Does anyone agree that there is a need for forum space to mention all those things that are of interest in the short term but, would not necessarily sustain a half a dozen or a dozen comments.
For example: Yesterday was the last day of the Six Nations rugby competition. Only of interest perhaps, to few on these Forums. I’d like to have placed a reminder but couldn’t find the last Six Nations subject, so didn’t bother.
Another example: Lord Neuburger, President of the Supreme Court mentioned that it was desirable that people should not be prevented from venting their often frustrated opinions on contentious issues for fear of condemnation. He thought that commentators who were opposed, were inhibited by the prospect of disapproval, from discussing rascism, homosexuality, ordination of females etc.
My Six Nations snippet was that it was a generally good result. Ireland won (by points difference) the Six Nations title from England. England won the Triple Crown and France was beaten ! Result.
By: trekbuster - 20th February 2016 at 16:04
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244163[/ATTACH]
The rats are emerging from the woodwork pretty quickly.
Six good reasons not to vote No. Particularly the personification of smugness that is IDS
I do hope that he will persuade his wife’s family to repay the £1.5 million in farming subsidies that they have taken from the EU in the past ten years so that he can’t be branded self-serving. Or perhaps he will insist that if, God forbid, the No campaign wins, that the UK goverment will continue to subsidise the extremely wealthy land owners with tax payers money whilst making sure the poor stay that way.
By: trekbuster - 20th February 2016 at 10:49
The Go campaign really are scraping the barrel, apparently quite a few at the rally yesterday thought so too.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244136[/ATTACH]
By: John Green - 20th February 2016 at 10:45
I’m more Private Eye – bit like your Leader JC, given the number of times his name appears !
By: Beermat - 20th February 2016 at 09:52
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244135[/ATTACH]
Or rather, ‘What’s the matter, Toryboy? Afraid you might think something?
By: John Green - 19th February 2016 at 23:03
Hold not your breath on that one !
By: Beermat - 19th February 2016 at 22:32
“Socialist inspired employment legislation” No idea what you mean by that – I am not aware of any legislation to give employees a stake in anything – but it’s refreshing that you see socialism as inspiring. You’ll be reading something other than the Torygraph soon! 😉
By: trekbuster - 19th February 2016 at 22:02
Well, we can all relax. Pob has apparently decided to join the exit campaign. With his track record it will make brexit less likely after all. Phew.
By: John Green - 18th February 2016 at 13:18
I wonder, if in the event that they leave school able to spell their own name and eventually find an employer courageous enough to put up with the welter of socialist inspired employment legislation, if they’ll respond to their employer’s instructions with ‘active indifference’ ?
Of one thing you can be sure; they won’t be asking: “How high” when told to jump.
Welcome to the world of inspirational parental interest in academic excellence and workplace achievement.
By: trekbuster - 18th February 2016 at 12:45
Another Gove initiative not as successful as hoped. Millions spent to recruit 28 teachers this year and 41 last year so far from the armed forces
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35595424
Although it is hardly surprising to be honest. My experience of working with ex-military teachers was that whilst a few excelled, many really struggled with discipline matters particularly ex-NCO’s as they were so used to people asking how high when told to jump rather than the 13 year old girls response of active indifference. Two I worked with quit within a year. I wonder what the retention rate of these new staff will be.
By: Beermat - 14th February 2016 at 10:16
All a bit odd.
JC, with reference to your bit about it all being the last lot’s fault, you might be interested in this – It’s OK, you can read it, it’s from the Telegraph:
By: trekbuster - 14th February 2016 at 10:15
Excellent article by Marina Hyde regarding the degrading spectacle of the sainted Margaret’s opinions being fought over by the Tories long after her death. Whilst I was never a fan (yes really) it demeans them all.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/13/margaret-thatcher-tory
By: Creaking Door - 13th February 2016 at 20:19
I was surprised when I looked him up (on the internet) to find that Michael Deacon was born in 1980…
…I expected to find he was somebody in his eighties! 🙂
By: Beermat - 13th February 2016 at 18:53
Maybe that’s what some people would like to happen.. can’t let the BBC give news to the masses. Might say something off-message.
Seriously, though, publishing a news story to the web is broadcasting. Saying it’s not is like someone in 1950 saying television isn’t broadcasting because it isn’t radio. The phrase refers to the act of dissemination of information outwards from a single source to many recipients. It came to mean radio..and then TV.. when those were the only broadcast media in town. The world has changed – for the better, maybe?
I presume Mr Deacon would want to ban the Fox News website too? No? How about sky.com?
Or how about Telegraph.co.uk? After all, you can buy a Telegraph, so surely that site is unecessary too?
Edit.. it seems this chap has had it in for the beeb for months, his editorial rantings in what are billed as programme reviews getting more and more strident. I think I have found out why he has been asked to do this.. a Barclay brother or two is upset, maybe? (Lovely chaps – look them up)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35152295
I refer to my earlier ‘off message’ comment.
This story, annoying to the Johns of this world, is why we need to keep independent news organisations online.
By: Creaking Door - 13th February 2016 at 18:01
While it is a matter of opinion as to whether the BBC website represents good value for money…
…it is not a matter of opinion as to whether news written on a website constitutes ‘broadcasting’!
Has Michael Deacon been living in a cave for the past two decades? Seriously, why on earth does the medium of news dissemination matter; does anybody actually believe that the quality of the BBC news output actually declines when it is ‘broadcast’ via an iPad or a smartphone? Has Michael Deacon listened to BBC Radio 1 news recently?
If Michael Deacon has his way the audience for the news output from the BBC will increasingly only be watched or listened to by pensioners and housewives doing the ironing (whatever that is?)…
…and will completely bypass anybody of a younger generation!
By: charliehunt - 13th February 2016 at 16:53
Utter crap.
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, with which Michael Deacon and I and about 60% of the respondents to his column disagree.
By: Rii - 13th February 2016 at 15:08
If only Michael Deacon were as conscientious when it came to the name and function of certain other state organs. The Ministry of Defence, say.
But then I’ve always found it amusing how one of the earliest, clearest, and most significant examples of Orwellian language and Political Correctness passes without objection from the kinds of folks who are forever railing against such things.
By: Creaking Door - 13th February 2016 at 14:33
“Written news stories do not constitute a form of broadcasting…”
Utter crap.
By: Creaking Door - 13th February 2016 at 14:17
Couldn’t resist either!
You miss my point.
I didn’t say it was perfect, or even good, just (currently, almost) better than every other comparable economy…
…including the similarly sized but (more) ‘socialist’ (?) French economy, an economy that has be rebuilt, since the time that the coalition came to power in the United Kingdom, on a mandate of ‘growth’ as opposed to ‘austerity’; an economy that President Francois Hollande described as being in a state of ‘economic emergency’!
By: charliehunt - 13th February 2016 at 13:00
From Michael Deacon today. I totally agree.
Why is the BBC allowed a news website?
The BBC is to cut costs by ditching the less newsy parts of its website: recipes, travel and so on. This is all very well, but it deflects attention from a more important issue. How is the BBC allowed to have a news website at all?
The BBC is a broadcaster. Written news stories do not constitute a form of broadcasting. We pay the BBC a licence fee to produce and broadcast TV and radio programmes – and more money could be spent on them if the BBC dropped its unnecessary news website altogether. If it won’t, it should be made to.
By: John Green - 13th February 2016 at 12:40
The problems that St. George and Sir Humphrey have had to solve were created by the last Labour administration in the first place. Any fule kno’ that !
Sign In
March 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm