The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Have you really forgotten about the RNLI and right-wing newspapers? If a great British institution does anything the latter don't like, they will go all out to attack it.
See also: National Trust scones (even if the newspaper has previously published the recipe with approval).
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Have you really forgotten about the RNLI and right-wing newspapers? If a great British institution does anything the latter don't like, they will go all out to attack it.
See also: National Trust scones (even if the newspaper has previously published the recipe with approval).
It amazes many that the BBC make a horlicks of a programme handing Trump an undeserved win but it's all Trump’s fault
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Have you really forgotten about the RNLI and right-wing newspapers? If a great British institution does anything the latter don't like, they will go all out to attack it.
See also: National Trust scones (even if the newspaper has previously published the recipe with approval).
Unfortunately, that's what asymmetry does.
British society rightly holds the BBC to a high standard. Their opponents, less so. It's like the way that naughty children can get a rise out of Beefeaters by pulling faces at them, knowing that their training means that they cannot respond in kind.
Only this time, it's for real.
(See also the way that national armies really ought to behave better than terrorists, and that constrains their actions.)
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
We’re talking about the BBC edit, not Boris having some birthday cake with Rishi Sunak
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
You can spot fraudsters in advance if you pay attention to their small deceptions.
Anyway, I have written an acerbic bitchslap article on this and other BBC-related matters. Coming shortly, according to the brilliant, esteemed and amazingly modest editor of this forum.
The BBC has had a left bias of sorts for a long time. But the reason they are struggling right now is probably for similar reasons so many other organisations are having trouble. A generational divide between older moderates and younger fanatics. For the sake of internal harmony the fanatics are appeased. Jonathan Haidt has been writing about this for several years.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
You can spot fraudsters in advance if you pay attention to their small deceptions.
Anyway, I have written an acerbic bitchslap article on this and other BBC-related matters. Coming shortly, according to the brilliant, esteemed and amazingly modest editor of this forum.
Then presumably you had spotted Trump was a fraudster by at least 1973.
SUPERB and angrily unvarnished response, by former BBC chairman, Lord Patten.
"I don't think that we should allow ourselves to be bullied into thinking that the BBC is only any good, if it reflects the prejudice of the last person who shouted at it." https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1987953535737360855
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Isn't that more a question for Mrs Royale?
I believe my sister traded a third kid for my BIL getting permission to do a transatlantic sailing race
Who did she trade the kid to? We're looking to downsize the number of children we have, and it would be good to know likely buyers
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Surely with 3 kids you need a 5 seater car?
There's no standard 5 seater car that can fit 3 child car seats.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Isn't that more a question for Mrs Royale?
I believe my sister traded a third kid for my BIL getting permission to do a transatlantic sailing race
Who did she trade the kid to? We're looking to downsize the number of children we have, and it would be good to know likely buyers
I think any buyers of my kids will bang down the door and demand a refund.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
They shouldn’t, no.
But too many on the right in the UK think Trump can be used to win their local battles. This is not wise. He is a tyrant who corrupts everything he touches. Do not pretend that Trump threatening to sue for $1bn has any meaning or validity. Do not pretend that Trump didn’t encourage the actions of a violent gang to attack the Capitol. Some are so desperate for a “win” against the BBC that they wrap their arms around a man who has done more damage to our country’s interests than any President since James Monroe.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
They didn’t, the DG did and I think he’s been waiting for the perfect time to resign for a while
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
You can spot fraudsters in advance if you pay attention to their small deceptions.
Anyway, I have written an acerbic bitchslap article on this and other BBC-related matters. Coming shortly, according to the brilliant, esteemed and amazingly modest editor of this forum.
Then presumably you had spotted Trump was a fraudster by at least 1973.
When I was a small child at school??
I've spotted plenty of others in advance. And taken action to try and stop them.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
You can spot fraudsters in advance if you pay attention to their small deceptions.
Anyway, I have written an acerbic bitchslap article on this and other BBC-related matters. Coming shortly, according to the brilliant, esteemed and amazingly modest editor of this forum.
Then presumably you had spotted Trump was a fraudster by at least 1973.
Donald Trump has more fraud in the tip of his little finger than all programmes ever made by the BBC in its entire history added together, multiplied by a thousand, times three and squared.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
Which a lot of people who defend the BBC (including me), and the BBC itself, have acknowledged.
The overreaction (variously motivated), though, is off the scale.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
We’re talking about the BBC edit, not Boris having some birthday cake with Rishi Sunak
Indeed. Attempts to shift the conversation in this or that direction are doomed to fail and there really is no way out of this for the BBC is there?
Like, in other scandals - the bust up with Psycho Campbell over "sexing up" Iraq's WMD threat, for example - there were various possibilities of muddying the waters... In that case, fundamentally, the BBC was on the side of truth and the public, instinctively, knew it..
But on this, the BBC is totally and utterly banged to rights.
Obviously they did edit Trumps speech to make it look like he incited the riot. Obviously they did that because they (the editorial team and senior BBC management) wanted Trump to lose the 2024 Presidential election.
There is no other explanation within the timeline of events.
If they were a privately funded organisation with a clear editorial bias it would't matter, but they are a public service broadcaster who are supposed to always be neutral so they can represent everyone who funds them
Personally, I think this is the end of the BBC as we know it. Labour will try and keep it going but the next REF government will scrap the licence fee and privatise it - Using this scandal as cover.
RIP BBC: 1922-2032? 110 years wasn't a bad run, but nothing lasts forever.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
Reacting in such a strong way to a mild comment is interesting.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Surely with 3 kids you need a 5 seater car?
There's no standard 5 seater car that can fit 3 child car seats.
Get a camper van. You won't be able to afford holidays. I had one when we had child number 3. They loved it. As did their friends.
Their parents were aghast at seeing it parked outside their houses, thinking gypsies had turned up. I enjoyed that bit.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
They shouldn’t, no.
But too many on the right in the UK think Trump can be used to win their local battles. This is not wise. He is a tyrant who corrupts everything he touches. Do not pretend that Trump threatening to sue for $1bn has any meaning or validity. Do not pretend that Trump didn’t encourage the actions of a violent gang to attack the Capitol. Some are so desperate for a “win” against the BBC that they wrap their arms around a man who has done more damage to our country’s interests than any President since James Monroe.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
They shouldn’t, no.
But too many on the right in the UK think Trump can be used to win their local battles. This is not wise. He is a tyrant who corrupts everything he touches. Do not pretend that Trump threatening to sue for $1bn has any meaning or validity. Do not pretend that Trump didn’t encourage the actions of a violent gang to attack the Capitol. Some are so desperate for a “win” against the BBC that they wrap their arms around a man who has done more damage to our country’s interests than any President since James Monroe.
US Presidents since FDR have continued to damage the UK's interests. Trump might be worst in a very long line of disreputable friends.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
How do we know it was deliberate?
We don't.
However, we probably ought to know that outsourcing a current affairs flagship to an independent producer is probably a mistake. Doing that and skimping on supervision, doubly so. Early Channel 4 had that sort of problem all the time.
The old ways may have been stodgy, they may have cost more, but they had definite advantages of editorial control.
Also- maybe we should accept that rolling news is a mistake? Redeploy the people involved to bulletins and programmes. Quality, not quantity.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
They shouldn’t, no.
But too many on the right in the UK think Trump can be used to win their local battles. This is not wise. He is a tyrant who corrupts everything he touches. Do not pretend that Trump threatening to sue for $1bn has any meaning or validity. Do not pretend that Trump didn’t encourage the actions of a violent gang to attack the Capitol. Some are so desperate for a “win” against the BBC that they wrap their arms around a man who has done more damage to our country’s interests than any President since James Monroe.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
Which a lot of people who defend the BBC (including me), and the BBC itself, have acknowledged.
The overreaction (variously motivated), though, is off the scale.
"Italy’s biggest pasta exporters say import and antidumping duties totaling 107% on their pasta brands will make doing business in America too costly and are preparing to pull out of U.S. stores as soon as January." https://x.com/MattZeitlin/status/1987899379886227728
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
Senedd announces it will not be counting May 26 election overnight as it wants the tellers to have a good night's rest !!!!
Overnight counting is something we will not see at all in another generation. Election staff don't like it (understandably, since unlike most of the count staff they are doing other elections stuff all day), there are additional costs, politician's and media moan, and even though we are more immediate in our news than ever, people can wait until the next evening.
I've joked in the past that it is not real democracy unless you find out if you won at 4am in a crappy sports hall in the middle of nowhere next to a dude with a bucket on his head, but I am going to miss it as a spectacle. I don't think the supposed gains or risks (people being tired when doing the counting) needed this as a solution. I think it is good to put the politicians through it somewhat.
It’s a spectacle for the spectators, and gets it over with quickly for the participants, but it’s physically tough. For my council elections I was usually out doing early morning deliveries at 5 am and be on the go pretty much continuously through to close of poll, and several times my results weren’t declared until 3 or 4 am the next morning.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
We’re talking about the BBC edit, not Boris having some birthday cake with Rishi Sunak
Indeed. Attempts to shift the conversation in this or that direction are doomed to fail and there really is no way out of this for the BBC is there?
Like, in other scandals - the bust up with Psycho Campbell over "sexing up" Iraq's WMD threat, for example - there were various possibilities of muddying the waters... In that case, fundamentally, the BBC was on the side of truth and the public, instinctively, knew it..
But on this, the BBC is totally and utterly banged to rights.
Obviously they did edit Trumps speech to make it look like he incited the riot. Obviously they did that because they (the editorial team and senior BBC management) wanted Trump to lose the 2024 Presidential election.
There is no other explanation within the timeline of events.
If they were a privately funded organisation with a clear editorial bias it would't matter, but they are a public service broadcaster who are supposed to always be neutral so they can represent everyone who funds them
Personally, I think this is the end of the BBC as we know it. Labour will try and keep it going but the next REF government will scrap the licence fee and privatise it - Using this scandal as cover.
RIP BBC: 1922-2032? 110 years wasn't a bad run, but nothing lasts forever.
Trump did encourage a riot. The BBC didn’t invent that fact. That’s what happened.
Now, they misrepresented his speech and that was wrong, but the thrust of the documentary was accurate.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Surely with 3 kids you need a 5 seater car?
There's no standard 5 seater car that can fit 3 child car seats.
Amazing we drove to Venice with our 3 children in the back seat, 14, 9 and 5 without any seat belts
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
Moira Stuart was amazing! Wish I had her in the cupboard under my stairs!!!! 😂
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
People have been talking about the Trump angle, and other people have been responding to that. That’s not spinning: that’s how conversation works.
I entirely agree that there are more pressing issues concerning the BBC.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
If it wasn't a very serious mistake why is the BBC in turmoil with resignations, Trump threatening a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and the licence fee under serious threat
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada because his feelings were hurt by a TV ad. Trump threatening a $1bn lawsuit doesn't prove anything. That's just a regular Monday for him.
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
My point is the BBC shouldn't have given them the hammer
They shouldn’t, no.
But too many on the right in the UK think Trump can be used to win their local battles. This is not wise. He is a tyrant who corrupts everything he touches. Do not pretend that Trump threatening to sue for $1bn has any meaning or validity. Do not pretend that Trump didn’t encourage the actions of a violent gang to attack the Capitol. Some are so desperate for a “win” against the BBC that they wrap their arms around a man who has done more damage to our country’s interests than any President since James Monroe.
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
Anyone would think we hadn't been discussing that all day.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
"Afterburner" is American? What is the proper name?
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
As with every storm, PB predicts it will be more significant than it actually is. Dressgate, Chagos, etc.
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
"Afterburner" is American? What is the proper name?
We originally called it reheat (when we invented it).
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
With wages rising at 5% and inflation at 4%, is interest rates at 4% not rather low?
Has the Bank effectively given up on its inflation targeting?
It's forecast to come down. They'd actually have cut, I think, if there wasn't a budget looming.
Forgive me but they've been forecasting it to come down for years. Seems like they are waiting for godot.
And it was falling from Oct 2022 for a long time, so their forecasts appear to have been good.
What? They haven't come close to meeting the target for years. And we are out of whack with other western countries.
I didn’t say they have come close to meeting the target. You said they’ve been forecasting inflation to come down. Inflation has, since Oct 2022, generally been coming down.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
Reminds me of the famous Brian Redhead / Nigel Lawson bust up on the Today programme after the 1987 Budget when Lawson accused him of being a Labour supporter: "Do you think we should have a one-minute silence now in this interview, one for you to apologise for daring to suggest that you know how I vote, and second perhaps in memory of monetarism, which you've now discarded?" Electric at the time - and unlike so many political interviews, still lives in my memory
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
"Afterburner" is American? What is the proper name?
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
As with every storm, PB predicts it will be more significant than it actually is. Dressgate, Chagos, etc.
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
The BBC usually survives and keeps the show on the road as LAB governments want it to continue (for obvious reasons) and CON governments usually have bigger fish to fry (and Tories have a love/hate relationship with it)
What makes this different is the spectre of REF - Who WILL form the next government - unless you think the polling is wrong?
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
Reminds me of the famous Brian Redhead / Nigel Lawson bust up on the Today programme after the 1987 Budget when Lawson accused him of being a Labour supporter: "Do you think we should have a one-minute silence now in this interview, one for you to apologise for daring to suggest that you know how I vote, and second perhaps in memory of monetarism, which you've now discarded?" Electric at the time - and unlike so many political interviews, still lives in my memory
Surely the weekly dose of "You said he said she said they said you said - so senior sources told me" is all the journalism you need. How much deeper could they go? At least without making and effort beyond joining some whatsapp groups?
But honestly, my biggest BBC disappointment has been squarely at the Governments doorstep. The gutting of the World Service. Really quite shameful penny pinching.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
How do we know it was deliberate?
It was deliberate. They cut up his speech, and played the bits in a way that made the point they wanted to make.
And it was misleading to present it in that way.
The BBC should be above that. It shouldn't make it seem like [A] was followed immediately by [G] without acknowledging the intervening steps.
On the other hand: television stations (particularly television news stations) edit interviews all the time.
What: you think the 30 seconds you saw were the entirety of the interview?
Political candidates will regularly take opponents words and use them out of context. Fox News is hardly above cutting interviews to make people look mad, bad and dangerous. (And which is why Buttigieg always insists on being live on air.)
And these were the actual words of President Trump.
The BBC should -and has- apologised. People have taken responsibility and resigned.
That should be the end of the matter, and if Trump wishes to sue, he's welcome to try his luck at the High Court.
The BBC communications team have been “taking heavy incoming” 😄
If you are still interested in the importance of Big hair in the 1980s, here is some more supporting evidence. DrWho fans, please note the youth of Twelve
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Surely with 3 kids you need a 5 seater car?
There's no standard 5 seater car that can fit 3 child car seats.
Get a camper van. You won't be able to afford holidays. I had one when we had child number 3. They loved it. As did their friends.
Their parents were aghast at seeing it parked outside their houses, thinking gypsies had turned up. I enjoyed that bit.
And if money is still tight, you can sell pegs to your neighbours.
The BBC communications team have been “taking heavy incoming” 😄
If you are still interested in the importance of Big hair in the 1980s, here is some more supporting evidence. DrWho fans, please note the youth of Twelve
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
As with every storm, PB predicts it will be more significant than it actually is. Dressgate, Chagos, etc.
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
The BBC usually survives and keeps the show on the road as LAB governments want it to continue (for obvious reasons) and CON governments usually have bigger fish to fry (and Tories have a love/hate relationship with it)
What makes this different is the spectre of REF - Who WILL form the next government - unless you think the polling is wrong?
The polling is probably right, but that’s a very different thing to Ref winning the next election in 3 years’ time.
This is a media-on-media fight. Just like the phone hacking scandal.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
How do we know it was deliberate?
It was deliberate. They cut up his speech, and played the bits in a way that made the point they wanted to make.
And it was misleading to present it in that way.
The BBC should be above that. It shouldn't make it seem like [A] was followed immediately by [G] without acknowledging the intervening steps.
On the other hand: television stations (particularly television news stations) edit interviews all the time.
What: you think the 30 seconds you saw were the entirety of the interview?
Political candidates will regularly take opponents words and use them out of context. Fox News is hardly above cutting interviews to make people look mad, bad and dangerous. (And which is why Buttigieg always insists on being live on air.)
And these were the actual words of President Trump.
The BBC should -and has- apologised. People have taken responsibility and resigned.
That should be the end of the matter, and if Trump wishes to sue, he's welcome to try his luck at the High Court.
If two quotes are not sequential in time there is usually a visual 'trick' to make the viewer aware there was a gap or splice.
I've seen no evidence that what happened here was they forgot to do that rather than they set out to make a falsehood.
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
Robin Day?
Question Time was worth watching when it was chaired by Robin Day and Peter Sissons. It went downhill under David Dimbleby, and now it’s no longer a serious political programme.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Surely with 3 kids you need a 5 seater car?
There's no standard 5 seater car that can fit 3 child car seats.
Get a camper van. You won't be able to afford holidays. I had one when we had child number 3. They loved it. As did their friends.
Their parents were aghast at seeing it parked outside their houses, thinking gypsies had turned up. I enjoyed that bit.
And if money is still tight, you can sell pegs to your neighbours.
Or offer to tarmac their drive.
Campervans are really enormous fun to have and drive.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Own bedrooms are not required in the public sector. A three bedroom council house for families with three ( or sometimes four ) children is the standard.
Personally I’d like a spare bedroom to be standard too.
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
As with every storm, PB predicts it will be more significant than it actually is. Dressgate, Chagos, etc.
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
The BBC usually survives and keeps the show on the road as LAB governments want it to continue (for obvious reasons) and CON governments usually have bigger fish to fry (and Tories have a love/hate relationship with it)
What makes this different is the spectre of REF - Who WILL form the next government - unless you think the polling is wrong?
The polling is probably right, but that’s a very different thing to Ref winning the next election in 3 years’ time.
This is a media-on-media fight. Just like the phone hacking scandal.
Do you seriously think Labour will recover from being on 18% (on average) to winning the next election????
Seriously????
You're usually sensible, Tim?
Labour has clearly reached the point of no return,. They are done. Election 29 is gone. Obviously. You're not an idiot, so I know you know this to be true.
The only question is whether REF have a majority or we have REF/CON coalition government. But Labour is finished and therefore so is the BBC,
The BBC communications team have been “taking heavy incoming” 😄
If you are still interested in the importance of Big hair in the 1980s, here is some more supporting evidence. DrWho fans, please note the youth of Twelve
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
As with every storm, PB predicts it will be more significant than it actually is. Dressgate, Chagos, etc.
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
The BBC usually survives and keeps the show on the road as LAB governments want it to continue (for obvious reasons) and CON governments usually have bigger fish to fry (and Tories have a love/hate relationship with it)
What makes this different is the spectre of REF - Who WILL form the next government - unless you think the polling is wrong?
The polling is probably right, but that’s a very different thing to Ref winning the next election in 3 years’ time.
This is a media-on-media fight. Just like the phone hacking scandal.
Do you seriously think Labour will recover from being on 18% (on average) to winning the next election????
Seriously????
You're usually sensible, Tim?
Labour has clearly reached the point of no return,. They are done. Election 29 is gone. Obviously. You're not an idiot, so I know you know this to be true.
The only question is whether REF have a majority or we have REF/CON coalition government. But Labour is finished and therefore so is the BBC,
Far too definitive.
Polling has moved around at unprecedented speed in recent years, ever since Brexit. Remember 2019, the year the Brexit Party was formed, the Tories were in the high teens for several polls during the summer and Jo Swinson was promising to be the next PM. Or 2017 when May went from looking at a 200+ majority to a hung parliament during an election campaign. Anyone who extrapolates from polling now to 2029 (certainly anyone who bets on it) is taking a big risk. Doesn’t mean Labour will be the beneficiaries of course.
The BBC communications team have been “taking heavy incoming” 😄
If you are still interested in the importance of Big hair in the 1980s, here is some more supporting evidence. DrWho fans, please note the youth of Twelve
I...watched that video. It was about a young man who kept an octopus prisoner in a tank and tried to teach it to play the piano. After failing he considered freeing the octopus, driving him to the edge of the ocean, then after tantalising him with freedom, drove back and put him back into the tank. It's basically a horror story...
The BBC communications team have been “taking heavy incoming” 😄
If you are still interested in the importance of Big hair in the 1980s, here is some more supporting evidence. DrWho fans, please note the youth of Twelve
I...watched that video. It was about a young man who kept an octopus prisoner in a tank and tried to teach it to play the piano. After failing he considered freeing the octopus, driving him to the edge of the ocean, then after tantalising him with freedom, drove back and put him back into the tank. It's basically a horror story...
Yep. Such torture and imprisonment is wrong. He should have taken it home, boiled it till fork-tender, sliced it up and served on a wooden plate, generously drizzled with high-quality olive oil, sprinkled with coarse salt, and finished with dusting of paprika.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
Lots of coverage suggesting that it was a last straw situation for him.
Who on earth is going to take the job on now?
£547,000 a year, with pension to match? I think we’ll find someone.
He just lost his job. His phone will be ringing off the hook with other gigs being offered to him - he’s an ex-DG of the BBC, for the rest of his life. He can sell that and keep selling it.
His resignation is really a sham - the token head. He will be in a better paid gig before 12th Night. The rest of the organisation will intone “Lessons will be learnt*” like a huge choir.
Wonder how big the golden goodbye is?
*Lessons not included. Learning not included. “Will” not included. “Be” probably not included. All wrongs reserved.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
From my PoV, with two currently under 2, I wonder if your slightly attacking this from the wrong end.
Firstly, paying for childcare so Mrs Max can go back to work seems mad. Mrs Prole is probably out of the labour market for at least 10 years now (I doubt we'll stop at 2 kids). The tax savings are immense, and you get the added fun of actually seeing your own kids grow up..
Yes, a 7 seat car is a bit of a PITA, but it's only a money pit if you want a shiny new one.
A four bed house is more than enough so long as the bedrooms themselves aren't too pokey. Stuff about them not sharing rooms is complete tosh, to be treated with the contempt it deserves, even as teenagers (obviously same gender in a room!). This is where living in London is terrible, living in the North is great - I'm looking at houses in the £500k zone at the moment, that gets you a detached 4-5 bed somewhere nice with some garden.
Have you considered home education - done right, you get a lot of the upsides of a private education, but without the price tag (the stay at home parent is the biggest "cost"). I'm aware it's somewhat seen as the preserve of weirdos and freaks, but there's nothing stopping you taking a more "normal" approach, at least as far as the end of primary.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
"Afterburner" is American? What is the proper name?
We originally called it reheat (when we invented it).
The Caproni Campini N.1 flew with a form of afterburner long before anyone else
Off topic. Probably my favourite YouTub video from the last year or so, from October last year. With regard to the Post Office Inquiry and head counsel Jason Beer. Paul Duckett is an academic, originally from the UK but now based in Australia.
The BBC / Trump story is a fundamentally boring one imo. I hope it blows over as quickly as possible and we can get back to more interesting politics.
The BBC live nothing more than talking about themselves and much of the rest of the British media live an opportunity to bash the BBC, so don't expect this to blow over quickly.
It's about a fortnight until the budget, so I'd expect it could well fill the next ten days until the pre-budget briefing kicks into top gear.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
"Afterburner" is American? What is the proper name?
We originally called it reheat (when we invented it).
The Caproni Campini N.1 flew with a form of afterburner long before anyone else
The BBC has had a left bias of sorts for a long time. But the reason they are struggling right now is probably for similar reasons so many other organisations are having trouble. A generational divide between older moderates and younger fanatics. For the sake of internal harmony the fanatics are appeased. Jonathan Haidt has been writing about this for several years.
Comments
I would not like to think what a very serious mistake would cause beyond where the BBC is tonight
See also: National Trust scones (even if the newspaper has previously published the recipe with approval).
The DG's resignation, as per upthread discussion, took most people by surprise. He resigned because of an accumulation of issues, not just because of this.
The licence fee is always under serious threat.
The story has blown up and taken on a life of its own. Those on the right who want to attack the BBC are using this as their hammer.
British society rightly holds the BBC to a high standard. Their opponents, less so. It's like the way that naughty children can get a rise out of Beefeaters by pulling faces at them, knowing that their training means that they cannot respond in kind.
Only this time, it's for real.
(See also the way that national armies really ought to behave better than terrorists, and that constrains their actions.)
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
Anyway, I have written an acerbic bitchslap article on this and other BBC-related matters. Coming shortly, according to the brilliant, esteemed and amazingly modest editor of this forum.
Mark Urban's piece seems very plausible.
https://markurban.substack.com/p/liberal-bias-us
"I don't think that we should allow ourselves to be bullied into thinking that the BBC is only any good, if it reflects the prejudice of the last person who shouted at it."
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1987953535737360855
But too many on the right in the UK think Trump can be used to win their local battles. This is not wise. He is a tyrant who corrupts everything he touches. Do not pretend that Trump threatening to sue for $1bn has any meaning or validity. Do not pretend that Trump didn’t encourage the actions of a violent gang to attack the Capitol. Some are so desperate for a “win” against the BBC that they wrap their arms around a man who has done more damage to our country’s interests than any President since James Monroe.
I've spotted plenty of others in advance. And taken action to try and stop them.
So you know what you can do.....
The overreaction (variously motivated), though, is off the scale.
Like, in other scandals - the bust up with Psycho Campbell over "sexing up" Iraq's WMD threat, for example - there were various possibilities of muddying the waters... In that case, fundamentally, the BBC was on the side of truth and the public, instinctively, knew it..
But on this, the BBC is totally and utterly banged to rights.
Obviously they did edit Trumps speech to make it look like he incited the riot. Obviously they did that because they (the editorial team and senior BBC management) wanted Trump to lose the 2024 Presidential election.
There is no other explanation within the timeline of events.
If they were a privately funded organisation with a clear editorial bias it would't matter, but they are a public service broadcaster who are supposed to always be neutral so they can represent everyone who funds them
Personally, I think this is the end of the BBC as we know it. Labour will try and keep it going but the next REF government will scrap the licence fee and privatise it - Using this scandal as cover.
RIP BBC: 1922-2032? 110 years wasn't a bad run, but nothing lasts forever.
Get a camper van. You won't be able to afford holidays. I had one when we had child number 3. They loved it. As did their friends.
Their parents were aghast at seeing it parked outside their houses, thinking gypsies had turned up. I enjoyed that bit.
Has the Bank effectively given up on its inflation targeting?
However, we probably ought to know that outsourcing a current affairs flagship to an independent producer is probably a mistake. Doing that and skimping on supervision, doubly so. Early Channel 4 had that sort of problem all the time.
The old ways may have been stodgy, they may have cost more, but they had definite advantages of editorial control.
Also- maybe we should accept that rolling news is a mistake? Redeploy the people involved to bulletins and programmes. Quality, not quantity.
"Italy’s biggest pasta exporters say import and antidumping duties totaling 107% on their pasta brands will make doing business in America too costly and are preparing to pull out of U.S. stores as soon as January."
https://x.com/MattZeitlin/status/1987899379886227728
Now, they misrepresented his speech and that was wrong, but the thrust of the documentary was accurate.
We did stay over a few nights on our way
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I entirely agree that there are more pressing issues concerning the BBC.
(And apologies for the dreadful pasta pun.)
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgk8NjzsgJI
Apparently with some success.
"Do you think we should have a one-minute silence now in this interview, one for you to apologise for daring to suggest that you know how I vote, and second perhaps in memory of monetarism, which you've now discarded?"
Electric at the time - and unlike so many political interviews, still lives in my memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner
What makes this different is the spectre of REF - Who WILL form the next government - unless you think the polling is wrong?
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
But honestly, my biggest BBC disappointment has been squarely at the Governments doorstep. The gutting of the World Service. Really quite shameful penny pinching.
And it was misleading to present it in that way.
The BBC should be above that. It shouldn't make it seem like [A] was followed immediately by [G] without acknowledging the intervening steps.
On the other hand: television stations (particularly television news stations) edit interviews all the time.
What: you think the 30 seconds you saw were the entirety of the interview?
Political candidates will regularly take opponents words and use them out of context. Fox News is hardly above cutting interviews to make people look mad, bad and dangerous. (And which is why Buttigieg always insists on being live on air.)
And these were the actual words of President Trump.
The BBC should -and has- apologised. People have taken responsibility and resigned.
That should be the end of the matter, and if Trump wishes to sue, he's welcome to try his luck at the High Court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54lR3Zs2B7A : 1984: "The Glasgow Style" with Peter Capaldi | Spectrum | Fashion | BBC Archive
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyiUiNXzAZ0
Apparently the three women being discussed as DG replacement are
This is a media-on-media fight. Just like the phone hacking scandal.
I've seen no evidence that what happened here was they forgot to do that rather than they set out to make a falsehood.
Campervans are really enormous fun to have and drive.
Personally I’d like a spare bedroom to be standard too.
Seriously????
You're usually sensible, Tim?
Labour has clearly reached the point of no return,. They are done. Election 29 is gone. Obviously. You're not an idiot, so I know you know this to be true.
The only question is whether REF have a majority or we have REF/CON coalition government. But Labour is finished and therefore so is the BBC,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phu-mxIGmvg
A nice representation of the diminishing of Lisa Nandy....
However the link led me to an octopus tricking a YouTuber to invent ridiculous piano’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcWnQ7fYzwI
Polling has moved around at unprecedented speed in recent years, ever since Brexit. Remember 2019, the year the Brexit Party was formed, the Tories were in the high teens for several polls during the summer and Jo Swinson was promising to be the next PM. Or 2017 when May went from looking at a 200+ majority to a hung parliament during an election campaign. Anyone who extrapolates from polling now to 2029 (certainly anyone who bets on it) is taking a big risk. Doesn’t mean Labour will be the beneficiaries of course.
He just lost his job. His phone will be ringing off the hook with other gigs being offered to him - he’s an ex-DG of the BBC, for the rest of his life. He can sell that and keep selling it.
His resignation is really a sham - the token head. He will be in a better paid gig before 12th Night. The rest of the organisation will intone “Lessons will be learnt*” like a huge choir.
Wonder how big the golden goodbye is?
*Lessons not included. Learning not included. “Will” not included. “Be” probably not included. All wrongs reserved.
Firstly, paying for childcare so Mrs Max can go back to work seems mad. Mrs Prole is probably out of the labour market for at least 10 years now (I doubt we'll stop at 2 kids). The tax savings are immense, and you get the added fun of actually seeing your own kids grow up..
Yes, a 7 seat car is a bit of a PITA, but it's only a money pit if you want a shiny new one.
A four bed house is more than enough so long as the bedrooms themselves aren't too pokey. Stuff about them not sharing rooms is complete tosh, to be treated with the contempt it deserves, even as teenagers (obviously same gender in a room!). This is where living in London is terrible, living in the North is great - I'm looking at houses in the £500k zone at the moment, that gets you a detached 4-5 bed somewhere nice with some garden.
Have you considered home education - done right, you get a lot of the upsides of a private education, but without the price tag (the stay at home parent is the biggest "cost"). I'm aware it's somewhat seen as the preserve of weirdos and freaks, but there's nothing stopping you taking a more "normal" approach, at least as far as the end of primary.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Testing_the_Campini_Caproni.jpg
"What makes Mr Beer magnificent?
Dr Paul Duckett"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGbGsIKnp-c
It's about a fortnight until the budget, so I'd expect it could well fill the next ten days until the pre-budget briefing kicks into top gear.
Just wait for Model Y@Reuters
Tesla's Model Y program manager announces exit alongside Cybertruck lead