-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Jezbollah
Member
I went from O2 to Three - hated O2's service and tariffs - so I'm somewhat happy with this.
Did anyone see PMQs?
Lots of tax talk. Very little about the Tories' Mayor election tactics, and NOTHING about the Academy backtracking. I would have thought Corbyn would have been all over that.
Did anyone see PMQs?
Lots of tax talk. Very little about the Tories' Mayor election tactics, and NOTHING about the Academy backtracking. I would have thought Corbyn would have been all over that.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
IDS and Graying may be investigated by the police over WCA shittiness.
Fingers crossed something comes of this.
Fingers crossed something comes of this.
Why would a Muslim care about the Christian associations of the prime minister?
I think it's well within an Ahmadiyya's right to be a little worried if the mayor attends worship under an Imam who is vocally outspoken against Ahmadi Muslims.
Apparently we've been missing a right old ding-dong in Wales. The elections for First Minister were a dead heat between Leanne Wood and Carwyn Jones, while Neil Hamilton (yes, that Neil Hamilton!) has been elected as UKIP's leader in Wales and seemingly plunged the party into civil war.
Highlight:
Highlight:
Hopefully. The tests are disgusting. 99% of the people that do them aren't qualified. One time I had a guy who could hardly speak English. On another occasion I wouldn't have minded, but this guy was meant to test if I was fit to work. I didn't pass yet again. Only passed it 1 time out of 9, but won on appeal.
It's such a good strategy, announce you are going to do something really bad, and when it turns out to be just bad it's called a climbdown and you come out looking ok!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...wer-and-independence-in-face-of-a7024856.html
The BBC climbdown contains:
Not saying all of these a necessarily bad, but you can how it helps dampen the 'blow' of some things like the last bullet point especially.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...wer-and-independence-in-face-of-a7024856.html
The BBC climbdown contains:
Not saying all of these a necessarily bad, but you can how it helps dampen the 'blow' of some things like the last bullet point especially.
...that doesn't sound nearly as bad as you make it out to be? Unless I'm missing something
iPlayer thing is just a case of policy catching up with technology. I don't think people should expect the BBC's output to become free just because the method of delivery changed.
More diversity - good
Protected independence - good
The last point sounds like a negative, but honestly I don't know the implications of this. Assuming it is generally seen as negative - what is the justification for this change?
CyclopsRock
Member
That's a weird mischaracterising of the argument (because he wasn't "someone with an opinion", he was leading the Mosque, and his comparison with Obama demonstrates that he didn't need to "beg for forgiveness" - you're literally making that up as a straw man) but you also think my Muslim friend is being racist because he has concerns over the London's new Muslim mayor's association with other Muslims? Uh-huh.
"If it's not my opinion, it's Trump."
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not sure if changing the rules around he TV licence will make too much difference. Given how easy it is to avoid, it's practically voluntary. Unless they intend people to actually log in or put in a TV License number or something on the website.
Edit: Also, whilst council elections are limited in their predictive ability, does anyone think Corbyn can lead Labour to anything other than ruin? Opposition leaders that win generals don't lose council seats in England. Opposition leaders that *lose* generals don't lose council seats in England.
Edit: Also, whilst council elections are limited in their predictive ability, does anyone think Corbyn can lead Labour to anything other than ruin? Opposition leaders that win generals don't lose council seats in England. Opposition leaders that *lose* generals don't lose council seats in England.
I'd blame Labour's failure more on the shitheels in the background than on Corbyn himself
So I guess: no. He cant win because people don't support him, and people don't support him because he "can't win". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is a myth. The 64, 70 & 97 elections were all won by oppositions that had lost seats in at least one local election since the previous general election. 83 & 87 are the only times the opposition has lost seats and lost the general election. If you want to look at just leaders you can remove 97 from the list.
The latter part is generally true though. Only once (1979) since 1960 has the opposition made gains in every local election and gone on to form a majority government. Twice they managed minorities or coalitions, 1974(f) & 2010. They lost the other six times, 1966, 1974(o), 1992, 2001, 2005, 2015.
The original plans were to have the whole BBC board stuffed with government appointees, effectively turning it into a state broadcaster. They've now "softened" that to less than half being direct government appointments.
The original plans were for "top slicing" of the BBC's budget, meaning things like recipies and travel would no longer be covered by the website, and other services would be reduced or removed ala BBC three or Radio 6 music. They've now "softened" that to insisting more budget is spent on external production rather than internally developed shows.
It's a classic negotiating strategy which has clearly worked wonders on you.
Alright, mate, no need to be like that.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
A white, middle class conservative using the (singular example of a) minority opinion of somebody from another race/religion (should that person even exist in the first place) to prop up their own bias is about as Trump Supporter as it gets. Don't forget to add the 'I found this opinion but I'm not sure what do you guys think?!'. It adds an extra level of 'I'm not a racist because it was somebody else's opinion'.
When you're in a position where you're responsible for some of the most vulnerable people in the UK and they're telling you they have suicidal tendencies, and their therapist and their GP has told you they have suicidal tendencies, but you disregard that because a test conducted by someone with a few days of training at operating a computer program says they can lift a box from one side to another and walk 25 meters down a hallway so you withdraw all support from them and THEN they commit suicide? Because you needed to save a percentage? That's a level of irresponsible neglect which should result in nothing short of prison time.
CyclopsRock
Member
You're right, and this is why they aren't particularly good at predicting future elections; Different bits vote at different times so there will be some blocs which are naturally more Tory and others naturally more Labour etc. However, if you tot up the totals between the time a leader of the opposition begins being the leader of the opposition and the time at which they end, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) but you actually have to go back to before Thatcher to find one which lost seats. Even Hague and IDS won more council seats than they lost. Obviously Corbyn's only had one shot, but in terms of whether or not he's had a good start, ushhh.
Lol. If you love me, love me like you say you do.
You're weird hate of cyclops aside, do you not agree that an Ahmadiyya has the right to be worried that the new London mayor may harbour not so friendly ideas when it comes to Ahmadi Muslims? I know if the Lord Provost was revealed to attend a church led by an anti Catholic priest, who preached against the sect and wished for it to be excised I'd be a little worried, despite my almost nonexistent connection with the church now.
JonathanEx
Member
I think this one's quite interesting - because there's been such strong messages coming out of DMCS, and Whittingdale, that was this a big strategy to do a climbdown on their part, or is it as was suggest on Newsnight last night that No10 intervened because they're already losing on two major fronts right now (NHS/Academies) they don't need a third to have to backtrack on, particularly as they're not doing a great job on the EU campaign.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
I think you should judge people both professionally and personally by their words and actions rather than those of people they have, at most, a passing association with. I think he ran an election campaign with inclusiveness at its core and while obviously it's yet to be seen if his time as mayor reflects that I find it dubious at best to assume that it won't because of that tenuous connection. I also think that with a complete lack of evidence that these are views he holds, it's on the accuser to provide proof.
I also find it entertaining that a Tory voter has sudden concerns about issues of race and religion after the fucking disgusting display the conservatives have put on over the last couple of months. It's desperate hypocrisy and it's pathetic. I wonder if the same level of scrutiny is given to the people the prime minister associates with?
Wrestlemania
Banned
It is textbook concern trolling.
I agree. The mental health questions are just stupid. I suffer from anxiety and depression so know this first hand. The questions for people with mental health issues are so basic. You aren't even asked what mental state you are in at the time of the assesment.
Some of the questions you get are:
How much TV do you watch?
Do you wash yourself daily?
If you read a book can you finish it?
Do you like to be alone?
Do you cook your food?
How often do you see friends?
Can you talk on the phone?
Do you ever go out socially?
Do you know how to work a washing machine?
They then rate you on how clean and tidy you look at the assesment. It's just messed up.
Wow. Out of interest what are the 'correct' answers they are looking for to not remove your benefit?
Nicktendo86
Member
Bloody hilarious, new elections if it hasn't all been sorted in a couple of weeks.
JonathanEx
Member
Well now it looks like 2 UKIP ones will vote for the Labour candidate, thus pushing all the "doing a deal with THEM?!" back on labour, and obviously Hamilton will then pop up and ruin everything
If can read a book to the end you are seen as being able to not get bored or lose interest easy. That counts against you as they see it as a sign of mental illness.
If you can answer the phone no problem you get no points towards passing to get benefits. If you are looking smart and hair is looking good you are judged to not be thay depressed.
If you watch loads of TV (they even ask you what TV programmes you like) not jist the stuff you like for hours and hours. That will earn you a point or two towards passing.
The social question is a big one. If you say yeah you get no points if occasionally you get 1. But if you say never you get 3 points. So basically you can never have a good day and want to see a friend.
Basically all a load of crap.
Nicktendo86
Member
Great advertisement for PR.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
I hear ya man. PTSD here, with all the anxiety and depression I could ever ask for and a fucked knee to go along with it (the examination into which was 'can you move it? Yes? It's fine then').
There are no real right answers, it's several degrees of abstraction between what they ask and the conclusion they reach. So for example, if they ask what you do in your spare time and you say you read the internet, that means you are capable of performing work involving a PC. If you read books, you have no problem with holding your attention for long periods of time or staying in one position for long periods of time. If you go to the corner shop, you're fine out in public and are OK to use public transport. It's a humourless, horrifying joke.
"Does your knee hurt you 24/7"? No? Ok thit's fine then.
On one of my appeals I accidently got handed the score sheet for each question. I still managed not to pass any other assessment...
The last point was something the BBC specifically asked for.
It used to be (for more than a decade) that the BBC had to commission 25% of programmes from independents, guaranteed 50% to it's in house production teams and the remainder was up for grabs. In practice almost all of that remained goes to indies.
But the BBC in house production group wants to be freed up to make programmes for other broadcasters, which will make it much more viable financially, and improve it's efficiency. In exchange, the BBC offered to reduce the 50% guarantee it has on the basis that BBC in-house will become better at winning commissions as a result.
So that's not actually an issue, necessarily, though how the part about revealing high pay in a production unit that also does commercial work for other broadcasters and doesn't touch the license fee is anyone's guess.
I note that DCMS still seems to have not thought about how the iPlayer license fee is supposed to work yet.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Ooh I do hope they choose the route of sending me thousands of letters preparing me for 'my day in court'!
It's Reyn Time!
Member
We cut the cable a long while ago in our house and for months had letters and calls telling us we were doing all of the crimes for not paying the license fee. It was really surprisingly unprofessional. It finally came to a head when they phoned my (at that time incredibly pregnant) wife, told her they suspected she was lying and that, exact words, "you should prepare for an enforcement officer to enter your home". My wife burst out laughing and told them their 'enforcement officer' had better be strangle-proof. Haven't heard from them in two years now.
Wrestlemania
Banned
I'm always surprised more people don't know about this:
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/no-licence-needed/about.app
It was on the letter I got when I first moved into my current flat. I filled it in and then I never received another letter until about 18 months later when they asked if it was still the case that I didn't need a licence. Filled it in again, no letters since.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
We filled in and returned the physical version of that declaration twice, pretty sure we tried the online one multiple times and told them in every phone call that the aerial had been physically removed from our house and they still kept spamming us with calls and letters. It was obviously a screw up somewhere in their system and it was a mild nuisance sometimes, kind of amusing at others. It's just the vitriol and contempt they have when they contact you, it's really quite surprising.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm aware of that, but they say on the letters that if you tell them you don't need a licence they'll send someone round to check.
Now, I do have a TV set but that's purely for my PS4. There's no aerial socket in my bedroom, nor do I have a set-top box. But I really don't want to spend any time debating with an "Enforcement Officer" in my house as to whether or not that satisfies their definition of "equipment capable of receiving a live TV signal" or whatever the words are in the statute.
Ignoring their letters works fine for me. I've been round the cycle several times now where they gradually escalate up to "we're almost definitely definitely going to batter your door down and drag you off in irons", then it reverts back to "did you just move in to this address?".
Doesn't look like it'd make a blind bit of difference anyhow!
http://gu.com/p/4j5k6?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Electoral Commission is taking the Tory party to court because of their failure to disclose relevant information over spending in by-elections and the last general election.
There are now nine police forces investigating the claims (up from seven previously).
The Electoral Commission is taking the Tory party to court because of their failure to disclose relevant information over spending in by-elections and the last general election.
There are now nine police forces investigating the claims (up from seven previously).
It's Reyn Time!
Member
I wonder what kind of clerical error it'll be blamed on.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Would surely be far more beneficial to both parties if the UKIP members abstained? I'd imagine there will also be some very unhappy Tory voters if their members don't switch to abstain too - imagine the scenes if it was because of them that a pro-independence left-of-Labour party got in.
I'd say 'better the devil you know', but by all accounts Carwyn's no devil.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Muslim Cleric-al errors no doubt
Fernando Fernandez
Member
So a anti Laura K from the BBC petition about her bias towards the Conservatives got mentioned in the Commons this week. 38K people signed it about her negative comments towards Labour. The petition got thrown out due to apparent sexist comments however this report seems to point to a cover up.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/11/...ied-about-sexism-to-protect-laura-kuenssberg/
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/11/...ied-about-sexism-to-protect-laura-kuenssberg/
travisbickle
Member
The last point is just another conservative policy to push public money in to private interests. Basically the public pay the license fee to support non-profit, non-biased productions for public good. Previously 25% of the programmes could instead be made by privately-owned for-profit production companies. Now 100% can be made by private companies and the conservatives are placing their friends into positions that can control where the money goes.
Independence isn't protected though. Just because the government has less influence doesn't mean they have none.
I would also recommend reading this:
https://m.facebook.com/pestonitv/posts/1620711631586909
Thank you, both, for the explanation.
So what is the supposed benefit to this change? Is it purely a bonus to the likes of ITV/Sky under the guise of increasing competition/"fairness"?
And of the 25% that previously "could" have gone to private interests, do we know how much actually did?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Not really. It's more the smaller independents. Read any bio of BBC people anywhere (except John Birt's!) and you'l find a theme of bloated beaurocracy strangling creatives.
It was about 80%.
This Telegraph article from 2012 gives a pretty fair breakdown of the pros and cons. (open in incognito/private to bypass paywall)
It depends on if you are talking about entertainment or journalism really. It's seems to be good for the former, the latter less so. Honestly I'm not sure and it will take a long time before the ramifications become apparent.
Nicktendo86
Member
The canary? Christ. No idea how they are not a band site.
CyclopsRock
Member
Why would 'the establishment' care about a petition on 38degrees though? People complain about the BBC being biased all the time, it's not a new problem for them.
It does seem strange they'd throw it out on the basis of just a rare few outlier sexist comments when the vast majority are in-fact, to do with bias. It's selective deconstruction of the highest order.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked