On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:28:41 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> > On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
>> >> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> >>> In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
>> >>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>> >>> []
>> >>>> There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of
>> >>>> income for several years during high inflation means something
>> >>>> has to give. Remember
>> >>>
>> >>> Indeed. )-:
>> >>>
>> >>>> we‘ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and
>> >>>> television services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one
>> >>>> off grant)
>> >>>>
>> >>> I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
>> >>> government funded? And the part we're now being forced to
>> >>> subsidise (is funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
>> >>
>> >> It used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the
>> >> previous licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well apart from the £m400 grant in aid the BBC has had since
>> > 2016. The Budget this year promised another £m20 this year and
>> > next.
>
>Don't forget the millions donated by the evil Bill Gates, now why
>would he do that? What did he think he was getting for his money?
>
He's not evil. He supplied the microchips for the Covid vaccines :-)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2023 17:19, Tweed wrote:
>>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for
>>>>>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember
>>>>>> Indeed. )-:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we’ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and television
>>>>>>> services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
>>>>>> government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is
>>>>>> funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
>>>>> It used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous
>>>>> licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
>>>> BBC World Service TV has always been commercially funded, it's only
>>>> Radio that received an FO grant
>>>>
>>> That’s not what it says here
>>>
>>> https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/#:~:text=The%20BBC%20World%20Service%20delivers,Foreign%2C%20Commonwealth%20and%20Development%20Office.
>>>
>> That's all a bit woolly. The BBC World TV service drew on the FO grant
>> financed radio side, and to an extent the licence payer financed
>> domestic consumption TV news room.
>> However, the extra costs associated with broadcasting it around the
>> world, as well as the dedicated production facilities in London were
>> (and still are) an arm of BBC Worldwide.
>> The same lot who rent out the three remaining TV studios at TVC to ITV,
>> etc etc. And also flog all the domestically produced programmes abroad.
>>
>> If you watch BBC World outside of the UK (and it's not officially
>> available inside the UK) you'll notice adverts and sponsorship 'stings',
>> that we don't see when the domestic BBC News Channel simulcasts with it.
>>
>> All that said, without the core licence fee funded resources, the
>> channel couldn't exist.  Also BBC World and BBC News Channel have almost
>> merged into a single operation, but that's another story....
>
> How do they cope with the commercial breaks in the UK version?
>
> I see most of the night output is 'outsourced' to Singapore.
>
> Simulcasting Five Live (Nicky Campbell) is just bizarre.
>

It’s all the padding trailers and extended weather forecasts that mask the
advert slots.

On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
> anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
> trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
> transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
> a mention.

I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.

Usually more like Oxford this week, a handful of transvestites nearly
managed to stop a sebate attended by many more than that as well as
probably put some people off going to the debate.

On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.

Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for their
shareholders.

On 02/06/2023 10:42, tony sayer wrote:
> Well Auntie doesn't want to spend her licence bunce on that power hungry
> place and they can't use the "can't get the valves anymore" excuse so
> she should claim Green credentials and cite 198 kHz as a prime source
> of global warming;!...

Wasn't it claimed in the Guardian originally so unlikely to be a true quote.

On 02/06/2023 11:37, Scott wrote:
> I see most of the night output is 'outsourced' to Singapore.

They have been using Singapore for several years I think - don't they
now use several foreign locations through the night?

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:11:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
>> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
>
>Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for their
>shareholders.

I think Sky News is in a different position in that AIUI there are
legally binding covenants about maintaining editorial independence
related to the takeover by Comcast.

Similarly, I believe ITV/STV have added obligations through being
public service broadcasters.

On 02/06/2023 16:11, MB wrote:
> On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
>> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
>
>
> Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for their
> shareholders.

In their cases, the twists are whatever the producers think will attract
more viewers, so they can sell more adverts.

Then there are the likes of Al Jazeera, and others in the low 200
channel range on Freeview.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:42:27 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <49mc7ipevvhgc38358fnbng4mr9pblnesv@4ax.com>, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
>><brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition#:
>>~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%20as%20a%20technology
>
>Well Auntie doesn't want to spend her licence bunce on that power hungry
>place and they can't use the "can't get the valves anymore" excuse so
>she should claim Green credentials and cite 198 kHz as a prime source
>of global warming;!...

<hypothetical> Could Burghead continue (technically) if Droitwich
closes, on the basis that a lot of the Highlands are not served by
DAB?

On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 21:00:58 UTC+1, Brian Gregory wrote:

> > Radio Four is not representative of Britain; it's representative of a small group of woke leftists. None of my friends listen to Radio Four.
> > Bill
> Wokeness and leftness have very little to do with it.

Why do you think it is then?

Bill

On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 10:30:32 UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/06/2023 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> > The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of public
> > opinion. It's not interested in telling you the whole story so that
> > you can form your own opinion, instead it filters the news and twist
> > what remains in order to push public opinion into a narrow controlled
> > narrative.
> >
> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.

But the BBC is paid for by a compulsory subscription so it should have no bias.

Bill

On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 16:10:14 UTC+1, MB wrote:
> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
> > anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
> > trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
> > transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
> > a mention.
> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
>
> Usually more like Oxford this week, a handful of transvestites nearly
> managed to stop a sebate attended by many more than that as well as
> probably put some people off going to the debate.
Don't you know the difference between trasvestites and transgender?
Bill

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:08:24 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 10:30:32 UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 02/06/2023 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> > The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of public
>> > opinion. It's not interested in telling you the whole story so that
>> > you can form your own opinion, instead it filters the news and twist
>> > what remains in order to push public opinion into a narrow controlled
>> > narrative.
>> >
>> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
>
>But the BBC is paid for by a compulsory subscription so it should have no bias.
>
This is true, but who sets the subscription and who would they not
want to upset?

In article <uo4k7iln49ek2jsqcnpuf48fqspqa9t9e1@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:11:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> >On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
> >> Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
> >
> >Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for
> >their shareholders.

> I think Sky News is in a different position in that AIUI there are
> legally binding covenants about maintaining editorial independence
> related to the takeover by Comcast.

It could be because of Comcast and some say it is but Sky News
Australia is vastly better than ours, much more balance and far less
propaganda.

I don't know who owns Sky News Australia.

Bob.

On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
>> anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
>> trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
>> transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
>> a mention.
>
>
> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
>
In the 2021 census:-

People were asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex
registered at birth?”,

A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their
gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within
this group:

118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response

48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man

48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman

30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary

18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
> > anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
> > trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
> > transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
> > a mention.
>
>
> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
>
> Usually more like Oxford this week, a handful of transvestites nearly
> managed to stop a sebate attended by many more than that as well as
> probably put some people off going to the debate.

As far as I know, there was no debate, it was just one bitter fallen
academic airing her ignorance under the guise of 'free speech'. If she
had been promoting a pseudo-academic theory that black people are a
threat to white people and shouldn't be allowed to use public toilets,
women's refuges or counselling sevices, would she have been given the
same freedom of speech?

This has established a precedent for racial supremacists, anti-semites
and mysogenists to present their abhorrent views at public meetings;
after all, we're not allowed to inhibit their freedom of speech now, are
we?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 02/06/2023 18:53, John Williamson wrote:
> On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
>> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> It's their idea of 'balance'.  One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
>>> anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
>>> trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
>>> transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
>>> a mention.
>>
>>
>> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
>>
> In the 2021 census:-
>
> People were asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex
> registered at birth?”,
>
> A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their
> gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within
> this group:
>
> 118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
>
> 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
>
> 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
>
> 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
>
> 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity
>

But there are doubts about who understood the question.

"Why does the census say there are more trans people in Newham than
Brighton?"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <kduol0Fjo8sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
> > On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

> >> It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
> >> anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students
> >> are trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and
> >> 100,000 transgender people, who are being discriminated against,
> >> don't even get a mention.
> >
> >
> > I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the
> > country.
> >
> In the 2021 census:-

> People were asked ”Is the gender you identify with the same as your
> sex registered at birth?•,

For people interested in this topic there is a video on twitter at
the moment "What is a woman". I think it is only there for 24 hours
for some reason.

I found this a very disturbing video that starts off gentle but
becomes very serious.

https://twitter.com/realdailywire/status/1664424891372941312?s=58&amp;t=1owFxW-V-wB5K4AUISXgOw

Every parent should see this.

Bob.

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 02/06/2023 18:53, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> >>> It's their idea of 'balance'.  One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
> >>> anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
> >>> trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
> >>> transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
> >>> a mention.
> >>
> >>
> >> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
> >>
> > In the 2021 census:-
> >
> > People were asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex
> > registered at birth?”,
> >
> > A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their
> > gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within
> > this group:
> >
> > 118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
> >
> > 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
> >
> > 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
> >
> > 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
> >
> > 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity
> >
>
> But there are doubts about who understood the question.
>
>
> "Why does the census say there are more trans people in Newham than
> Brighton?"
>
> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more
> -trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/

The Spectator is heavily into publishing anti-trans articles, so I
wouldn't believe anything they say on the subject.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 02/06/2023 17:56, Scott wrote:
> <hypothetical> Could Burghead continue (technically) if Droitwich
> closes, on the basis that a lot of the Highlands are not served by
> DAB?

I suspect more of the Highlands are served by DAB than Long Wave.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 22:59:41 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>> "Why does the census say there are more trans people in Newham than
>> Brighton?"
>>
>> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more
>> -trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
>
>The Spectator is heavily into publishing anti-trans articles, so I
>wouldn't believe anything they say on the subject.

Most of the articles I've seen on this subject in the Spectator were
written by a trans writer.

I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.

Rod.

On 02/06/2023 22:59, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2023 18:53, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>> It's their idea of 'balance'.  One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
>>>>> anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
>>>>> trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
>>>>> transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
>>>>> a mention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
>>>>
>>> In the 2021 census:-
>>>
>>> People were asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex
>>> registered at birth?”,
>>>
>>> A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their
>>> gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within
>>> this group:
>>>
>>> 118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
>>>
>>> 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
>>>
>>> 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
>>>
>>> 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
>>>
>>> 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity
>>>
>>
>> But there are doubts about who understood the question.
>>
>>
>> "Why does the census say there are more trans people in Newham than
>> Brighton?"
>>
>> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more
>> -trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
>
> The Spectator is heavily into publishing anti-trans articles, so I
> wouldn't believe anything they say on the subject.
>
>

The concerns he expressed are shared by others with expertise in the
field and have persuaded the OSR (the "watchdog" for national stats) to
review the ONS's approach to the issue.

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/ed-humpherson-to-jen-woolford-statistics-on-gender-identity-based-on-the-2021-england-and-wales-census-data/

And ONS issued an additional table confirming the census showed the odds
of someone who speak English not well or not at all being transgender
are more than 5 times higher.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/adhocs/1047ct210008census2021

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 21:14:48 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>I found this a very disturbing video that starts off gentle but
>becomes very serious.
>
>https://twitter.com/realdailywire/status/1664424891372941312?s=58&amp;t=1owFxW-V-wB5K4AUISXgOw
>
>Every parent should see this.

I'm a parent, a grandparent, and recently a greatgrandparent, so I
thought I'd take a look, but this video is an hour and a half long, so
I decided I didn't want to spare that much of my life for the sake of
something that somebody else thinks is important. I have important
things of my own.

If somebody thinks there really is something important that others
need to know, they need to realise that unless they can present the
essential points more succinctly, nobody will hear their message.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>[...]
> I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
> do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
> language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.

Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
fact. With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those
categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.

The current pronoun soup of ever-more-finely-divided categories is an
attempt to put this right. I feel it is going in the wrong direction
and abandoning categorisation altogether wil ultimately be the answer -
but I have no useful suggestion how to bring this about.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:26:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
>> do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
>> language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.
>
>Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
>fact.

Biologists don't seem to have any difficulty knowing what they mean by
male and female. I understand that their ultimate reference is based
on genetic code because it's easily specified and doesn't change.

To have any meaningful discussion about anything, you need some common
ground that nobody can dispute because it depends on facts that can be
verified objectively and are not dependent on anybody's feelings.

>With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
>are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
>language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
>the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those
>categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.

You can invent categories till the cows come home, but nature has only
invented two sexes. There is a survival advantage in combining
reproductive information from two parents, just two, but no advantage
in going further, so nature hasn't gone any further. As with any
complex system, any part of it can go wrong, or function abnormally,
or fail to follow the usual course (choose your euphemism according to
fashion) but whatever you call it the 'spectrum' you speak of is only
a spectrum of variations in how the system functions. A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact. Anything else is fantasy.

Anyone is free to indulge in any fantasy they like (provided they
don't hurt anyone), and good luck to those who do, but I don't think
they should have the right to compel me to join in, to the extent on
altering the very language we speak, especially not on pain of legal
repercussions for wrongspeak which is what some of them seem to want.

Rod.