So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
I really do not care about the history of the BBC as we are in a very different age of subscription and free to air tv in which the BBC should compete and not have a single penny of tax payers money
Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers.
That kind of juxtaposition of statements is straight out of the hasbara handbook.
Cf. "be balanced and Zionist", and "explore the complexities and benefits of British relations with Israel."
No, it’s straight out of the “reality exists” handbook.
Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. None of those propositions cancels the others, and none of them requires me to become a spokesman for Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, Smotrich, or anyone else.
One of the more tedious habits in these discussions is that any attempt to avoid slogan-thinking gets denounced as “hasbara” by one side and antisemitism by the other. It is a useful trick if the aim is to stop people thinking, but not much use otherwise.
If your position is that one must not mention Israeli civilians being massacred or hostages being taken because that somehow contaminates criticism of Israel, then that is not seriousness or moral clarity. It is just factionalism in a keffiyeh.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
I’ve often wondered why anyone would choose to consume news from a place that simply provokes and enrages them.
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
I asked my question earlier in good faith. But there is a pissiness in the responses which does no credit to this forum really.
I have asked others elsewhere and have not received any sort of response bar, from one, a statement that Jews should go back to where they came from, which was darkly ironic really as well as ignorant. A 2-state solution would be the obvious and best answer but since Palestinians have turned this down 3 times and the demand now is for a Palestinian state instead of Israel with no Jews allowed to live in it, ethnic cleansing of and/or death for Jews would appear to be the preferred options of those demanding no Israel. This is not an option I support. But I fear that we are in a world where policy is increasingly being made by or for the benefit of those who think that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that it did not go far enough
I will bid you goodbye. Much like those choosing not to read newspapers which enrage them I choose not to spend time on a forum which feels increasingly hostile to those who do not accept its received opinions. Substituting books for social media is a good trade.
Sweeney74's post upthread is the best reply I can give you. In full: Is possible to talk reasonably about Israel and Palestine?
Only if people stop insisting on one spotless victim and one pure villain.
That seems to be where half these rows go wrong. Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. Large parts of the Israeli state response have been brutal, reckless and, in places, morally indefensible. None of that should be difficult to say, but people keep acting as though admitting one part somehow cancels the other.
The other problem is that people collapse four different arguments into one: who has suffered more, who is morally worse, who has the better historical claim, and what should actually happen now. Those are not the same question. In fact, the only one that really matters politically is the last one.
On the “right to the land” stuff, both sides have narratives that feel complete and righteous from the inside. Fine. But history does not provide a neat answer that makes millions of actual human beings disappear tidily, however tempting that may be to armchair zealots.
The slant I do think is real is that this conflict does seem to inflame and legitimise antisemitism far beyond Israel itself. Criticism of the Israeli government is plainly not the same thing as antisemitism. But it is also obvious that plenty of anti-Israel rhetoric slides very quickly into treating Jews everywhere as collectively guilty, which is just old poison in fresh packaging.
Same rule the other way round too: a synagogue in Manchester is not the IDF, and a mosque in Birmingham is not Hamas.
If people cannot keep that distinction clear, then they are not really talking about peace, justice or even politics. They are just picking a tribe and licensing hatred.
I wish you all the best, and will greatly miss your contributions if this really is your goodbye.
thanks. This debate needs the venom extracted. Sadly I see no sign of that.
Indeed and you articulated it far more eloquently than I ever could. Couldn’t disagree with a word you wrote.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.
After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).
. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Did you give any of these "quite a few" people a chance to answer your question? Any of them at all? Points that may well have come up would have included
1. what % are citizens of other countries or hold the right to citizenship in other countries (a majority?)
2. questions of ties, e.g. birth in Palestine, recency of immigration, etc.
3. willingness to apply for Palestinian citizenship,
4. proscription of old-regime ethnic supremacist agitation , including in the context of foreign-backed terrorism and stay-behind networks,
5. comparison with French Algeria, the Confederacy, and other regimes that have been caused to cease to exist,
6. the right of return for refugees,
7. the need for humanitarian compassion,
8. truth and reconciliation.
"Tumbleweed" suggests you've never heard any of the above points raised, not even point 1.
You might find this quite interesting. It goes some way to answering your questions and is in any event interesting in itself. Have you heard of the Amelek?
Yes I'd heard of Amalek. Netanyahu has invoked the smiting of Amalek in relation to both Gaza and Iran.
I knew Neturei Karta had some insights, backbone, and human decency, but hadn't heard of the view that Netanyahu was Amalek!
Did you see that Israel stopped access to Al Aqsa and also (unprecedentedly) stopped the Latin Patriarch from visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday? My feeling has been for a while that they will at some point pull a red heifer op - which Hamas said they thought was imminent in 2023.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
Because if they don't, people complain they are self-censoring.
I asked my question earlier in good faith. But there is a pissiness in the responses which does no credit to this forum really.
I have asked others elsewhere and have not received any sort of response bar, from one, a statement that Jews should go back to where they came from, which was darkly ironic really as well as ignorant. A 2-state solution would be the obvious and best answer but since Palestinians have turned this down 3 times and the demand now is for a Palestinian state instead of Israel with no Jews allowed to live in it, ethnic cleansing of and/or death for Jews would appear to be the preferred options of those demanding no Israel. This is not an option I support. But I fear that we are in a world where policy is increasingly being made by or for the benefit of those who think that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that it did not go far enough
I will bid you goodbye. Much like those choosing not to read newspapers which enrage them I choose not to spend time on a forum which feels increasingly hostile to those who do not accept its received opinions. Substituting books for social media is a good trade.
Sweeney74's post upthread is the best reply I can give you. In full: Is possible to talk reasonably about Israel and Palestine?
Only if people stop insisting on one spotless victim and one pure villain.
That seems to be where half these rows go wrong. Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. Large parts of the Israeli state response have been brutal, reckless and, in places, morally indefensible. None of that should be difficult to say, but people keep acting as though admitting one part somehow cancels the other.
The other problem is that people collapse four different arguments into one: who has suffered more, who is morally worse, who has the better historical claim, and what should actually happen now. Those are not the same question. In fact, the only one that really matters politically is the last one.
On the “right to the land” stuff, both sides have narratives that feel complete and righteous from the inside. Fine. But history does not provide a neat answer that makes millions of actual human beings disappear tidily, however tempting that may be to armchair zealots.
The slant I do think is real is that this conflict does seem to inflame and legitimise antisemitism far beyond Israel itself. Criticism of the Israeli government is plainly not the same thing as antisemitism. But it is also obvious that plenty of anti-Israel rhetoric slides very quickly into treating Jews everywhere as collectively guilty, which is just old poison in fresh packaging.
Same rule the other way round too: a synagogue in Manchester is not the IDF, and a mosque in Birmingham is not Hamas.
If people cannot keep that distinction clear, then they are not really talking about peace, justice or even politics. They are just picking a tribe and licensing hatred.
I wish you all the best, and will greatly miss your contributions if this really is your goodbye.
thanks. This debate needs the venom extracted. Sadly I see no sign of that.
Unfortunately, it suits too many people to keep the venom going.
And no, I don't have an answer. Or rather, the only answer I have is the one about forgiving those who do you wrong a ridiculous number of times, and then ten times more than that. And whilst we all know what happened to the chap who first suggested that, it is the only thing that has ever worked on a sustainable basis.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
Because if they don't, people complain they are self-censoring.
On topic, history tells us the midterms are rarely pretty for the party holding the Presidency.
Whether it will be a 1994-style blowout I don't know. In that election, the GOP won by just under seven points and gained 54 House and 8 Seante seats.
Obviously, our old mate Gerry Mandering has been at work since but it still seems a very tall order for the Republicans to hold the House. The Senate looks much harder for the Democrats but not insurmountable.
Will it make much difference? Presumably, not having a friendly legislature will force Trump to govern more executively but I suspect he won't find the last two years (presumably) that comfortable and thoughts will turn to the 2028 Presidential contest.
I think it's also easy to forget that gerrymandering isn't 'free'.
Most places (historically) who gerrymandered tried to fit all as many of their opponents votes in a couple of districts (that they won 80:20 or so), while leavning as many as possible as comfortable (but not ridiculous) 58:42 wins for the gerrymandering party.
In this way, you could have the bulk of the districts, safely, with a minority of the vote.
If you want to make the election give you more districts, then you need to take some of your opponents votes out of that 80:20 district. And you need to shrink the margin of victory in those districts you win to win.
So now we're not talking 58:42 as a baseline. We're now talking 55:45. Or 54:46. Districts that were previously safe in the event of a big swing are no longer safe.
That's why Republicans rose up and defeated plans to redraw maps in Indiana. It was becauase it made their safe districts much less safe.
In Texas, the new map is supposed to give the Republicans an additional 5 seats, taking them to 30 of the State's 38. But that may be optimistic. Three of the new Republican seats will only be narrowly Red, and all are based on Hispanics voting patterns that were new in 2024. If there is any reversion to prior voting patterns, all three of them could stay Blue.
Here's another method they're trying.
CNN found a Nebraska Democratic Senate candidate attended a GOP training event just months before filing for Senate. The Dem state party calls him a GOP plant to "trick voters" — he tells me he's a "free thinker," but admits voting for Trump. https://x.com/KFILE/status/2038591435285393789
On topic, history tells us the midterms are rarely pretty for the party holding the Presidency.
Whether it will be a 1994-style blowout I don't know. In that election, the GOP won by just under seven points and gained 54 House and 8 Seante seats.
Obviously, our old mate Gerry Mandering has been at work since but it still seems a very tall order for the Republicans to hold the House. The Senate looks much harder for the Democrats but not insurmountable.
Will it make much difference? Presumably, not having a friendly legislature will force Trump to govern more executively but I suspect he won't find the last two years (presumably) that comfortable and thoughts will turn to the 2028 Presidential contest.
I think it's also easy to forget that gerrymandering isn't 'free'.
Most places (historically) who gerrymandered tried to fit all as many of their opponents votes in a couple of districts (that they won 80:20 or so), while leavning as many as possible as comfortable (but not ridiculous) 58:42 wins for the gerrymandering party.
In this way, you could have the bulk of the districts, safely, with a minority of the vote.
If you want to make the election give you more districts, then you need to take some of your opponents votes out of that 80:20 district. And you need to shrink the margin of victory in those districts you win to win.
So now we're not talking 58:42 as a baseline. We're now talking 55:45. Or 54:46. Districts that were previously safe in the event of a big swing are no longer safe.
That's why Republicans rose up and defeated plans to redraw maps in Indiana. It was becauase it made their safe districts much less safe.
In Texas, the new map is supposed to give the Republicans an additional 5 seats, taking them to 30 of the State's 38. But that may be optimistic. Three of the new Republican seats will only be narrowly Red, and all are based on Hispanics voting patterns that were new in 2024. If there is any reversion to prior voting patterns, all three of them could stay Blue.
Here's another method they're trying.
CNN found a Nebraska Democratic Senate candidate attended a GOP training event just months before filing for Senate. The Dem state party calls him a GOP plant to "trick voters" — he tells me he's a "free thinker," but admits voting for Trump. https://x.com/KFILE/status/2038591435285393789
Ah, so like Tulsi Gabbard.
That's the first time she's ever been accused of being a thinker.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.
After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).
Yes so it started funding the BBC from the 1920s
So what - times change and so has broadcast media
The licence fee is simply absurd
No, what it was set up to fund ie programmes of high culture, science and current affairs and serious drama are needed now as much as then. Just license fee revenues should be shared with all broadcasters on freeview to fund such programmes not just the BBC and let the BBC use subscription to fund its online programmes and have some TV ads for populist programmes like Strictly, Gladiators and Eastenders
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
Having about four billion adherents (including me) gives a lot of scope for diversity, manipulation and bad people to rise to power at the top of things. A few billion critics of war, conflict, violence, autocracy etc belong to Abrahamic religions too. About half the population of the UK claim to belong to an Abrahamic religion. Very few kill each other. Most live quite good lives. Strange that.
And was that the case back in the 16th and 17th century?
A short question requires a book or two to answer. Short answer: Yes. Evidence; try this. Food for thought about ordinary Abrahamic religion in 16th century England is Eamonn Duffy (once upon a time one of my supervisors) 'Voices of Morebath, Yale UP (IIRC) This micro history speaks for millions of usually silenced people in an earlier age.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.
After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).
Yes so it started funding the BBC from the 1920s
So what - times change and so has broadcast media
The licence fee is simply absurd
No, what it was set up to fund ie programmes of high culture, science and current affairs and serious drama are needed now as much as then. Just license fee revenues should be shared with all broadcasters on freeview to fund such programmes not just the BBC and let the BBC use subscription to fund its online programmes and have some TV ads for populist programmes like Strictly, Gladiators and Eastenders
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.
After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).
Yes so it started funding the BBC from the 1920s
My point was it wasn't money to fund high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. It was to fund shows that encouraged people to get a radio and so purchase a radio licence...
Lord Reith as BBC DG from 1922 to 1938 focused license fee funding on high culture programmes at a time the BBC was the only broadcaster
I asked my question earlier in good faith. But there is a pissiness in the responses which does no credit to this forum really.
I have asked others elsewhere and have not received any sort of response bar, from one, a statement that Jews should go back to where they came from, which was darkly ironic really as well as ignorant. A 2-state solution would be the obvious and best answer but since Palestinians have turned this down 3 times and the demand now is for a Palestinian state instead of Israel with no Jews allowed to live in it, ethnic cleansing of and/or death for Jews would appear to be the preferred options of those demanding no Israel. This is not an option I support. But I fear that we are in a world where policy is increasingly being made by or for the benefit of those who think that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that it did not go far enough
I will bid you goodbye. Much like those choosing not to read newspapers which enrage them I choose not to spend time on a forum which feels increasingly hostile to those who do not accept its received opinions. Substituting books for social media is a good trade.
I am sure I will not be alone in feeling sorry to see you go. I have always found your contributions to be well written and thought-provoking.
Look after yourself.
Absolutely - all the very best, and I hope you won't totally leave the site.
On topic, supporting a two-state solution makes sense even if radicals on both sides reject it. Not every position gets implemented. I see no contradiction in supporting Israel's existence in its present boundaries and opposing the extremist actions of its current government. We should support what we think to be right, even when it looks difficult.
Yes, I do not think anyone on here has advocated for the destruction of Israel, though some deny the right of Palestinians to exist as a people on their own land. It is a straw man to deflect legitimate criticism of the IDF.
I would completely support Israel within its pre1967 borders, and the West Bank and Gaza becoming a truly autonomous Palestinian state, but each act of barbarism by both sides pushes that further into the future.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.
After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).
Yes so it started funding the BBC from the 1920s
So what - times change and so has broadcast media
The licence fee is simply absurd
No, what it was set up to fund ie programmes of high culture, science and current affairs and serious drama are needed now as much as then. Just license fee revenues should be shared with all broadcasters on freeview to fund such programmes not just the BBC and let the BBC use subscription to fund its online programmes and have some TV ads for populist programmes like Strictly, Gladiators and Eastenders
Simply the licence fee is not justifyable
To fund serious drama and documentaries on history, science, the arts etc it is. To fund populist soaps and gameshows and talent contests no it isn't, they should be funded by ads now
In all honesty Starmer’s judgment on the war is probably the best thing he’s done as PM. He’s got some skill.
Some PMs thrive in a crisis.
Starmer has handled foreign affairs exceptionally well.
Not as exceptionally well as Boris handled Ukraine though.
Maggie was mired in all sorts of problems before the Falklands.
At the other end of the scale is Ed Miliband, refusing to support pulling Assad's choke chain when he gassed his people. God alone knows how many deaths that decision led to.
So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…
So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn https://www.thesun.co.uk/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.
The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.
It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times
But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.
Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.
“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.
At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran
My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.
The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.
If they want to retain their funding model.
I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content
The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped
Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry
The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC
Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.
After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).
Yes so it started funding the BBC from the 1920s
So what - times change and so has broadcast media
The licence fee is simply absurd
No, what it was set up to fund ie programmes of high culture, science and current affairs and serious drama are needed now as much as then. Just license fee revenues should be shared with all broadcasters on freeview to fund such programmes not just the BBC and let the BBC use subscription to fund its online programmes and have some TV ads for populist programmes like Strictly, Gladiators and Eastenders
Simply the licence fee is not justifyable
HYUFD just justified it. You need to point out the flaws in his justification. It's not simple.
Comments
Dim and Dimmer on the left trying to outdo Corbyn and Heinrich and Josephine on the right trying to be the most idiotic and to con the delinquents
Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. None of those propositions cancels the others, and none of them requires me to become a spokesman for Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, Smotrich, or anyone else.
One of the more tedious habits in these discussions is that any attempt to avoid slogan-thinking gets denounced as “hasbara” by one side and antisemitism by the other. It is a useful trick if the aim is to stop people thinking, but not much use otherwise.
If your position is that one must not mention Israeli civilians being massacred or hostages being taken because that somehow contaminates criticism of Israel, then that is not seriousness or moral clarity. It is just factionalism in a keffiyeh.
The licence fee is simply absurd
At north of 2 quid
Yes I'd heard of Amalek. Netanyahu has invoked the smiting of Amalek in relation to both Gaza and Iran.
I knew Neturei Karta had some insights, backbone, and human decency, but hadn't heard of the view that Netanyahu was Amalek!
Did you see that Israel stopped access to Al Aqsa and also (unprecedentedly) stopped the Latin Patriarch from visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday? My feeling has been for a while that they will at some point pull a red heifer op - which Hamas said they thought was imminent in 2023.
Starmer has handled foreign affairs exceptionally well.
And no, I don't have an answer. Or rather, the only answer I have is the one about forgiving those who do you wrong a ridiculous number of times, and then ten times more than that. And whilst we all know what happened to the chap who first suggested that, it is the only thing that has ever worked on a sustainable basis.
*removes cover*
THAT’S UNIMPORTANT!
Cost of full tank of diesel up £21.35 since the start of the war
So we went to the historically next cheapest ..... £1.49.
NEW THREAD
I would completely support Israel within its pre1967 borders, and the West Bank and Gaza becoming a truly autonomous Palestinian state, but each act of barbarism by both sides pushes that further into the future.
Maggie was mired in all sorts of problems before the Falklands.
At the other end of the scale is Ed Miliband, refusing to support pulling Assad's choke chain when he gassed his people. God alone knows how many deaths that decision led to.