What puzzles me rather is that people are concerned about not jetting away for their holiday and never giving a thought to whether they'd be able to get back.
It’s a known issue for our travelling son. One way ticket to Almaty today, no return ticket and planning to come home in a couple of months. If the planes are grounded by then, it’s what? Buses and trains to Shanghai then a packet steamer home?
Perhaps you're in a position to help his finances if his journey turns out to be longer than his funds. Lots of people going on holiday abroad don't have any fallback options. It would terrify me.
Yes, and Central Asia is quite cheap. In practice he’d just extend his trip.
I remember at the time of Eyjafjallajokull so many people embarking on overland odysseys to get home by hook or by crook, at great expense. Best in almost all circumstances to hunker down and stay out until travel normalises.
ISTR during covid the media reporting on people trapped abroad who in quite terrible plight.
I recall an (Indian?) couple trapped on their honeymoon...
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Bit less of the peace and love the second time around. Maybe he was not as forgiving about that crucifixation business as he seemed at the time.
The Heavenly King, whose body count was 20-30 m, believed himself to be Jesus’ brother.
“Stilgar,” Paul said, “you urgently need a sense of balance which can come only from an understanding of long-term effects. What little information we have about the old times, the pittance of data which the Butlerians left us, Korba has brought it for you. Start with the Genghis Khan.” “Genghis … Khan? Was he of the Sardaukar, m’Lord?” “Oh, long before that. He killed … perhaps four million.” “He must’ve had formidable weaponry to kill that many, Sire. Lasbeams, perhaps, or …” “He didn’t kill them himself, Stil. He killed the way I kill, by sending out his legions. There’s another emperor I want you to note in passing—a Hitler. He killed more than six million. Pretty good for those days.” “Killed … by his legions?” Stilgar asked. “Yes.” “Not very impressive statistics, m’Lord.” “Very good, Stil.” Paul glanced at the reels in Korba’s hands. Korba stood with them as though he wished he could drop them and flee. “Statistics: at a conservative estimate, I’ve killed sixty-one billion, sterilized ninety planets, completely demoralized five hundred others. I’ve wiped out the followers of forty religions which had existed since—” “Unbelievers!” Korba protested. “Unbelievers all!” “No,” Paul said. “Believers.” “No,” Paul said. “Believers.” “My Liege makes a joke,” Korba said, voice trembling. “The Jihad has brought ten thousand worlds into the shining light of—” “Into the darkness,” Paul said. “We’ll be a hundred generations recovering from Muad’Dib’s Jihad. I find it hard to imagine that anyone will ever surpass this.” A barking laugh erupted from his throat. “What amuses Muad’Dib?” Stilgar asked. “I am not amused. I merely had a sudden vision of the Emperor Hitler saying something similar. No doubt he did.”
I look forward to seeing some of these lines in Dune Part III this year. As I've noted before some of the more casual viewers I observed after Dune Part II did not appear to realise what was about to happen.
I think it needs to be shown, not told.
I've not really paid attention to the trailers, so I'm assuming it will be mostly Dune Messiah, with added details of the jihad in flashback and dream sequences to flesh things out for those expecting an immediate sequel.
But perhaps it will pick up right where the last left off.
The second series of "Dune: Prophecy" should be with us soon. I quite liked series one. Though I was comparing it to the Apple TV hot mess of 'Foundation' so I might have been being generous to it.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Prepare to be shocked, there's plenty of studies showing people who never/hardly swore who then began swearing when they had Alzheimer's/dementia.
People with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias may experience significant changes in behavior, and using foul language and swearing is a common one. This behavior change can be extremely baffling and disturbing, particularly if this type of language had never previously been heard from the mouth of the dementia patient. Understanding why this shift in behavior occurs as one progresses through the stages of Alzheimer’s disease can help loved ones accept this unwanted behavior.
There are two sides of the brain, the right side and the left side, and both play a role in language skills. The left side controls formal language, while the ride side is responsible for automatic speech, swearing, and singing. With Alzheimer’s disease, an unfortunate reality is one’s language skills controlled by the left side of the brain fail before those controlled by the right side of the brain.
Think of it this way, as a young child, one learns swear words, and somewhere along the line, he or she is told not to use those words because doing so is wrong. That being said, simply because one stops saying the words out loud does not mean that the “naughty” words don’t still come to mind. For instance, say you slam your finger in the door. The first word that likely comes to your mind is a swear word. However, rather than blurt out the word that you know you shouldn’t say, you find a substitution word from the left side of your brain, one that is considered appropriate.
With Alzheimer’s disease, not only is impulse control lost, so is the ability to find replacement words for the foul ones that come to mind. Therefore, when your loved one searches for another word to say, there is nothing but the swear word to grasp, and this is what comes out verbally.
All of this makes sense. Brain damage of any kind - from head injuries, strokes, dementia or mental illness, can result in emotional dysregulation and/or a loss of impulse control. The brains of these people have undergone changes that they had no control over, so making a moral claim about their underlying psychology based on it makes no sense to me. As an aside a large proportion of prisoners in the US - around 60% if I remember right - have underlying traumatic brain injuries, and as we've discussed frontotemporal dementia can result in completely whacky and socially inapprapropriate behaviour.
There are even fun claims to be made that countries removing the lead from petrol experience drops in violent crime over the subsequent decades but we know about correlation and causation.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Prepare to be shocked, there's plenty of studies showing people who never/hardly swore who then began swearing when they had Alzheimer's/dementia.
People with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias may experience significant changes in behavior, and using foul language and swearing is a common one. This behavior change can be extremely baffling and disturbing, particularly if this type of language had never previously been heard from the mouth of the dementia patient. Understanding why this shift in behavior occurs as one progresses through the stages of Alzheimer’s disease can help loved ones accept this unwanted behavior.
There are two sides of the brain, the right side and the left side, and both play a role in language skills. The left side controls formal language, while the ride side is responsible for automatic speech, swearing, and singing. With Alzheimer’s disease, an unfortunate reality is one’s language skills controlled by the left side of the brain fail before those controlled by the right side of the brain.
Think of it this way, as a young child, one learns swear words, and somewhere along the line, he or she is told not to use those words because doing so is wrong. That being said, simply because one stops saying the words out loud does not mean that the “naughty” words don’t still come to mind. For instance, say you slam your finger in the door. The first word that likely comes to your mind is a swear word. However, rather than blurt out the word that you know you shouldn’t say, you find a substitution word from the left side of your brain, one that is considered appropriate.
With Alzheimer’s disease, not only is impulse control lost, so is the ability to find replacement words for the foul ones that come to mind. Therefore, when your loved one searches for another word to say, there is nothing but the swear word to grasp, and this is what comes out verbally.
Interesting but I still stand by what I thought originally, which is that people whose normal response to shutting their finger in the door when young is more likely to be something along the lines of "ouch" rather than a profanity (unless you count ouch as a profanity), are less likely to use them later on. I might not have expressed that clearly enough originally.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
My brother has worked for years with people with dementia and has said this for a long time. I don't know that I can fully believe it, but he does seem to be escalating all of his traditional behaviours.
The best description that I heard was that dementia simply eliminates the control/filter that most people have in order to function in society and thereby reveals the underlying person in all their glory
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Prepare to be shocked, there's plenty of studies showing people who never/hardly swore who then began swearing when they had Alzheimer's/dementia.
People with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias may experience significant changes in behavior, and using foul language and swearing is a common one. This behavior change can be extremely baffling and disturbing, particularly if this type of language had never previously been heard from the mouth of the dementia patient. Understanding why this shift in behavior occurs as one progresses through the stages of Alzheimer’s disease can help loved ones accept this unwanted behavior.
There are two sides of the brain, the right side and the left side, and both play a role in language skills. The left side controls formal language, while the ride side is responsible for automatic speech, swearing, and singing. With Alzheimer’s disease, an unfortunate reality is one’s language skills controlled by the left side of the brain fail before those controlled by the right side of the brain.
Think of it this way, as a young child, one learns swear words, and somewhere along the line, he or she is told not to use those words because doing so is wrong. That being said, simply because one stops saying the words out loud does not mean that the “naughty” words don’t still come to mind. For instance, say you slam your finger in the door. The first word that likely comes to your mind is a swear word. However, rather than blurt out the word that you know you shouldn’t say, you find a substitution word from the left side of your brain, one that is considered appropriate.
With Alzheimer’s disease, not only is impulse control lost, so is the ability to find replacement words for the foul ones that come to mind. Therefore, when your loved one searches for another word to say, there is nothing but the swear word to grasp, and this is what comes out verbally.
Interesting but I still stand by what I thought originally, which is that people whose normal response to shutting their finger in the door when young is more likely to be something along the lines of "ouch" rather than a profanity (unless you count ouch as a profanity), are less likely to use them later on. I might not have expressed that clearly enough originally.
"Interesting information, but I'll go back to the pre-information position"
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
My brother has worked for years with people with dementia and has said this for a long time. I don't know that I can fully believe it, but he does seem to be escalating all of his traditional behaviours.
The best description that I heard was that dementia simply eliminates the control/filter that most people have in order to function in society and thereby reveals the underlying person in all their glory
Whilst I can believe the removing filter explanation as plausible, I don't really accept the characterisation of it 'revealing' the underlying person.
Sometimes our filters are a loose thing we overlap on top of ourselves to function in certain situations, like not swearing at work, but sometimes these filters are actually core parts of our inherent personalities, like not being a rude arsehole to people. Losing such a filter would not be a reveal of who we actually are, but a change, in my view.
That is, our filters can be a part of who we are, not a disguise that can be cast off.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
My brother has worked for years with people with dementia and has said this for a long time. I don't know that I can fully believe it, but he does seem to be escalating all of his traditional behaviours.
The best description that I heard was that dementia simply eliminates the control/filter that most people have in order to function in society and thereby reveals the underlying person in all their glory
Yes but...
Dementia destroys different things at different times for different people. That filter dementia destroyed... well, it was a part of you.
And if dementia destroys that filter for you, and not for someone else, well... it doesn't mean that the person who didn't get their filter destroyed was good and polite all along, while you were an asshole and now it's exposed.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Likely the case.
I don't think dementia reveals the inner person - way too much is lost for that to be true - but I got the strong impression (from many hours in the care home) that it does reveal stuff that was always there, buried or not.
A lot of those I watched over the course of a few years had their own essential characters, which tended to remain as they deteriorated, even if they might bear little resemblance to what they were before the disease.
My parents had a good friend who had come to Scotland from Vienna on the kindertransport. She was a lovely, friendly and warm woman but after she got dementia became deeply fearful and suspicious of everybody. She lost almost her whole family (apart from her sister who had moved to Israel, who she didn't get on with) in the Holocaust and I think a lot of the feelings of fear from that time that she had been able to bury while she had a happy and thriving life in Scotland were revealed as dementia took its toll. It was very sad.
Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk appears to have developed something of a smoking problem overnight. Someone really needs to tell them to be careful when discarding cigarettes close to oil export terminals.
Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk appears to have developed something of a smoking problem overnight. Someone really needs to tell them to be careful when discarding cigarettes close to oil export terminals.
Almost four weeks until the next F1 race. And that (and the next) are both contaminated with sprint bullshit.
At least it gives McLaren and Ferrari time to try and catch up with Mercedes, and Aston Martin time to try and stop their car causing permanent nerve damage to the drivers.
Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk appears to have developed something of a smoking problem overnight. Someone really needs to tell them to be careful when discarding cigarettes close to oil export terminals.
This leaves Russia with pretty much only Murmansk as it oil export route for shipping. Oil prices might be $110, but Russia can't benefit.
Yup, the kinetic sanctions are working. Russia won’t be taking advantage of the rise in the oil price.
The Swedish picked up a dodgy Russian tanker over the weekend as well, was apparently leaking oil. Ukraine are also said to be staging naval forces around the Black Sea, taking out any dodgy tankers heading empty to pick up Russian oil. Russia has almost no Black Sea Fleet left, at least not anything they are capable of and willing to put to sea.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Likely the case.
I don't think dementia reveals the inner person - way too much is lost for that to be true - but I got the strong impression (from many hours in the care home) that it does reveal stuff that was always there, buried or not.
A lot of those I watched over the course of a few years had their own essential characters, which tended to remain as they deteriorated, even if they might bear little resemblance to what they were before the disease.
My parents had a good friend who had come to Scotland from Vienna on the kindertransport. She was a lovely, friendly and warm woman but after she got dementia became deeply fearful and suspicious of everybody. She lost almost her whole family (apart from her sister who had moved to Israel, who she didn't get on with) in the Holocaust and I think a lot of the feelings of fear from that time that she had been able to bury while she had a happy and thriving life in Scotland were revealed as dementia took its toll. It was very sad.
Dementia is tragic. Really an earlier death is often better for all concerned, heartless though that sounds.
My grandmother experienced terrible dementia for about a decade before dying. Classic Alzheimer's - memory deterioration, combined with unpredictable moments of suprising recall.
The strange thing was, even when she was leaving the gas on and couldn't remember the names of her own children, she could still do crossword puzzles amazingly well.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
My brother has worked for years with people with dementia and has said this for a long time. I don't know that I can fully believe it, but he does seem to be escalating all of his traditional behaviours.
The best description that I heard was that dementia simply eliminates the control/filter that most people have in order to function in society and thereby reveals the underlying person in all their glory
As I said above, I think that does a disservice to the victim. Dementia - and Alzheimer's in particular - destroys so much of what's there, that whatever the disinhibition is revealing, it's not really the underlying person - just bits of them.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
you really come out with some shite sometimes
Playing the man and not the ball, as usual for you.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
you really come out with some shite sometimes
Playing the man and not the ball, as usual for you.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Nikkei up today and s and p 500 futures trading fairly flat . Was fearing worse
The best thing for the world economy right now would be the S&P plunging. Actually no, the best thing would be US 10-year treasuries collapsing. Something extreme enough to provoke a major TACO.
A bullish stock market and continued gravity-defying US bond prices just encourage the madman.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
Its just the same pressure as the pub industry, mostly business rates and minimum wage inflation made worse by changing social habits.
I think it is time to slow down minimum wage growth for a period despite generally being a fan of the principle and increases until the last couple of years.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
Perhaps when Donald Trump completes his term of office in 2029, just in time for our general election, he will be able to help out here. He would certainly be more energetic than Sir Keir. https://x.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1950116274819740013
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
All high street businesses just need lower taxation regime .
The Saudis should have built much more pipeline capacity across their country to the Red Sea and to Oman decades ago. Then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Better still we shouldn't have withdrawn from the Gulf in the 1960s. That's what has led to the recurring series of diasters in that part of the world, which we, with American help, had kept fairly stable after the Second World War.
The area has never really recovered from the Wilson government's piece of woke and penny-pinching stupidity, combined with America even more moronically refusing to step in as an imperial policeman.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
All high street businesses just need lower taxation regime .
Also cheap parking and lower rents. If anything is to revive our High Sts whether shops, restaurants or comedy/music venues it is the night time economy.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
Perhaps if the govt, and the previous one, hadn’t raised costs on these businesses they’d be more viable and not need handouts.
The BBC were also bemoaning the loss of Saturday jobs for many 16-17 year olds. But the min wage for them has gone up,by just over 70% since 2021 along with all the other cost burdens businesses have.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
All high street businesses just need lower taxation regime .
Also cheap parking and lower rents. If anything is to revive our High Sts whether shops, restaurants or comedy/music venues it is the night time economy.
We know from polling during Covid that a large chunk of the older generation would like to ban the night time economy forever.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Likely the case.
I don't think dementia reveals the inner person - way too much is lost for that to be true - but I got the strong impression (from many hours in the care home) that it does reveal stuff that was always there, buried or not.
A lot of those I watched over the course of a few years had their own essential characters, which tended to remain as they deteriorated, even if they might bear little resemblance to what they were before the disease.
My parents had a good friend who had come to Scotland from Vienna on the kindertransport. She was a lovely, friendly and warm woman but after she got dementia became deeply fearful and suspicious of everybody. She lost almost her whole family (apart from her sister who had moved to Israel, who she didn't get on with) in the Holocaust and I think a lot of the feelings of fear from that time that she had been able to bury while she had a happy and thriving life in Scotland were revealed as dementia took its toll. It was very sad.
Dementia is tragic. Really an earlier death is often better for all concerned, heartless though that sounds.
My grandmother experienced terrible dementia for about a decade before dying. Classic Alzheimer's - memory deterioration, combined with unpredictable moments of suprising recall.
The strange thing was, even when she was leaving the gas on and couldn't remember the names of her own children, she could still do crossword puzzles amazingly well.
But the brain is a very strange thing.
Disturbingly, dementia very much runs in my family. Two grandparents, and an uncle, succumbed.
Comedy has always been hard. The 20th century greats came up from various traditions. Music hall entertainers (Ken Dodd for example). Working men’s clubs (lots of them). They did the hard yards and a few made it big. Modern observational comedy has a different route, mostly small gigs in clubs and pubs. But it’s still tough. I think we are still seeing the effects of people going out less on lots of entertainment, so it’s not just comedy.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
Comedy has always been hard. The 20th century greats came up from various traditions. Music hall entertainers (Ken Dodd for example). Working men’s clubs (lots of them). They did the hard yards and a few made it big. Modern observational comedy has a different route, mostly small gigs in clubs and pubs. But it’s still tough. I think we are still seeing the effects of people going out less on lots of entertainment, so it’s not just comedy.
Don't forget ENSA. Entertaining troops in the middle of a War was a hard gig. Not as much as fighting it, mind.
Anyone who, unhappily, had had to deal with demented relative or friend will recognise the startling loss of inhibitions about profanities as a symptom
Fake news. My father, with very advanced dementia, retained pretty good manners until then end.
It would be surprising if people who never much used profanities throughout their life suddenly started using them when they got dementia. Just a theory.
Likely the case.
I don't think dementia reveals the inner person - way too much is lost for that to be true - but I got the strong impression (from many hours in the care home) that it does reveal stuff that was always there, buried or not.
A lot of those I watched over the course of a few years had their own essential characters, which tended to remain as they deteriorated, even if they might bear little resemblance to what they were before the disease.
My parents had a good friend who had come to Scotland from Vienna on the kindertransport. She was a lovely, friendly and warm woman but after she got dementia became deeply fearful and suspicious of everybody. She lost almost her whole family (apart from her sister who had moved to Israel, who she didn't get on with) in the Holocaust and I think a lot of the feelings of fear from that time that she had been able to bury while she had a happy and thriving life in Scotland were revealed as dementia took its toll. It was very sad.
Dementia is tragic. Really an earlier death is often better for all concerned, heartless though that sounds.
My grandmother experienced terrible dementia for about a decade before dying. Classic Alzheimer's - memory deterioration, combined with unpredictable moments of suprising recall.
The strange thing was, even when she was leaving the gas on and couldn't remember the names of her own children, she could still do crossword puzzles amazingly well.
But the brain is a very strange thing.
Disturbingly, dementia very much runs in my family. Two grandparents, and an uncle, succumbed.
I thought the PB free speech warriors would be up in arms over the proposed ban of KanYE West rather than subsidies for comedy venues, though I accept that the collision between antisemitism and a sometime pal of Trump may cause conflicted feelings. I assume Toby Young is on the case.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
GB news is funded by ads and gets more viewers now than Sky news. It does cover international news as well so maybe that is where its application would be focused
Back to Dementia Don. It's the US voters that have the issue, not Don.
Trump’s various companies have declared bankruptcy a number of times. This was mostly an attack line during the presidential debates, but Trump’s response made sense:
I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.
He's a known quantity - family first, partners (and voters) can swivel. Then there is the publication of Project 2025 and all the plays within. And yet they persist with him and his people.
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/2040882986728460451 Imagine Amazon — but for combat drones. Ukraine built it. Commanders log in, browse hundreds of drone models, pay with brigade credits and receive delivery in 5-10 days.
Successful strikes earn bonus credits. No other military in the world does this..
..Capt. Denys Poliachenko was in an icy bunker near Pokrovsk. Russian forces were building up 20 miles away.
His attack drones could not reach that far. He opened his phone and ordered a cold-weather long-range model. "I can order any device sitting in a dugout"...
Fascinating thread. Pretty well the complete antithesis of how it's done here. .. under the old system drones "either came in the wrong quantity or the wrong quality."..
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
All high street businesses just need lower taxation regime .
Also cheap parking and lower rents. If anything is to revive our High Sts whether shops, restaurants or comedy/music venues it is the night time economy.
This govt and the previous one have been nothing but hostile to the night time economy.
The solution is lowering their costs to make them attractive.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
GB news is funded by ads and gets more viewers now than Sky news. It does cover international news as well so maybe that is where its application would be focused
GB news is funded by Paul Marshall, a billionaire who wants to change the way we think to make it more like he thinks.
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/2040882986728460451 Imagine Amazon — but for combat drones. Ukraine built it. Commanders log in, browse hundreds of drone models, pay with brigade credits and receive delivery in 5-10 days.
Successful strikes earn bonus credits. No other military in the world does this..
..Capt. Denys Poliachenko was in an icy bunker near Pokrovsk. Russian forces were building up 20 miles away.
His attack drones could not reach that far. He opened his phone and ordered a cold-weather long-range model. "I can order any device sitting in a dugout"...
Fascinating thread. Pretty well the complete antithesis of how it's done here. .. under the old system drones "either came in the wrong quantity or the wrong quality."..
The massive scale of investmentin these drones by the Gulf states is going to hugely change warfare - and planning for warfare - for at least the next decade.
This will be to the great benefit of Ukraine. It has already showcased its domestic drone uindustries by what it is doing to the Russian hydrocarbons industry. A happy accident that those investing in these drones will benefit from a massive competitor - Russia - being knocked back many years in its maximum delivery of hydrocarbons. yes, Putin was stupid to have started the Ukraine invasion. But others will now benefit.
Also adversely impacted will be US arms manufacturers. At least until they can demonstrate they have competitvely priced and capable products in this new drone era. Trump's Iran adventure demonstrates they currently don't. Expensive and not entirely effective long-range demolition isn't what arms buyers want.
People are too stupid to be able to.understand the Alternative Vote System...after all. in 2015 there was a survey done and 59% had no. dea who the Prime Minister was.. I rest my case. I suspect if you asked the question about who was PM in 2015 now the figures would be even worse.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
All high street businesses just need lower taxation regime .
Also cheap parking and lower rents. If anything is to revive our High Sts whether shops, restaurants or comedy/music venues it is the night time economy.
We know from polling during Covid that a large chunk of the older generation would like to ban the night time economy forever.
The most prescient description of the night time economy was in The Time Machine when the Eloi scamper away to their comfortable homes as the Morlocks emerge from their burrows.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
Does he believe in the right/responsibility of businesses to maximise their profits? That is what Waitrose are trying to do.
I agree with Farage that Waitrose have got it wrong imo, but no need to "explode" at them, perhaps they are correct, it is their business and not mine or Farage's after all.
What specific changes to the law, and funding of justice are Reform offering? And why did none of their Tory retreads fix that in their 15 years in charge?
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
Does he believe in the right/responsibility of businesses to maximise their profits? That is what Waitrose are trying to do.
I agree with Farage that Waitrose have got it wrong imo, but no need to "explode" at them, perhaps they are correct, it is their business and not mine or Farage's after all.
What specific changes to the law, and funding of justice are Reform offering? And why did none of their Tory retreads fix that in their 15 years in charge?
Has he actually ‘exploded’ at them or is this just hyperbole by the paper.
The lamb yesterday was superb, btw. Started with a tomoto and basil soup with a little chilli, brought by our neighbours. Finished with raspberry souffles and local cheeses. Much wine was consumed.
We dined like kings. Well, why not? We may soon be in the end times...
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
Does he believe in the right/responsibility of businesses to maximise their profits? That is what Waitrose are trying to do.
I agree with Farage that Waitrose have got it wrong imo, but no need to "explode" at them, perhaps they are correct, it is their business and not mine or Farage's after all.
What specific changes to the law, and funding of justice are Reform offering? And why did none of their Tory retreads fix that in their 15 years in charge?
Has he actually ‘exploded’ at them or is this just hyperbole by the paper.
If he has literally exploded it should be making bigger headlines. Otherwise it is hard to judge or agree on what counts as "exploded" or not so you'll have to make your own call.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
So they are effectively admitting the shoplifters have nukes, and they don't.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
So they are effectively admitting the shoplifters have nukes, and they don't.
How is that going to play out?
The way it currently does - if shoplifting gets too much the store closes down..
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
What was your point - a billionaire is trying to get some government money to cover some of his losses...
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
So they are effectively admitting the shoplifters have nukes, and they don't.
How is that going to play out?
The way it currently does - if shoplifting gets too much the store closes down..
And the govt is forced to change the law, hence the recriminalisation of sub £200 shoplifting.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
What was your point - a billionaire is trying to get some government money to cover some of his losses...
He is not trying to cover the losses, he doesn't care about that. He wants to put his spin on the World Service and replace the existing content.
Even if they can get to a point where they believe the US will comply - yes, suspend disbelief for a moment - there is zero reason to believe that Israel will abide by any deal.
That is going to require Washington to get VERY heavy with Tel Aviv. Cutting off all aid heavy.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
It’s entirely relevant. The world service isn’t some light entertainment channel that should be open to the highest bidder.
Especially when that highest bidder isn’t actually offering money, they’re asking for it.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
There are many videos from the USA of shops closing because of wholesale looting, leaving the communities with nowhere local to buy even basic necessities. Shows where one ends up once the slippery slope starts.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
So they are effectively admitting the shoplifters have nukes, and they don't.
How is that going to play out?
Or, to take a topical analogy, the shops have nukes which they dare not use. Meanwhile, the shoplifters have drones. Drones win by being small and numerous.
Besides, at a pure cost-benefit level, it's very likely cheaper to tolerate quite a lot of shoplifting than pay for enough security staff to properly deter it. Same goes for police followup of shoplifting, or a mobile phone or bike theft.
Horribly corrosive for society, natch. But that's intangible and the effects roll in over time, so our culture tends not to bother.
The BBC website is really scraping the barrel. That’s not even knows. It’s advocacy.
The BBC themselves already spend loads of money on comedy.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
What’s your evidence for people stopping watching comedy because of political correctness and cancel culture? If you think the Edinburgh Fringe is doing well via lots of politically incorrect, rightwing comedians I have a Jim Davidson video to sell you.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The Middle East governments heavily subsidise their comedy festivals of course:
Comedy is a lot about the satire of the establishment in its many forms . Do we really want government subsidising (and therefore controlling) that?
Put aside the comedy itself and this is just another variant on the theme of support pubs and live venues.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
All high street businesses just need lower taxation regime .
Also cheap parking and lower rents. If anything is to revive our High Sts whether shops, restaurants or comedy/music venues it is the night time economy.
It's amazing how much paying for parking exercises people on my local Facebook groups. And you can park for free - there are short term parking bays a little walk from the high street, single yellow lines you can park on after 6pm, a multistorey that is free after 6pm and on Sundays and only costs £1 for two hours anyway. But clearly not good enough. These are people who can afford SUVs and new EVs who complain about a pound or two, and to avoid it will drive to a neighbouring town thus wasting time and fuel.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
It’s entirely relevant. The world service isn’t some light entertainment channel that should be open to the highest bidder.
Especially when that highest bidder isn’t actually offering money, they’re asking for it.
Not, it’s not relevant. No one is saying it’s light entertainment.
Broadcasters should be paid for it. It should be up for competitive tender, based on a scope defined by the govt, not just money doled out to the Beeb.
Comedy has always been hard. The 20th century greats came up from various traditions. Music hall entertainers (Ken Dodd for example). Working men’s clubs (lots of them). They did the hard yards and a few made it big. Modern observational comedy has a different route, mostly small gigs in clubs and pubs. But it’s still tough. I think we are still seeing the effects of people going out less on lots of entertainment, so it’s not just comedy.
Don't forget ENSA. Entertaining troops in the middle of a War was a hard gig. Not as much as fighting it, mind.
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
It’s entirely relevant. The world service isn’t some light entertainment channel that should be open to the highest bidder.
Especially when that highest bidder isn’t actually offering money, they’re asking for it.
Not, it’s not relevant. No one is saying it’s light entertainment.
Broadcasters should be paid for it. It should be up for competitive tender, based on a scope defined by the govt, not just money doled out to the Beeb.
sounds like a reason for inventing the Beeb if it didn't exist
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
What was your point - a billionaire is trying to get some government money to cover some of his losses...
I mean, surely as a comedian, if you're not able to make enough money by filling auditoriums because your jokes aren't funny enough, the answer is to improve the quality of your jokes, not ask for money from taxpayers? Or am I missing something.
Yes. The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
And there is a broad problem in the creative arts. Music, theatre, you name it. It's easier to travel, it's easier to broadcast, so we all have better access to big names at the top of their games. That's a good thing for them and us now, and it's a process that's been going on since the death of weekly rep.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
The world service budget should be open to any broadcaster to apply for.
The world service exists to project UK geopolitical influence, strengthen cultural affinity with Britain and undermine its enemies by supporting dissident voices. It is a key tool in British diplomacy and soft power. One of the things that keeps us relevant. And it is a bargain.
As exciting as that is to hear it’s not really relevant to my point.
It’s entirely relevant. The world service isn’t some light entertainment channel that should be open to the highest bidder.
Especially when that highest bidder isn’t actually offering money, they’re asking for it.
Not, it’s not relevant. No one is saying it’s light entertainment.
Broadcasters should be paid for it. It should be up for competitive tender, based on a scope defined by the govt, not just money doled out to the Beeb.
sounds like a reason for inventing the Beeb if it didn't exist
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
So they are effectively admitting the shoplifters have nukes, and they don't.
How is that going to play out?
Or, to take a topical analogy, the shops have nukes which they dare not use. Meanwhile, the shoplifters have drones. Drones win by being small and numerous.
Besides, at a pure cost-benefit level, it's very likely cheaper to tolerate quite a lot of shoplifting than pay for enough security staff to properly deter it. Same goes for police followup of shoplifting, or a mobile phone or bike theft.
Horribly corrosive for society, natch. But that's intangible and the effects roll in over time, so our culture tends not to bother.
The steaming gangs we are seeing in action in Clapham M&S can't be tolerated. It is not compatible with any sort of business model.
"Waitrose employee sacked after stopping shoplifter from taking Easter eggs Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
This doesn't get changed by politicians as much as by customers. Waitrose are telling me that I have to pay higher prices in their stores because they will not take measures to protect their stock. So why the hell should I shop there?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
Their calculation is that the cost of stock lost is less than the cost of lawsuits when an employee gets killed or seriously injured.
So they are effectively admitting the shoplifters have nukes, and they don't.
How is that going to play out?
Or, to take a topical analogy, the shops have nukes which they dare not use. Meanwhile, the shoplifters have drones. Drones win by being small and numerous.
Besides, at a pure cost-benefit level, it's very likely cheaper to tolerate quite a lot of shoplifting than pay for enough security staff to properly deter it. Same goes for police followup of shoplifting, or a mobile phone or bike theft.
Horribly corrosive for society, natch. But that's intangible and the effects roll in over time, so our culture tends not to bother.
The steaming gangs we are seeing in action in Clapham M&S can't be tolerated. It is not compatible with any sort of business model.
Nor should it be.
Fully agreed, but that's the easy bit.
The harder thing is to work out what to do about it and who should pay/what should be cut to fund it.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7v0dFCWH7k
"We're getting married / On our own / Starting our journey / On our own
Well I found you, oh / Amongst a billion parts / Well I found you, oh / Against a billion odds
I was leaving / What I own
Till I found you, oh / Amongst a billion parts / And I found you, oh / Against a billion odds"
There are even fun claims to be made that countries removing the lead from petrol experience drops in violent crime over the subsequent decades but we know about correlation and causation.
Sometimes our filters are a loose thing we overlap on top of ourselves to function in certain situations, like not swearing at work, but sometimes these filters are actually core parts of our inherent personalities, like not being a rude arsehole to people. Losing such a filter would not be a reveal of who we actually are, but a change, in my view.
That is, our filters can be a part of who we are, not a disguise that can be cast off.
Dementia destroys different things at different times for different people. That filter dementia destroyed... well, it was a part of you.
And if dementia destroys that filter for you, and not for someone else, well... it doesn't mean that the person who didn't get their filter destroyed was good and polite all along, while you were an asshole and now it's exposed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y73z94xzeo
THEY MUST BE JOKING!
(bows left, bows right, exeunt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXxXp7g6fFw
Walker Smith, 54, who worked for retailer for 17 years, says he grabbed bag from thief before they escaped"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/05/waitrose-employee-sacked-after-stopping-shoplifter-from-taking-easter-eggs
https://www.cato.org/blog/rare-earths-vulcan-government-equity-stakes
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/2040910436204253580
The network of smaller venues where people learn their craft matter. Quite how to best stimulate this I do not know.
This leaves Russia with pretty much only Murmansk as it oil export route for shipping. Oil prices might be $110, but Russia can't benefit.
Predictive text.
Almost four weeks until the next F1 race. And that (and the next) are both contaminated with sprint bullshit.
At least it gives McLaren and Ferrari time to try and catch up with Mercedes, and Aston Martin time to try and stop their car causing permanent nerve damage to the drivers.
The Swedish picked up a dodgy Russian tanker over the weekend as well, was apparently leaking oil. Ukraine are also said to be staging naval forces around the Black Sea, taking out any dodgy tankers heading empty to pick up Russian oil. Russia has almost no Black Sea Fleet left, at least not anything they are capable of and willing to put to sea.
The way you support the industry is by encouraging people to visit their local comedy club, and not just go to the theatre when a big name is in town. Edinburgh Fringe seems to be doing rather well, place was heaving when I was there in the summer.
Alternatively find someone to do a Joe Rogan, who took a massive cheque from Spotify for his podcast and invested it in an old theatre, set up his own comedy club.
The unwritten bit in the BBC piece, is of course that people stopped watching a lot of comedy because of the political correctness and cancel culture, including club owners making booking decisions on the basis of small but loud activist groups targeting them. What they actually want the government to subsidise is the PC comedy that no-one is voluntarily paying to see. ‘Alternative’ events such as Comedy Unleashed still get good crowds.
My grandmother experienced terrible dementia for about a decade before dying. Classic Alzheimer's - memory deterioration, combined with unpredictable moments of suprising recall.
The strange thing was, even when she was leaving the gas on and couldn't remember the names of her own children, she could still do crossword puzzles amazingly well.
But the brain is a very strange thing.
Disclaimer: I’d rather have my perineum pierced than go to a comedy show of any political stripe (though I did dutifully go and see a daughter of friend doing her stand up).
The article was about subsidising the grassroots, in a similar way to what happens with music of drama etc.
It's probably rather more to do with helping keep small venues open, so they provide opportunities to aspiring comedians to see if they can become good at it (or not), and rather less about subsidising someone "not funny enough".
Standup leaves me cold, so I don't have strong feelings about it. But a couple of people seem to be wilfully misreading the article.
What are they going to make over the 4 year term? Just tens of billions or hundreds of billions?
Whatever happened to the DOGE fans who thought public spending was going to be reined in.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/10/fear-laughing-riyadh-comedy-louis-ck/684527/
Even if Hormuz opened today the aftershocks and damage to production infrastructure pretty much ensures inflation and other aftershocks.
However the market can remain irrational for a long time.
A bullish stock market and continued gravity-defying US bond prices just encourage the madman.
I think it is time to slow down minimum wage growth for a period despite generally being a fan of the principle and increases until the last couple of years.
There’s something to be said for that - like it or hate it, grassroots subsidy or tax breaks (to the arts, sport, independent businesses, whatever) do have an effect. Those in favour would argue it corrects market failures and slows the Costafication of the high street. Those against argue either that it preserves zombie enterprises and suppresses productivity, or is money better spent on heath/defence/policing etc.
Perhaps when Donald Trump completes his term of office in 2029, just in time for our general election, he will be able to help out here. He would certainly be more energetic than Sir Keir.
https://x.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1950116274819740013
Better still we shouldn't have withdrawn from the Gulf in the 1960s. That's what has led to the recurring series of diasters in that part of the world, which we, with American help, had kept fairly stable after the Second World War.
The area has never really recovered from the Wilson government's piece of woke and penny-pinching stupidity, combined with America even more moronically refusing to step in as an imperial policeman.
But how is the next generation going to get to the top of their game?
Meanwhile, it's not just woke jokers who are after government funding. GB News is as well;
GB News, the divisive and loss-making news channel, wants to be eligible for public funding — potentially by claiming part of the BBC’s World Service budget.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/e4973157-0a5a-40a4-95f7-84caaefdaf73?shareToken=46e1bd7329e576ad2faca943b9ca1232
The BBC were also bemoaning the loss of Saturday jobs for many 16-17 year olds. But the min wage for them has gone up,by just over 70% since 2021 along with all the other cost burdens businesses have.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywxlvelevo
Three greens in one
Four more turns to get the final two letters.
Hope my teaching goes better.
Not as much as fighting it, mind.
Direct hit would solve an awful lot of problems.
I assume Toby Young is on the case.
I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I’m running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that’s what I do.
He's a known quantity - family first, partners (and voters) can swivel. Then there is the publication of Project 2025 and all the plays within. And yet they persist with him and his people.
https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/2040882986728460451
Imagine Amazon — but for combat drones. Ukraine built it. Commanders log in, browse hundreds of drone models, pay with brigade credits and receive delivery in 5-10 days.
Successful strikes earn bonus credits. No other military in the world does this..
..Capt. Denys Poliachenko was in an icy bunker near Pokrovsk. Russian forces were building up 20 miles away.
His attack drones could not reach that far. He opened his phone and ordered a cold-weather long-range model. "I can order any device sitting in a dugout"...
Fascinating thread.
Pretty well the complete antithesis of how it's done here.
.. under the old system drones "either came in the wrong quantity or the wrong quality."..
The solution is lowering their costs to make them attractive.
This will be to the great benefit of Ukraine. It has already showcased its domestic drone uindustries by what it is doing to the Russian hydrocarbons industry. A happy accident that those investing in these drones will benefit from a massive competitor - Russia - being knocked back many years in its maximum delivery of hydrocarbons. yes, Putin was stupid to have started the Ukraine invasion. But others will now benefit.
Also adversely impacted will be US arms manufacturers. At least until they can demonstrate they have competitvely priced and capable products in this new drone era. Trump's Iran adventure demonstrates they currently don't. Expensive and not entirely effective long-range demolition isn't what arms buyers want.
in 2015 there was a survey done and 59% had no. dea who the Prime Minister was.. I rest my case.
I suspect if you asked the question about who was PM in 2015 now the figures would be even worse.
"Nigel Farage explodes as Waitrose sacks thief catcher: ‘Britain is broken!’ | Politics | News | Express.co.uk" https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2190669/nigel-farage-waitrose-shoplifting
I agree with Farage that Waitrose have got it wrong imo, but no need to "explode" at them, perhaps they are correct, it is their business and not mine or Farage's after all.
What specific changes to the law, and funding of justice are Reform offering? And why did none of their Tory retreads fix that in their 15 years in charge?
Any supermarket saying they will take robust measures to stop shoplifting and keep prices lower will have an edge.
The single biggest issue with all the "Iran will agree to a US deal" bits is that Iran has literally zero reason to believe the US will stick to any deal
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2040860002928234499
We dined like kings. Well, why not? We may soon be in the end times...
How is that going to play out?
That is going to require Washington to get VERY heavy with Tel Aviv. Cutting off all aid heavy.
Especially when that highest bidder isn’t actually offering money, they’re asking for it.
Besides, at a pure cost-benefit level, it's very likely cheaper to tolerate quite a lot of shoplifting than pay for enough security staff to properly deter it. Same goes for police followup of shoplifting, or a mobile phone or bike theft.
Horribly corrosive for society, natch. But that's intangible and the effects roll in over time, so our culture tends not to bother.
Broadcasters should be paid for it. It should be up for competitive tender, based on a scope defined by the govt, not just money doled out to the Beeb.
He was on saxaphone in the Playboy tours there.
Nor should it be.
https://x.com/cphilpofficial/status/2041070609589821568?s=61
Is Don Loco awake yet?
The harder thing is to work out what to do about it and who should pay/what should be cut to fund it.