But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.
Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.
They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.
I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
Better yet.
Talent shows with the prize being a BBC newsreader, talking head, sports commentator etc at a sizeable salary. But a fraction of the current rates.
This would cut nepotism, drive engagement and create programs that millions would watch.
Didn't they used to do something like that with the Esther Rantzen programme "The Big Time"?
We’ve been assured it doesn’t happen and been told it’s racist and homophobic for claiming it.
No doubt @bondegezou will be on here shortly to tell us you don't get asylum successfully approved unless it's a bona fide genuine claim and absolutely no-one is in a 4* hotel.
The 4* hotel thing is a straight-up fiction. If somewhere was a 4* hotel, but you remove all the services, strip out the amenities and put multiple bunkbeds in one room, it's clearly a lie to call that still a 4* hotel.
I've never said the asylum system in the UK gets everything right. Indeed, I've said the opposite. The system was run down under the Conservatives, so it was inefficient with long waits. I've long said we need a better system to better make decisions, which means more promptly, but also more accurately. We should only be giving asylum to those with bona fide claims and not to those without, we should make those decisions as quickly as possible, and we should deport those who don't have valid claims. That is clearly not what currently happens. Good on the BBC for their reporting in this case, and I hope appropriate action is taken.
Is pretending to be gay a widespread and successful tactic for getting asylum? The number of cases is low. A lower proportion of asylum claimants purport to be gay than the proportion in the general population who say they are gay. Do some asylum claimants make fraudulent claims? Yes, and we should have a system that spots those as well as possible.
The BBC article identifies a particular issue with Pakistani and Bangladeshi claimants. There are more asylum applicants claiming to be gay from those two countries than all other countries put together. Asylum applicants are a diverse group. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/ has a useful Table 1. This shows applications by country, top ten countries shown (2024 data on application numbers, 2021-3 data for success rates). You get some countries where there are undeniably conflicts and repression going on, and applicants from these countries have high acceptance rates (e.g., Eritrea, Syria and Sudan all on 99%, Iran on 87%). These claimants have often come into the country on a boat across the channel. But then you also have a lot of applications from countries that appear more stable and safer with, unsurprisingly, lower acceptance rates, including in South Asia: there's Pakistan (57%), Bangladesh (26%) and India (6%). These claimants have often come into the country on some sort of visa, but then claim asylum once over here, often when their visa is about to run out.
A lot of outrage is directed as those coming over on small boats, who generally are fleeing real persecution, whereas the fake asylum claimants (if we go on who gets rejected) have typically come into the country on visas and then claim. The solution to this is not to machine gun small boats in the channel. It's bilateral deals to address the issue with particular countries, as Sunak successfully* did with Albania.
It baffles me that people seriously argue the 4* hotel point. Even if we agree that the migrants aren’t getting 4* hotel treatment, the fact remains that what once was a 4* hotel is now a refugee centre, and locals are right to be angry about the way their town or village is going. Obviously it’s a handy tactic to be able to put the idea in people’s minds that the migrants are getting 4* treatment, but even without that it’s not on
In Chelmsford they are living in what are marketed as luxury flats, so they are getting accommodation above the level of the native people who are struggling
People will also have memories of these hotels. They’d have been there for weddings, Christmases, graduations, Granny’s 90th birthday party, and her funeral a year later…
I've never attended a wedding, Xmas, graduation, birthday party or funeral at a hotel, let alone a 4* one. Church halls, community centres, pubs, etc. are what most of us plebs do! But, sure, if people wanted a 4* hotel and didn't want a refugee centre, then they can complain about that.
But the misleading rhetoric that is spouted is that those seeking asylum are being put up in 4* hotels, in luxury, that they get so many benefits, etc. That's what is enraging people, and that's what is a lie.
You've never attended a wedding at a hotel? I’m actually slightly shocked; hotels feel pretty much the standard for the secular middle classes under the age of 50.
I'm secular and middle class, but over 50!
Church, church hall, registry office, private residence, that space you can rent under the Globe, gardens of a stately home. In so far as I can remember.
Like every other subject, Larkin is interested, this from about 1954:
Yes, from cafés And banquet-halls up yards, and bunting-dressed Coach-party annexes, the wedding-days Were coming to an end.
But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.
Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.
They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.
I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.
The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.
That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.
I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local.
But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.
Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.
They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.
I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
Better yet.
Talent shows with the prize being a BBC newsreader, talking head, sports commentator etc at a sizeable salary. But a fraction of the current rates.
This would cut nepotism, drive engagement and create programs that millions would watch.
The BBC really were the envy of the World, but that was then.
Their news content has lost its way and is generally poor, although they do still have some fantastic war correspondents.
The BBC were brilliant at sport presentation and everyone knew their key presenters and commentators, but with competitive tendering, outside of Women's International Darts from Frimley Green there isn't much left.
The BBC don't do costume dramas like they used to. The Other Bennet Girl was no Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice.
They still make some good contemporary drama, but also some rubbish. My advice would be to invest in some quality lighting
BBC comedy is hit and miss. For every Motherland or Mum we have two Mrs Brown's Boys or High Hopes.
Where the BBC remain top drawer are the light factual programming like the Repair Shop and Bargain Hunt. Highbrow stuff from Alice Roberts, Bettany Hughes, Simon Reeve and Hannah Fry remain excellent. All relatively cheap to make. Outside broadcasts used to be expensive with crews and a couple of 30 tonne outside broadcast vans. All the people and equipment they need for a Bargain Hunt shoot fits into a Vivaro van and a Seat Leon.
Local programming is also generally very good. Here in Wales we have something called the Crash Detectives which is very well made and relatively cheap to make.
Where the BBC remain top drawer are the light factual programming like the Repair Shop and Bargain Hunt. Highbrow stuff from Alice Roberts, Brittany Hughes, Simon Reeve and Hannah Fry remain excellent. All relatively cheap to make. Outside broadcasts used to be expensive with cres and a couple of 30 tonne outside broadcast vans. All the people and equipment they need for a Bargain Hunt shoot fits into a Vivasro van and a Seat Leon.
Where the BBC remain top drawer are the light factual programming like the Repair Shop and Bargain Hunt. Highbrow stuff from Alice Roberts, Brittany Hughes, Simon Reeve and Hannah Fry remain excellent. All relatively cheap to make. Outside broadcasts used to be expensive with cres and a couple of 30 tonne outside broadcast vans. All the people and equipment they need for a Bargain Hunt shoot fits into a Vivasro van and a Seat Leon.
Bettany Hughes.
Autocorrect, and subsequently corrected by me. Yet autocorrect didn't correct cres to crews.
But it doesn't work like that on the coalface. My son works six months contract followed by another six month contract with the BBC. He can be terminated at the end of every bsix month term. He is paid a little more than living wage.
Fifteen or so people on my son's wage equates to one Fiona Bruce or one Chris Mason or one Laura Kuennsberg. Get rid of those three and I have just saved the BBC well over a million pounds a year. No one would miss them.
Yes, the Beeb is massively top-heavy with layers of executives and ‘talent’, which they do their best to hide in their annual reports with outsourcing to theoretically production companies.
They should be nurturing ‘talent’, not holding onto it for decades like Fiona, Chris, Laura, and Huw Edwards.
I reckon I could cut the BBC headline budget by 10% per year without anyone noticing for five years. Which is just as well, because they’re losing licence fees at an astonishing rate at the moment.
I would -personally- radically reduce the size of the BBC.
The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.
That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.
I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local.
But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
We’ve been assured it doesn’t happen and been told it’s racist and homophobic for claiming it.
No doubt @bondegezou will be on here shortly to tell us you don't get asylum successfully approved unless it's a bona fide genuine claim and absolutely no-one is in a 4* hotel.
The 4* hotel thing is a straight-up fiction. If somewhere was a 4* hotel, but you remove all the services, strip out the amenities and put multiple bunkbeds in one room, it's clearly a lie to call that still a 4* hotel.
I've never said the asylum system in the UK gets everything right. Indeed, I've said the opposite. The system was run down under the Conservatives, so it was inefficient with long waits. I've long said we need a better system to better make decisions, which means more promptly, but also more accurately. We should only be giving asylum to those with bona fide claims and not to those without, we should make those decisions as quickly as possible, and we should deport those who don't have valid claims. That is clearly not what currently happens. Good on the BBC for their reporting in this case, and I hope appropriate action is taken.
Is pretending to be gay a widespread and successful tactic for getting asylum? The number of cases is low. A lower proportion of asylum claimants purport to be gay than the proportion in the general population who say they are gay. Do some asylum claimants make fraudulent claims? Yes, and we should have a system that spots those as well as possible.
The BBC article identifies a particular issue with Pakistani and Bangladeshi claimants. There are more asylum applicants claiming to be gay from those two countries than all other countries put together. Asylum applicants are a diverse group. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/ has a useful Table 1. This shows applications by country, top ten countries shown (2024 data on application numbers, 2021-3 data for success rates). You get some countries where there are undeniably conflicts and repression going on, and applicants from these countries have high acceptance rates (e.g., Eritrea, Syria and Sudan all on 99%, Iran on 87%). These claimants have often come into the country on a boat across the channel. But then you also have a lot of applications from countries that appear more stable and safer with, unsurprisingly, lower acceptance rates, including in South Asia: there's Pakistan (57%), Bangladesh (26%) and India (6%). These claimants have often come into the country on some sort of visa, but then claim asylum once over here, often when their visa is about to run out.
A lot of outrage is directed as those coming over on small boats, who generally are fleeing real persecution, whereas the fake asylum claimants (if we go on who gets rejected) have typically come into the country on visas and then claim. The solution to this is not to machine gun small boats in the channel. It's bilateral deals to address the issue with particular countries, as Sunak successfully* did with Albania.
It baffles me that people seriously argue the 4* hotel point. Even if we agree that the migrants aren’t getting 4* hotel treatment, the fact remains that what once was a 4* hotel is now a refugee centre, and locals are right to be angry about the way their town or village is going. Obviously it’s a handy tactic to be able to put the idea in people’s minds that the migrants are getting 4* treatment, but even without that it’s not on
In Chelmsford they are living in what are marketed as luxury flats, so they are getting accommodation above the level of the native people who are struggling
Unless they're being packed into these luxury flats at higher densities, in which case they're not.
Here's another book recommendation for those who would like to undertand more about American urban politics:
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight is the story of Papa Baccala, a Brooklyn Mafia boss, and Kid Sally Palumbo, a would-be capo who "couldn't run a gas station at a profit even if he stole the customers' cars". There's also Kid Sally's grandmother, who will go to extravagant lengths to see her boy make his mark. A love interest? Sure. Kid Sally's sister tumbles for an artistic type who rides a bicycle and has recently arrived from Calabria...
Fun read, if you don't mind a bunch of criminals getting bumped off by other criminals. And, in my opinion, there are some similarites between Sally Palumbo and the head of another prominent New York crime family.
Fun fact about Zach Nunn: He and his wife have six children, two, two, and two:
Nunn married Kelly in 2013 in Washington, D.C.[37] It was her second marriage, from which she had a daughter and son, Addisyn and Canon during her first marriage.[37] In 2015, they had a daughter, Olympia, then another daughter, Selwyn, in 2019.[37] They then fostered two biological sisters, Jayna and Aliya, in the winter of 2021.[37] They adopted their foster daughters in April 2023.
(That combination would be a plus for most Iowa voters.)
Comments
NEW THREAD
Yes, from cafés
And banquet-halls up yards, and bunting-dressed
Coach-party annexes, the wedding-days
Were coming to an end.
The BBC existed because it used to be the case that getting 'content' to people involved publicly owned airwaves. And there was a need to ensure that everyone's needs were satisfied, rather than just those people who advertisers wanted to target.
That is not the case any more. The internet has radically changed distribution. Having a 'pipe' used to make you unique. Now it's irrelevant.
I'm not sure what benefit the country accrues from there being a publicy owned video distribution platform in an age of streaming, instead the BBC should be in the business of procuring -mostly from the private sector- programming content where there is market failure. I.e., educational content, or Welsh language, for example. I think one can may also make the case for local.
But other than that, why is the BBC spending money competing with Netflix, Amazon, ITV and the like in producing light entertainment content?
Their news content has lost its way and is generally poor, although they do still have some fantastic war correspondents.
The BBC were brilliant at sport presentation and everyone knew their key presenters and commentators, but with competitive tendering, outside of Women's International Darts from Frimley Green there isn't much left.
The BBC don't do costume dramas like they used to. The Other Bennet Girl was no Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice.
They still make some good contemporary drama, but also some rubbish. My advice would be to invest in some quality lighting
BBC comedy is hit and miss. For every Motherland or Mum we have two Mrs Brown's Boys or High Hopes.
Where the BBC remain top drawer are the light factual programming like the Repair Shop and Bargain Hunt. Highbrow stuff from Alice Roberts, Bettany Hughes, Simon Reeve and Hannah Fry remain excellent. All relatively cheap to make. Outside broadcasts used to be expensive with crews and a couple of 30 tonne outside broadcast vans. All the people and equipment they need for a Bargain Hunt shoot fits into a Vivaro van and a Seat Leon.
Local programming is also generally very good. Here in Wales we have something called the Crash Detectives which is very well made and relatively cheap to make.
I know where I would take BBC programming
Fun read, if you don't mind a bunch of criminals getting bumped off by other criminals. And, in my opinion, there are some similarites between Sally Palumbo and the head of another prominent New York crime family.
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 26% (+1)
GRN: 20% (=)
CON: 17% (=)
LAB: 16% (=)
LDM: 11% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @FindoutnowUK, 15 Apr.
Changes w/ 8 Apr.