in order to pay themselves outsize dividends. So the current financial state uf the company is very much their doing. Legally they escape responsibility, as they have passed the equity in the whole mess on to some other suckers.
Those in charge of regulator which allowed them to do so is also responsible - though again will avoid any consequences.
Privatisation of monopoly utilities is a heads they win, tails the customer loses, proposition. Utterly indefensible.
Sorry but they sold their stake to private firms who did their own due diligence and decided it was worth investing in.
Now maybe that due diligence was flawed, but if it was it was there responsibility, not the taxpayers and not Macquaries.
Though you haven't said how the customer loses if Thames goes bust. The losers will be the 'suckers' who failed to do good enough due diligence presumably, and the bondholders, not the customers. If Thames goes bust and gets nationalised for £1 with the bondholders and the shareholders wiped out then the losses will be purely in the private sector, not the taxpayer or customer's burden.
You are missing the point. What irks me is that the regulator has allowed outsize profits and dividends in a monopoly industry - at the same time as large amounts if debt were run up.
It would bother me if Thames went bust and were taken into emergency public ownership. That's probably the best deal for customers now.
What looks more likely is that the regulator will allow prices to be bumped up in order to keep paying private share and bond holders.
Let's not forget the law is that dividends can only be paid out of taxed profits.
You can't just run a loss, borrow money, and pay out dividends.
Very easy to declare whatever profit you want in a utility company when you can persuade a cooperative regulator to allow the 'right' rate of depreciation on assets.
Cash flow is the more meaningful metric, as that's much harder to manipulate.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
Used to a long time ago. Don't now and haven't for a very, very long time. @HYUFD and I get on very well now with which I think he will agree. We obviously discuss things but it is always very amicable now and are more likely to like each others posts than argue. I really can't think of the last time we had a spat, but I do agree we used to. Can't think of a single other person really. I suppose occasionally with Leon, but that is mainly banter.
Also, which I should have said, I can't take credit for all of that. There is at least 50% credit due to @hyufd.
I'm embarrassed that you remember that @TOPPING , especially after so much time.
It's 50% each. But only when you exclude the don't-knows.
As with many posts here you have to be regular to understand some of the posts don't you @ydoethur (Is a bird an animal?)
Those saying but BBC GE "show" is better....you seem to be forgetting the embarrassing election boat party. Putting your best respected / well informed political presenter on a boat to interview a load of pissed up celebs.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
If Macquarie sold its final stake six years ago (so from a reading of that began selling even further back) then its not their responsibility.
Presumably whoever bought the stock six or more years ago did their due diligence at the time of purchase?
Not Macquarie's financial responsibility but it is their fault, along with our politicians who have no grasp of economics beyond "markets is good" let alone the national interest.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
Used to a long time ago. Don't now and haven't for a very, very long time. @HYUFD and I get on very well now with which I think he will agree. We obviously discuss things but it is always very amicable now and are more likely to like each others posts than argue. I really can't think of the last time we had a spat, but I do agree we used to. Can't think of a single other person really. I suppose occasionally with Leon, but that is mainly banter.
Also, which I should have said, I can't take credit for all of that. There is at least 50% credit due to @hyufd.
I'm embarrassed that you remember that @TOPPING , especially after so much time.
It's 50% each. But only when you exclude the don't-knows.
As with many posts here you have to be regular to understand some of the posts don't you @ydoethur (Is a bird an animal?)
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
I regularly fact check HYUFD and find him wrong a disturbingly large proportion of the time.
But someone else is going to have to monitor his nonsense soon, as I'll be off PB for a few weeks. Work is taking me back to Eastern Europe soon and during trips like this I'm not allowed to log into any social media. Probably gone for most of the summer in the next few days. Stop cheering.
BBC presenter is a dodgy sex pest does seem to becoming a bit of regular occurrence.
Last year was DJ Tim Westwood, in which I believe criminal investigations are still ongoing, but an internal review found that the corporation may have missed chances to explore concerns raised over the course of 20 years.
Anybody who went to university in the late 90s / early 2000s were well aware of this reputation.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
Given the next government (nearly certain), the change from license fee to internet access tax is inevitable now, I think.
Politically, it is the simplest solution.
If you provide internet access in the U.K. (mobile or fixed), then there will be x added to the bill.
Lots of other countries have a license fee. Browsing through the Wikipedia list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence , I was surprised to see that the commonest option seems to be an addition to the electricity bill.
Anyway this is the response of the Mayor's spokesman.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally. - He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
There is no direct evidence but it is consistent with what has been reported, and claimed by the mother. If the star was paying for nude pictures, then OnlyFans might have been a legal route, once the boy was old enough.
But we don't know the full story and the Sun, which broke the story, is being quite cagey, it is not just the BBC, which makes me wonder if they are quite sure of all the facts.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
I regularly fact check HYUFD and find him wrong a disturbingly large proportion of the time.
But someone else is going to have to monitor his nonsense soon, as I'll be off PB for a few weeks. Work is taking me back to Eastern Europe soon and during trips like this I'm not allowed to log into any social media. Probably gone for most of the summer in the next few days. Stop cheering.
Sound fieldcraft. If anything really serious crops up, listen in to the Lincolnshire Poacher.
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
I regularly fact check HYUFD and find him wrong a disturbingly large proportion of the time.
But someone else is going to have to monitor his nonsense soon, as I'll be off PB for a few weeks. Work is taking me back to Eastern Europe soon and during trips like this I'm not allowed to log into any social media. Probably gone for most of the summer in the next few days. Stop cheering.
That sounds a bit cloak and dagger!
(Or your company is just tight on roaming data charges on the company mobile )
ETA: Maybe if you're the present HYUFD arguer, we could 'pair' you and HYUFD for the duration, like they do in parliament when one cannot attend.
Anyway this is the response of the Mayor's spokesman.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally. - He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
"He is also clear that violence is never acceptable."
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
Given the next government (nearly certain), the change from license fee to internet access tax is inevitable now, I think.
Politically, it is the simplest solution.
If you provide internet access in the U.K. (mobile or fixed), then there will be x added to the bill.
Lots of other countries have a license fee. Browsing through the Wikipedia list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence , I was surprised to see that the commonest option seems to be an addition to the electricity bill.
It's not clear why we should have a broadcaster funded by taxation at all. I don't quibble with the license fee because of the type of tax it is, I quibble with it because it is a tax.
The Manchester Guardian continues to struggle in the effort to attract its older, slightly puritan, northern non-conformist, Labour committee attending Quaker supporting readership. Not sure this will quite do the trick, from someone famous imparting a good deal of information :
Q. The best song to have sex to: If I hear Give Me One Reason by Tracy Chapman, my bra falls off. I don’t know why, but all my underwear falls off the second I hear Tracy Chapman.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
Given the next government (nearly certain), the change from license fee to internet access tax is inevitable now, I think.
Politically, it is the simplest solution.
If you provide internet access in the U.K. (mobile or fixed), then there will be x added to the bill.
Lots of other countries have a license fee. Browsing through the Wikipedia list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence , I was surprised to see that the commonest option seems to be an addition to the electricity bill.
It's not clear why we should have a broadcaster funded by taxation at all. I don't quibble with the license fee because of the type of tax it is, I quibble with it because it is a tax.
So, do you want no money raised by taxation to go to the BBC? So, no money for the World Service?
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
I regularly fact check HYUFD and find him wrong a disturbingly large proportion of the time.
But someone else is going to have to monitor his nonsense soon, as I'll be off PB for a few weeks. Work is taking me back to Eastern Europe soon and during trips like this I'm not allowed to log into any social media. Probably gone for most of the summer in the next few days. Stop cheering.
Sound fieldcraft. If anything really serious crops up, listen in to the Lincolnshire Poacher.
Private sector, not military. Someone like me wouldn't get THAT kind of security clearance.
Anyway this is the response of the Mayor's spokesman.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally. - He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
"He is also clear that violence is never acceptable."
Well he isn't, though, is he? He's highly equivocal about it. He has a hierarchy of things he can criticise, and can't criticise a threat of violence by a trans person because trans is higher up his list of uncriticisable things.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
If Macquarie sold its final stake six years ago (so from a reading of that began selling even further back) then its not their responsibility.
Presumably whoever bought the stock six or more years ago did their due diligence at the time of purchase?
They loaded the company with debt (a fair amount of which they allegedly still hold) partially in order to pay themselves outsize dividends. So the current financial state uf the company is very much their doing. Legally they escape responsibility, as they have passed the equity in the whole mess on to some other suckers.
Those in charge of regulator which allowed them to do so is also responsible - though again will avoid any consequences.
Privatisation of monopoly utilities is a heads they win, tails the customer loses, proposition. Utterly indefensible.
Sorry but they sold their stake to private firms who did their own due diligence and decided it was worth investing in.
Now maybe that due diligence was flawed, but if it was it was there responsibility, not the taxpayers and not Macquaries.
Though you haven't said how the customer loses if Thames goes bust. The losers will be the 'suckers' who failed to do good enough due diligence presumably, and the bondholders, not the customers. If Thames goes bust and gets nationalised for £1 with the bondholders and the shareholders wiped out then the losses will be purely in the private sector, not the taxpayer or customer's burden.
You are missing the point. What irks me is that the regulator has allowed outsize profits and dividends in a monopoly industry - at the same time as large amounts if debt were run up.
It would bother me if Thames went bust and were taken into emergency public ownership. That's probably the best deal for customers now.
What looks more likely is that the regulator will allow prices to be bumped up in order to keep paying private share and bond holders.
Let's not forget the law is that dividends can only be paid out of taxed profits.
You can't just run a loss, borrow money, and pay out dividends.
Very easy to declare whatever profit you want in a utility company when you can persuade a cooperative regulator to allow the 'right' rate of depreciation on assets.
Cash flow is the more meaningful metric, as that's much harder to manipulate.
Thames Water has property plant and equipment of £18 Bn and equity of £1.4 Bn. Current ratio underwater by ~ £700m which is why I assume they need £750 Mn from shareholders to keep the show on the road.
A moment's glance suggests it's not in particularly good health but I'm sure the University SuperAnnuation scheme has better accountants than myself drilling down into their numbers and recovery plan before deciding to chuck good money after what seems like bad money to fill their financial hole.
Liabilities in a business are almost always very very real. Assets, unless it's cold hard cash are a bit more nebulous.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Not the one who is still in parliament and selected for next election allegedly. There are so many and given secrecy it would be hard to tell.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
It certainly could, but it could also be that they were in a weird online relationship.
I don't know anything about the webcam performer platforms, but is it normal on these platforms that the "performer" actually has one-on-one facetime sessions? As isn't it alleged in the Sun story that the mother saw the presenter unclothed?
I thought the thing with OnlyFans is people pay for what they think is this close personal relationship with some hot looking model, but in reality some bloke in a call centre is doing all the messaging etc. You never actually really interact with the performer, rather the performer puts out content (even personalised things are just canned performances) and they rinse all these people with the thought they are actually messaging the performer.
The Manchester Guardian continues to struggle in the effort to attract its older, slightly puritan, northern non-conformist, Labour committee attending Quaker supporting readership. Not sure this will quite do the trick, from someone famous imparting a good deal of information :
Q. The best song to have sex to: If I hear Give Me One Reason by Tracy Chapman, my bra falls off. I don’t know why, but all my underwear falls off the second I hear Tracy Chapman.
If it was at all credible it might have been worth the space.
Anyway this is the response of the Mayor's spokesman.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally. - He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
"He is also clear that violence is never acceptable."
Yes. But he was not being asked about this. He was being asked to say that threats of violence to women because they disagree with a group on a matter of public policy are wrong. And he couldn't.
He was asked to condemn threats made by a trans person. And he couldn't or wouldn't.
This is straight out of the Corbyn playbook when asked to condemn anti-semitism - "all racism is wrong".
How hard would it have been to say -
"It is wrong to issue threats of violence against women because they disagree with you. It is wrong to abuse women because they disagree with you. And it is because I am a supporter of trans people that I make this criticism when someone speaking for them does something wrong. Because if you expect people to behave well towards you, you too have an obligation to behave well towards them and because when I wrote that men should not stand silently by when women are abused I meant what I said."
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
Its exit from Thames Water proved to be well timed...
...Macquarie has had enormous success buying public infrastructure and placing it in their funds. It can then charge fees, and receive dividends for its part-ownership, as well as enjoy any increase in the asset price.
Estimates have put dividends paid to underlying investors, including itself, for Thames Water at £2.7bn over the 11-year period it oversaw the asset.
“The dividend yield to equity shareholders earned from our funds’ investment was in line with listed UK water utility companies,” Macquarie says....
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
...weird online relationship....
Bit like PB, then...
Well we know some people aren't who they claim they are....e.g. those claiming to work in flint knapping industry.
The press love anything that sells papers in the silly season, they love sex scandals at any time, they love moralising about sex scandals and they love talking about themselves.
Of course they would find this one irresistible.
Also the media love talking about the media....
And media groups with rival broadcasting arms love bashing the BBC.
Well it goes both ways.
After thinking about it for 30 seconds, I'm not sure it does go both ways. Does the BBC habitually attack Fleet Street or other media groups?
ETA a quick glance at the Telegraph and Times home pages finds two other anti-BBC stories, unrelated to this one. Where is the BBC's equivalent?
None of the BBC's rivals are extracting money with menaces from the BBC's customers. You might not agree with the editorial position of, say, The Telegraph or The Guardian, but you are freenit to consume them in a way you are not with the BBC. Not surprising if anti-beebery is only one way. That said, the Beeb was right on board when Hugh Grant was trying to limit the power of the press. The BBC are keen to hit back when they can. The Beeb are very much of the view that life would be better if they were the only arbiter of the news agenda.
True and they even have their own fact check service set up with BBC Verify.
It’s time we found an alternative way to fund the BBC removing the license fee and funding the means of transmission via taxation.
Richard Sharp, yesterday, was saying the ‘well off’ should pay more for the BBC than poorer households. No. The BBC is losing listeners and viewers. The license fee in its current form is untenable. You cannot demand people pay more for a service they use less and less.
I've been saying this for years, and the reaction from many was "You just hate the BBC!"
Which is rubbish. I love the BBC. I personally have zero problem with paying the licence fee, and believe I get value for it from BBC 4 alone.
But I'm not everyone, and the world has become a much more exciting place, media-wise. People can get their entertainment and news from so many more sources, and the licence fee increasingly looks like an anachronism of little relevance to large sectors of the population.
I don't know what the answer is, but people who proclaim to love the BBC should be asking whether insisting on keeping the licence fee is actually going to kill the thing they love.
We used to pay for Sky but we found that the only channels we watched live were BBC/Sky News channels and music channels on in the background. Everything else we watched on catch up. We gradually realised how much money we were wasting by not watching broadcast TV so cancelled our subscription and decided to do without broadcast telly completely, cancelling the TV licence as well. We now watch far less TV, only watching YouTube/Netflix/Prime and that tends to be only for an hour or two in the evening. I didn't cancel the TV licence because I hate the BBC, but because we don't watch 99% of their output, same as Sky. The majority of sports are all pay per view anyway, but we're not allowed to pay for it and watch it live by a recognised broadcaster as we don't have a TV licence, so that means I can't pay 6 quid for Discovery Plus to watch the Mountain Biking Downhill World Cup because I don't pay the BBC 160 quid! Last year, when RedBull had the rights, they broadcast it live free, so we could watch it because they're not a recognised broadcaster (although that's quite a grey area). The internet does mean you can always find a stream to watch somewhere, but that's piracy and a very bad thing. My 3 boys never, ever watch broadcast TV, but know all about current programmes and "stars" because of the internet. They'll never pay the TC licence and I suspect it's the same for most of they're friends. The BBC need to find an alternative.
Many moons ago, a colleague of mine got married. He had been living with his fiancé for years, and just before they tied the knot, they decided to rationalise their affairs; get wills done etc.
He had taken out a sky subscription a decade previously, on a basic sports package. But over the years, as special offers on events had occurred, he had taken out more and more subs - to the extent it was costing a fortune each month. Since they were both well-paid engineers he had not really noticed the outgoings.
So he tried to think back to what they had watched over the previous few months, realised it was next to nothing, and cancelled the lot. The thinking being that he could always get a new subscription if he wanted.
I fear it is very easy for these things to get out of hand.
FWIW I hardly ever watch telly at all because there is too much of it and the quality is pretty dire compared with reading a book, or the radio. Or indeed watching a dormouse sleeping.
I use radio a lot. We have a TV licence - like most older people - partly because of Gardeners World and bits of other live broadcasting, and the times that BBC TV news service is just sort of essential.
Radio is free, but a mix of R4, R3, R5, TMS, and World Service is easily worth double the licence fee. I use LBC a bit but the intrusive advertising is just abysmal. So long live the BBC with all its faults.
Serious question: What do politics anoraks without a TV licence do at 10pm on General Election night?
Personally, on election nights, I'm on here. Coverage is far better, more intelligent and more even handed. 90% of the time talking political heads say exactly what you would have expected them to say.
That said, last election, I was so nervous I couldn't watch anything except the price of the pound. Once it became apparent that that had gone up a bit, it was apparent enough that my worst case scenario had been avoided. I watched a bit of the BBC coverage, but it was like watching a funeral, so I turned over to ITV, where the coverage was surprisingly good. The Balls/Osborne double act, in particular, was excellent, as was Alan Johnson. That would have been worth paying for, except that because of the unique way ITV is funded, you don't have to.
Anyway - a quick audit of my viewing habits over the past fortnight puts Amazon prime well out in front, because I'm re-watching Parks and Recreation from the start - but in second place is Channel 5 and its moderately interesting real life shows about the emergency services or railways or life in picturesque parts of England. TV that doesn't hate you.
Point taken re election night, in part I do the same; but PB content on election night is, in general, an informed distillation from material coming in from multiple media sources, so it won't do on its own. For me - a traditionalist - the BBC remains the best single constant source, though not the quickest, on election night. Though it has dire moments.
Election night is ritual as well as information. BBC does this best still.
Sorry but the BBC is no better at that than Sky or other sources, let alone PB which is far, far better.
The days of the BBC being somehow without peer are long, long gone.
Unfair comparison. PB (comments) is almost exclusively relying on the reporting of the BBC and others, so of course it is more up to date than any one source, but they are primary sources with people on the ground - say if the PA makes a mistake, the reporters can often see that there's been an error, while all data service users can do is speculate.
Sorry but no, PB is normally well ahead of the BBC. Hence why PBers can make good money on election nights, by being ahead of the curve.
But if you wish to compare the BBC to other on the ground sources, there seems little to no difference between election night reporting from the BBC or from Sky News.
Not sure what your disagreement is. PB (comments) is only as up to date as the sum of all media sources. The BBC could do the same if they began just republishing ITV / Sky work, which is probably against professional courtesy. But the fallacy that the Internet is smarter than media really bugs me.
PB comments are definitely faster than reputable news sources. But we also get a lot of speculation ported directly from Twitter with very little by way of filter. There have been multiple instances of outright lies being thoughtlessly cut and paste from Another Place to this house.
Fast is a virtue, but other virtues can be sacrificed upon its altar.
Very true. I actually wrote Prince Harry a card consoling him on the breakdown of his marriage. Glad I forgot to post it.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
Anyway this is the response of the Mayor's spokesman.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally. - He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
My post was actually a little more geared towards the apparent gap between your claim that Khan should condemn this act specifically when it could be subject to an investigation versus your insistence that private comments made by the SNP leader about Sturgeon's party membership could be prejudicial to an investigation. It appeared to me, and it still does, that you are applying different principles to the two situations.
If I may say so, I believe you are adapting your principles to fit your "look how terrible everybody else is" despairism. I cannot for the life of me work out how anyone can apply a single principle to Yousaf's comment and Khan's lack of specific comment and come to the conclusion that they are both wrong.
The Manchester Guardian continues to struggle in the effort to attract its older, slightly puritan, northern non-conformist, Labour committee attending Quaker supporting readership. Not sure this will quite do the trick, from someone famous imparting a good deal of information :
Q. The best song to have sex to: If I hear Give Me One Reason by Tracy Chapman, my bra falls off. I don’t know why, but all my underwear falls off the second I hear Tracy Chapman.
If it was at all credible it might have been worth the space.
Would a complaint about accuracy be in order? I have no idea who regulates the Guardian. Perhaps is the Independent Slave Owners Regulator
Thank you. Would it be rude of me to ask for a year/number, or just the article name? Don't feel obliged - you've already indulged me more than enough.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
Given the next government (nearly certain), the change from license fee to internet access tax is inevitable now, I think.
Politically, it is the simplest solution.
If you provide internet access in the U.K. (mobile or fixed), then there will be x added to the bill.
Lots of other countries have a license fee. Browsing through the Wikipedia list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence , I was surprised to see that the commonest option seems to be an addition to the electricity bill.
It's not clear why we should have a broadcaster funded by taxation at all. I don't quibble with the license fee because of the type of tax it is, I quibble with it because it is a tax.
So, do you want no money raised by taxation to go to the BBC? So, no money for the World Service?
I don't feel desperately strongly, though world service seems possible to treat as a special case (and is of low enough cost to do so). It's also hard to have pay-per-listen on radio. Though IIRC the telly equivalent of world service has adverts on?
I definitely wouldn't want any TV services to be paid for by tax or license fee or any other model of forced payment. Radio I'm more ambivalent about: in principle, no; in practice, radio isn't set up for pay-per-listen and the share of the BBC budget for radio is so small that I can't get too worked up about it.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
I had assumed Snapchat/Kik or something
Well today's Sun story is the presenter rang the person a number of times (according to the mother), so sounds like they have more personal level of contact with them.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
Again, my assumption was that the alleged victim was initially doing OnlyFans / Webcamming but was then contacted directly by the so-called BBC star, so that later conversations happened on a different platform. That would however mean the former was when they were younger...
But, who knows. It's just what makes most sense to me.
Anyway this is the response of the Mayor's spokesman.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally. - He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
Similar to the way members of the Troops Out movement would say "I condemn all violence", in response to some PIRA atrocity.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
Explain what exactly? That you don't have to be in the EU to trade with it? That scientific cooperation does not require EU membership? I'd turn it around, if NZ can work with the EU from outside it, then why shouldn't we? It seems like you can work with the EU without signing up for all of the political BS and ever-closer union nonsense.
It's sad that EU citizens in a cost of living crisis wont have the benefit of cheap high-quality NZ produce.
The UK assessment of the UK-NZ agreement estimates it will add 0.11% to UK GDP. The EU assessment of the EU-NZ agreement estimates it will add 0.02% to EU GDP.
Not to mention, of course, that the EU-NZ agreement may not come into force for years, or ever.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit. You don't have to let them in, they aren't allowed to snoop in through your windows, etc. The only way they can be let in to inspect your setup is if you invite them in or via warrant, and they have to have evidence you are breaking the law to get one....so its circular logic. They can't investigate to get evidence, so they can't get a warrant. You have to give them something voluntarily.
I believe there have been FOI on the number of warrants issues / police enforcing a visit....its a vanishingly small and normally because the resident has said or done something. A bit like nobody has been done by a detector van, I don't believe warrants are issued just because the householder said no thanks when Capita called and closed the door.
I believe there has been some suggestion that if you remove the right to access, although that stops them coming onto your property, that has been used to gain as an argument for a warrant. Don't know how true that part is, because again what evidence have they got you are doing anything wrong.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Why do I get the horrible feeling that the end of that story is "...and then he was burned at the stake."?
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
Who knows what a "woman" will be in 50 years time. We know that people will continue to born with wombs or penises but beyond that not really. It is only a change when people believe it subverts the natural orthodoxy, or it is not a change at all. We might be in this position right now. Or it might just be a fad, whereby troubled (young) people seek an outlet for their anxiety and the world is talking about trans so trans it is.
We don't know.
However, substituting "homosexuality" for "trans" goes a long way to help people contextualise what is happening now when it appears that there is a disruptive transformation (!) of society and our attitudes to what is the norm.
As for the content of the debate, as you say, it's complicated. I understand the "no debate" stance because who is anyone to pronounce on some else's gender; while I also understand the concept that there must be safe spaces for women (cf trans women) in particular in the totemic areas of "sportsnprisons".
I must say the more I read about the "BBC presenter" affair, the more it sounds as though the younger person in question was working as a webcam performer and being paid in that context. Illegal if he was under 18. But perhaps in the final outcome more lucrative.
Evidence of this?
The mother is quoted as saying "She said she was told the star requested “performances” ..."
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
...weird online relationship....
Bit like PB, then...
Well we know some people aren't who they claim they are....e.g. those claiming to work in flint knapping industry.
Who could possibly make such a fictitious claim? The flint-knapping industry is famed for its applications to many esoteric techniques, the creation of not-quite-usable dildos being only the most famous, at least in A&E where they store the Special Tongs For The Removing
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Why do I get the horrible feeling that the end of that story is "...and then he was burned at the stake."?
Remarkably he died as he lived, the vicar of Morebath. Duffy's book on his life is one of the recent glories of 16th century English church history.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I don't question your judgement not to pay the tv licence, but i do question your judgement on watching EaatEnders.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
So @Dixiedean stated that (paraphrasing so I hope I have this right) to appreciate the issue for a certain group you had to be a member of that certain group (not all groups, just that particular example). You disagreed and used an analogy to demonstrate that wasn’t true. It was an excellent analogy in that in the case you gave (a completely different group) it clearly wasn’t true which was the point you wanted to make.
Analogies are very useful. They can often bring sudden clarity to an issue and can often provide easy routes to solving difficult problems (not quite the same, but the issue of 3 different sized circles with tangents on each pair of circles all interesting in a straight line is hard to prove, but easy if you change it to 3 balls and intersecting planes).
The problem with analogies is it can appear you have one when you haven’t.
Whether you agree with @Dixiedean or not, and I am sure he was generalizing anyway, but it is not true that your analogy proves him wrong as each case depends on the context (the group involved). You have picked one example that is at one extreme. His was different.
You simply picked a case that was obviously true. There are plenty of examples where what you deduce is not obviously true.
Eg. I think it is reasonable to assume that as someone who doesn’t speak Chinese I have little understanding of Chinese grammar. For me that is certainly a fact and I assume true for others. So it is true that those best able to comment are generally Chinese speakers. As a left hander I am aware that most right handers are not aware of some of the niche issues eg playing cards. Left handers are clearly more qualified to comment. You picked an example that you don’t have to be a Jew to appreciate the holocaust was wrong (paraphrasing) is true but was both tasteless and invalid compared to @dixiedean’s point.
I don’t want to harp on about other issues but you brought these up again (not me). You have called me a liar directly yesterday and implied I lied a few weeks ago by posting laughter when I apologised that I had to leave temporarily to deal with the clearance of my deceased father’s house. Yesterday you accused me of being operatic in my reaction to your post about the death of my father. Really you think I overreacted and you haven’t gone beyond the pale by posting laughter? I mean really you do think that is ok? Didn't even attempt an apology.
I just want to formally distance myself from this conversation. I only jumped in to make a point about the pervasiveness of analogy in human cognition, and much of the above is aimed at Miklosvar alone, not me. I certainly wasn't posting anything about Jews and the holocaust nor laughing at kjh's situation. kjh, I know you are already aware that what I'm saying here is the case, but just in case anybody else reads your post and thinks it's directed at me, I want them to know that it's not.
So do I.
I think you (kjh) get way over invested in Internet disagreements. I am sorry if I have offended you and will take care in future not to interact with you.
Apology accepted, thank you. Seeing as I rarely have internet disagreements (I can't remember the last one I had that wasn't with you)
You are regularly triggered by @HYUFD and feel the need to point out, at length, why this is so.
FWIW, I feel that kjh does a valuable service arguing with HYUFD so I don't have to
(HYUFD makes many valuable posts and I think he adds to PB, but he also does write some nonsense - as we all do, of course - which someone should probably point out, but (like with Bart) you could easily lose the best years of your life arguing with HYUFD)
I stopped sometime ago @Selebian. @hyufd and I just have pleasant chats now. So it's over to you now.
I regularly fact check HYUFD and find him wrong a disturbingly large proportion of the time.
But someone else is going to have to monitor his nonsense soon, as I'll be off PB for a few weeks. Work is taking me back to Eastern Europe soon and during trips like this I'm not allowed to log into any social media. Probably gone for most of the summer in the next few days. Stop cheering.
Safe travels sir. Looking forward to seeing you back later in the year.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
There are reasonable trans people, and there are reasonable women.
There are also unreasonable people of all stripes.
Unfortunately, we can't pretend that any don't exist, which is why we need safeguarding.
Trans people need safeguarding to protect them from those who might do them harm.
And women need safeguarding to protect them from those who might do them harm.
None of this ought to be controversial.
The question is where do you draw the line?
For me, I think one has to be as reasonable as possible without violating safeguarding.
If someone wants to be called a woman, or a girl's name, or pronoun, whether they are one or not, then I feel there is absolutely no harm whatsoever in treating people with respect and doing so. Sometimes though safeguarding will mean that women needs to mean real, aka "cis", women. And trans people will need their own separate safeguarding.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
If either of us actually went and looked, would it make a difference? I could spend weeks sifting thru searches[1], classifying each remark by severity, creating two graph lines, and shove it in a Powerpoint. But in the end it would show nothing but "this is the number of people on each side who behave badly". Which is interesting but not relevant to the issue
As I said yesterday, the central point is that there is one group of people who believe there are no circumstances in which a man can legally be a woman, and another group who believe that there are. It is the extent to which the former is believed, and the extent to which the latter is believed, that is the crux of the argument. Until this is understood, all other discussion is peripheral.
[1] Although I am now horribly aware of how much more difficult Muskery has made searching now Google doesn't index threads...
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Can you write my dissertation for me? Struggling a bit at the mo!
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
To make the analogy work, you would have to make it about Manchester United's right to identify as a football club and play at FA venues.
Given that PB is overly populated by expatriates or citizens of nowhere who have never visited Manchester and couldn't point to it on a map, I assume it contains many Manchester United supporters...
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
It is not just about competing rights but about different conceptions of reality, with one side using intimidation, ostracism and threats of violence to coerce people into accepting its position regardless of their view of the truth of the matter.
Explain what exactly? That you don't have to be in the EU to trade with it? That scientific cooperation does not require EU membership? I'd turn it around, if NZ can work with the EU from outside it, then why shouldn't we? It seems like you can work with the EU without signing up for all of the political BS and ever-closer union nonsense.
It's sad that EU citizens in a cost of living crisis wont have the benefit of cheap high-quality NZ produce.
The UK assessment of the UK-NZ agreement estimates it will add 0.11% to UK GDP. The EU assessment of the EU-NZ agreement estimates it will add 0.02% to EU GDP.
Not to mention, of course, that the EU-NZ agreement may not come into force for years, or ever.
Bingo. It is remarkable how critics of Brexit desire to make a free trade agreement be seen as a "better deal" if it isn't actually a free trade agreement and has major restrictions on trade instead.
Putting [lobby groups employers] at risk is the very purpose of a free trade agreement, it means you are opening up your market to competition and customers get a wider choice between your own countries employers and other countries ones.
Having our agricultural industry be "at risk" through trade agreements, is the entire point of having a frigging agreement. It means we're opening up to more trade, because you believe trade is good.
If you think trade is bad, then shut down trade agreements and go the full North Korea route. But certainly no reason to rejoin the EU if you think trade is bad.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
????
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
Possibly the most entertaining three tests of cricket I've ever seen in these Ashes. What a privilege to have it all on my doorstep!
I've been to 4 days of Ashes cricket this year, 3 of them women's matches. Also the final day at Edgbaston. The 20/20 at the Oval was interesting, fantastic crowd.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
????
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
There is an infamous (ie on twitter) case - no idea if it is true - of someone going to get their child (16yr old I think) surgically transitioned in Thailand because it is the only place where doing that at that age is allowed.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
????
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Yes; it's like trying to remember what your religion is in England between about 1534 and 1661. No idea, can't remember. "My religion is the King's/Queen's religion" would usually do, but not from sometime in the 1640s till 1660.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
Why do I get the horrible feeling that the end of that story is "...and then he was burned at the stake."?
Remarkably he died as he lived, the vicar of Morebath. Duffy's book on his life is one of the recent glories of 16th century English church history.
Oddly, I am quite pleased. The only thing I ever agreed with Hannan on was the importance of the little battalions, everyday people struggling to do their best in a bad world. It is nice to see a happy ending occasionally.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
'Bad actors' seem rather more represented on the trans side than on the Terf side, mind you. I've never heard a Terf calling for Trans people to be punched in the head, for a start.
I fear you're only hearing the propaganda from one side. Join a few reasonable trans people in Twitter to see their experiences, as an example (a good start is to look for someone who tweets about a different topic, but happens to be trans).
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
Yes. It was not a terf who had her 16 year old son castrated in Thailand. You are a Godwin fan so here's one for you: I have only read of more evil actions in accounts of the holocaust.
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
As far as the ‘trans’ etc debate is concerned it seems to wisest to keep as far away as possible. As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
Apply that to other 'rights' issues, now and throughout history.
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
Fair points. However the trans (etc) debate has become so complicated and interwoven that it’s extremely difficult for a generally liberal minded old chap like me to keep up with it. As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is that it involves two groups - women and trans people - who both feel that they suffer from discrimination in a range of fields and so both tend to feel that any concessions in the debate come at too high a cost. As a heterosexual, middle class, white male my tendency too is to want to steer well clear of the whole shenanigans, but I do think that that risks failing to be a good ally, to both groups. It is an extremely thorny debate and I suspect that as is often the case where competing rights are at stake the best course is a middle one, recognising the rights of all concerned and finding appropriate compromises tailored to each situation. Staking out extreme or simplistic positions is unlikely to be helpful, and politicians should be careful to address legitimate concerns without exploiting the issue and inflaming things for short term political gain.
This in spades. Like you I do hesitate before getting involved in the whole debate because there are bad faith actors on both sides. Indeed there are some on here who I respect in other ways but who immediately seem to make accusations of prejudice to anyone who even hints at opposing their views.
But as you say, the reason there is such a heated debate is because this is not just a situation of 'oppressed and oppressor'. If one side wins out completely in either direction then there wil be genuine innocent victims on the other side. An example is my daughter already being told by trans activists she cannot be a lesbian because it is a categorisation that should no longer be 'allowed' to exist.
So compromise is absolutely necessary and at the same time both sides are going to have to understand that those of us who are not ideologically involved in the debate are going to continue to be hesitant because this is not a black and white situation and we do not feel we are in a position to whole heartedly support one side or the other. Both sides are to some extent right and equally both sides are, sadly, to some extent wrong.
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
I just want to say that I do support your right to identify as a mediocre football team
ETA: Ooops, ban hammer incoming from TSE, I guess? Must be like making negative comments about Radiohead in the presence of RCS...
Comments
This wasn't based on rumours, it was based on the official results.
What irks me is that the regulator has allowed outsize profits and dividends in a monopoly industry - at the same time as large amounts if debt were run up.
It would bother me if Thames went bust and were taken into emergency public ownership. That's probably the best deal for customers now.
What looks more likely is that the regulator will allow prices to be bumped up in order to keep paying private share and bond holders.
You can't just run a loss, borrow money, and pay out dividends.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4087798-investigation-finds-clarence-thomas-accepted-more-undisclosed-gifts-from-wealthy-friends-through-elite-association/
And I'd think we'd all think it peculiar if a news service didn't cover it.
I just don't think it's the case that the BBC do it better, or even, all things considered, particularly well at all.
Partly its a personality thing. I find Huw Edwards a bit grating compared to his counterparts on ITV and Sky.
Cash flow is the more meaningful metric, as that's much harder to manipulate.
But someone else is going to have to monitor his nonsense soon, as I'll be off PB for a few weeks. Work is taking me back to Eastern Europe soon and during trips like this I'm not allowed to log into any social media. Probably gone for most of the summer in the next few days. Stop cheering.
Last year was DJ Tim Westwood, in which I believe criminal investigations are still ongoing, but an internal review found that the corporation may have missed chances to explore concerns raised over the course of 20 years.
Anybody who went to university in the late 90s / early 2000s were well aware of this reputation.
- He couldn't be bothered to respond personally.
- He can't bring himself to condemn a threat of violence against women by a trans person at a trans rally.
In answer to @Farooq's question on the previous thread, the Mayor as Police Commissioner should not say whether someone is criminally guilty of an offence. But that is not what he is being asked to do. He is being asked to criticise a threat of violence and say clearly and unambiguously that no-one should issue threats of violence to women and that disagreeing on a topic is no excuse for doing this. He is being asked to do what he said men like him should do in his VAWG document. But he can't or won't.
It is weaselly. It sends out a message that women and women's safety are not important to him, not as important as other more favoured groups. His strategy document may as well be filed in the bin. He is another "Do as I say not as I do" politician.
But we don't know the full story and the Sun, which broke the story, is being quite cagey, it is not just the BBC, which makes me wonder if they are quite sure of all the facts.
I guess we all have to learn to live with other people being wrong on the internet, in the end
(Or your company is just tight on roaming data charges on the company mobile
ETA: Maybe if you're the present HYUFD arguer, we could 'pair' you and HYUFD for the duration, like they do in parliament when one cannot attend.
Q. The best song to have sex to:
If I hear Give Me One Reason by Tracy Chapman, my bra falls off. I don’t know why, but all my underwear falls off the second I hear Tracy Chapman.
Doesn't that sound as though he was providing performances using a webcam?
As my father-in-law used to say ‘you can’t do right for doing wrong!’.
A moment's glance suggests it's not in particularly good health but I'm sure the University SuperAnnuation scheme has better accountants than myself drilling down into their numbers and recovery plan before deciding to chuck good money after what seems like bad money to fill their financial hole.
Liabilities in a business are almost always very very real. Assets, unless it's cold hard cash are a bit more nebulous.
I don't know anything about the webcam performer platforms, but is it normal on these platforms that the "performer" actually has one-on-one facetime sessions? As isn't it alleged in the Sun story that the mother saw the presenter unclothed?
I thought the thing with OnlyFans is people pay for what they think is this close personal relationship with some hot looking model, but in reality some bloke in a call centre is doing all the messaging etc. You never actually really interact with the performer, rather the performer puts out content (even personalised things are just canned performances) and they rinse all these people with the thought they are actually messaging the performer.
He was asked to condemn threats made by a trans person. And he couldn't or wouldn't.
This is straight out of the Corbyn playbook when asked to condemn anti-semitism - "all racism is wrong".
How hard would it have been to say -
"It is wrong to issue threats of violence against women because they disagree with you. It is wrong to abuse women because they disagree with you. And it is because I am a supporter of trans people that I make this criticism when someone speaking for them does something wrong. Because if you expect people to behave well towards you, you too have an obligation to behave well towards them and because when I wrote that men should not stand silently by when women are abused I meant what I said."
How hard would it have been to write that?
For instance, a German in 1935: "As far as the 'Jew' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible"...
Or a straight man in the 1960s: "As far as the 'homosexual' etc debate is concerned, it seems wisest to keep as far away as possible" ...
And that's exactly what bad actors want. They want reasonable people not to want to get involved with the debate, so that their views hold sway.
Minorities are *always* the first to face the firing line. They are rarely the last; and that's why it's important to speak up for them.
It appeared to me, and it still does, that you are applying different principles to the two situations.
If I may say so, I believe you are adapting your principles to fit your "look how terrible everybody else is" despairism. I cannot for the life of me work out how anyone can apply a single principle to Yousaf's comment and Khan's lack of specific comment and come to the conclusion that they are both wrong.
I definitely wouldn't want any TV services to be paid for by tax or license fee or any other model of forced payment. Radio I'm more ambivalent about: in principle, no; in practice, radio isn't set up for pay-per-listen and the share of the BBC budget for radio is so small that I can't get too worked up about it.
I highly doubt that is normal for somebody doing OnlyFans / Webcamming to be giving out a phone number? Otherwise surely you will be overrun by weirdos calling you. Perhaps they do, but again, I presume that goes the same place as all the DMs, Dave in the call centre dealing with them.
But, who knows. It's just what makes most sense to me.
As someone who was a student in the very early 60’s I had no personal connection with homosexuality but I had friends who did.
The UK assessment of the UK-NZ agreement estimates it will add 0.11% to UK GDP. The EU assessment of the EU-NZ agreement estimates it will add 0.02% to EU GDP.
Not to mention, of course, that the EU-NZ agreement may not come into force for years, or ever.
One of my heroes is Christopher Trychay, who was vicar of Morebath continuously from 1520-1574 and just carried on doing what he thought right through all the upheavals and ignoring the changes as much as he could.
I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
I believe there have been FOI on the number of warrants issues / police enforcing a visit....its a vanishingly small and normally because the resident has said or done something. A bit like nobody has been done by a detector van, I don't believe warrants are issued just because the householder said no thanks when Capita called and closed the door.
I believe there has been some suggestion that if you remove the right to access, although that stops them coming onto your property, that has been used to gain as an argument for a warrant. Don't know how true that part is, because again what evidence have they got you are doing anything wrong.
On the TERF / andti-trans side, there are people who simply want to make life as hard as possible to live their lives as they have been for decades, or even make it impossible to be trans.
We don't know.
However, substituting "homosexuality" for "trans" goes a long way to help people contextualise what is happening now when it appears that there is a disruptive transformation (!) of society and our attitudes to what is the norm.
As for the content of the debate, as you say, it's complicated. I understand the "no debate" stance because who is anyone to pronounce on some else's gender; while I also understand the concept that there must be safe spaces for women (cf trans women) in particular in the totemic areas of "sportsnprisons".
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
And now I am never ever ever ever going to post on this subject ever again.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
Seems to be a bit of a lack of representation there....
There are also unreasonable people of all stripes.
Unfortunately, we can't pretend that any don't exist, which is why we need safeguarding.
Trans people need safeguarding to protect them from those who might do them harm.
And women need safeguarding to protect them from those who might do them harm.
None of this ought to be controversial.
The question is where do you draw the line?
For me, I think one has to be as reasonable as possible without violating safeguarding.
If someone wants to be called a woman, or a girl's name, or pronoun, whether they are one or not, then I feel there is absolutely no harm whatsoever in treating people with respect and doing so. Sometimes though safeguarding will mean that women needs to mean real, aka "cis", women. And trans people will need their own separate safeguarding.
As I said yesterday, the central point is that there is one group of people who believe there are no circumstances in which a man can legally be a woman, and another group who believe that there are. It is the extent to which the former is believed, and the extent to which the latter is believed, that is the crux of the argument. Until this is understood, all other discussion is peripheral.
[1] Although I am now horribly aware of how much more difficult Muskery has made searching now Google doesn't index threads...
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
Given that PB is overly populated by expatriates or citizens of nowhere who have never visited Manchester and couldn't point to it on a map, I assume it contains many Manchester United supporters...
Putting [lobby groups employers] at risk is the very purpose of a free trade agreement, it means you are opening up your market to competition and customers get a wider choice between your own countries employers and other countries ones.
Having our agricultural industry be "at risk" through trade agreements, is the entire point of having a frigging agreement. It means we're opening up to more trade, because you believe trade is good.
If you think trade is bad, then shut down trade agreements and go the full North Korea route. But certainly no reason to rejoin the EU if you think trade is bad.
I am a little confused about the point you are trying to make; and I have not heard anything about this Thai case.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
Glad we agree.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susie_Green
ETA: With no comment either way on the morality of her actions WRT that as I do not have the information to make any such judgement.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
But as you say, the reason there is such a heated debate is because this is not just a situation of 'oppressed and oppressor'. If one side wins out completely in either direction then there wil be genuine innocent victims on the other side. An example is my daughter already being told by trans activists she cannot be a lesbian because it is a categorisation that should no longer be 'allowed' to exist.
So compromise is absolutely necessary and at the same time both sides are going to have to understand that those of us who are not ideologically involved in the debate are going to continue to be hesitant because this is not a black and white situation and we do not feel we are in a position to whole heartedly support one side or the other. Both sides are to some extent right and equally both sides are, sadly, to some extent wrong.
Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
ETA: Ooops, ban hammer incoming from TSE, I guess?