Boris - The Prime Minister

First thoughts on PMBoris, will he make a difference?


  • Total voters
    603

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
And they do it very badly. How long until one of those home made cloth masks is saturated with pathogens? We don't know, too many variables involved. But the cheap shit disposable ones with the torture-elastic that loops round the ears, its about an hour. After than time span they can be considered a pathogen reservoir.
I have a pink cloth mask which I had to wear when having my eyes tested last week and also my haircut. It was washed at 60 degrees after each event. It's rubbish for the eye test as your specs steam up, but it's the rules.

Washing them is only common sense, shirley?
 
I have a pink cloth mask which I had to wear when having my eyes tested last week and also my haircut. It was washed at 60 degrees after each event. It's rubbish for the eye test as your specs steam up, but it's the rules.

Washing them is only common sense, shirley?
Rub your glasses with shaving foam and then rinse - or if you have been on ops recently use the no-fog cloth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
What do you suggest then? Or do you think the BBC are perfect? Your pearls of wisdom are long awaited.
Not perfect. But I'd treat the licence fee and the discussion of their output as separate things.

Paid licences are an anachronism, and the BBC should have been made free at the point of use long ago. Because this has not happened, they have a rod for their back: people for whom the panem-et-circenses shite of the purchased media means that because they've got Sky they begrudge paying for the BBC. To a degree they are right in that being invited to pay, they surface the very natural human emotion not to.

The licence fee should be abolished, but the BBC should remain, funded - perhaps - from taxes. In other words, the licence fee is recovered anyway. This probably has some cost efficiency in that the apparatus to collect licence payments (and chase defaulters) carries a cost which is - possibly - loaded into the licence fee, making it more expensive.

Turning to the output of the BBC, I'm broadly happy that it's sufficiently wide in scope, of good quality and - given the massive present challenge to achieve impartiality in the face of the meritless peasants of all parties presently running the country - balanced. It's accountable to a governance that ensures that we don't have Fox-like agendas nakedly surfacing in news or CA coverage.

Given its appeal in terms of Natural History, History, Children, (BBC Children has been a blessing during lockdown BTW) Arts, News, Drama, etc, I think the BBC is value for money, although they have over-extended in digital channels and radio.

However, it suits someone's agenda to conflate the licence fee with value for money and a whole lot of people are lapping it up because in their view they see too many rainbows and not enough poppies, or too much Owen Jones (I see too much of that cnut Darren Grimes). Someone somewhere is happily puppeteering this and people are falling for it.

We'll miss it when it's gone.

BTW. A similar logic to the BBC fits the NHS very. very nicely.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
I have a pink cloth mask which I had to wear when having my eyes tested last week and also my haircut. It was washed at 60 degrees after each event. It's rubbish for the eye test as your specs steam up, but it's the rules.

Washing them is only common sense, shirley?
Hate to break this to you... Common sense isn't. In fact so rare the UN have declared it a super power. I've seen several people walking around in visibly dirty masks (dirty from more than 2 metres away no less. On old fella looked like he'd made his out of a terry nappy- a used terry nappy at that.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
@Victorian_Major fair do's that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I don't agree with all.

The reason for the licence fee to be as it is was to put some separation between the BBC and government. Make it purely tax driven from the Treasury and you would never see the end of government interference.

The BBC have put themselves in to a position where they think they are untouchable - too big to fail!? I think they are pushing for a showdown with the government as I think they feel they are tied in by their Charter - no evidence, just how it comes over to me. The BBC have been advert carriers for years through the channels they own, like Dave.

The BBC are good at many things but it seems they nowxwant to be the mind and spirit of the country, not by understanding what their viewer wants but to ram home some agendas they want to push. This is becoming dafter as it goes - BBC depts are being slashed, £25 million from BBC England, yet they gleefully announce they are spending £100 million in diversity!

The BBC has lost grip and direction and there is currently nobody in the Corporation who can or will change that. BBC London is all that matters now.

Something needs to be done and if threatening, and carrying out, the removal of criminality from a TV licence then so be it. It may work - for a while.

BTW, not having a TV licence should never have been made a criminal offence, absolutely ridiculous but recognised by the BBC as a good blackmail hammer to get people to ante up.
 
Not perfect. But I'd treat the licence fee and the discussion of their output as separate things.

Paid licences are an anachronism, and the BBC should have been made free at the point of use long ago. Because this has not happened, they have a rod for their back: people for whom the panem-et-circenses shite of the purchased media means that because they've got Sky they begrudge paying for the BBC. To a degree they are right in that being invited to pay, they surface the very natural human emotion not to.

The licence fee should be abolished, but the BBC should remain, funded - perhaps - from taxes. In other words, the licence fee is recovered anyway. This probably has some cost efficiency in that the apparatus to collect licence payments (and chase defaulters) carries a cost which is - possibly - loaded into the licence fee, making it more expensive.

Turning to the output of the BBC, I'm broadly happy that it's sufficiently wide in scope, of good quality and - given the massive present challenge to achieve impartiality in the face of the meritless peasants of all parties presently running the country - balanced. It's accountable to a governance that ensures that we don't have Fox-like agendas nakedly surfacing in news or CA coverage.

Given its appeal in terms of Natural History, History, Children, (BBC Children has been a blessing during lockdown BTW) Arts, News, Drama, etc, I think the BBC is value for money, although they have over-extended in digital channels and radio.

However, it suits someone's agenda to conflate the licence fee with value for money and a whole lot of people are lapping it up because in their view they see too many rainbows and not enough poppies, or too much Owen Jones (I see too much of that cnut Darren Grimes). Someone somewhere is happily puppeteering this and people are falling for it.

We'll miss it when it's gone.

BTW. A similar logic to the BBC fits the NHS very. very nicely.
There's a massive thread on the BBC, stuffed with examples of bias..only a giant tit could have missed it.
If it helps the weak of brane, this thread is about 'Boris, the Prime Minister'
It's not fvcking rocket science.
 
Last edited:
There's a massive thread on the BBC, stuffed with examples of bias..only a giant tit could have missed it.
If it helps the weak of brane, this thread is about 'Boris, the Prime Minister'
It's not fvcking rocket science.
Weak brane or brain??? It’s not ******* rocket science.
 
There's a massive thread on the BBC, stuffed with examples of bias..only a giant tit could have missed it.
If it helps the weak of brane, this thread is about 'Boris, the Prime Minister'
It's not fvcking rocket science.
As if I give a hoot. I answer the questions where I am inclined to. Direct your brane (sic) to read what you choose.
 
@Victorian_Major fair do's that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I don't agree with all.

The reason for the licence fee to be as it is was to put some separation between the BBC and government. Make it purely tax driven from the Treasury and you would never see the end of government interference.

The BBC have put themselves in to a position where they think they are untouchable - too big to fail!? I think they are pushing for a showdown with the government as I think they feel they are tied in by their Charter - no evidence, just how it comes over to me. The BBC have been advert carriers for years through the channels they own, like Dave.

The BBC are good at many things but it seems they nowxwant to be the mind and spirit of the country, not by understanding what their viewer wants but to ram home some agendas they want to push. This is becoming dafter as it goes - BBC depts are being slashed, £25 million from BBC England, yet they gleefully announce they are spending £100 million in diversity!

The BBC has lost grip and direction and there is currently nobody in the Corporation who can or will change that. BBC London is all that matters now.

Something needs to be done and if threatening, and carrying out, the removal of criminality from a TV licence then so be it. It may work - for a while.

BTW, not having a TV licence should never have been made a criminal offence, absolutely ridiculous but recognised by the BBC as a good blackmail hammer to get people to ante up.
But he has a point. If they were funded as a CS department they’d be cheaper in the wage sector. Plus all these luvvies could be paid at EO rate
 
As far as I can tell, the "world class dithering" over mask wearing is a fabrication by journalists who desperately want yet another cudgel with which to attack the government. My interpretation of the advice is that people must wear masks on public transport, and should wear masks in crowded spaces. It's not exactly a Gordian knot, even broken down old Warrant Officers such as I can decipher it.

This Government has tried very hard not to crack down on the public, preferring to encourage rather than dictate (IMHO because of their belief that we are a free country). The media aren't happy with this as they want somebody to be doing something controversial that they can then go against, hence the "Dithering" line of attack.

Of course if it becomes necessary to enforce mask wearing at a later point the media will then conduct a two pronged assault on the Govt (Left flank: too late! Right Flank: Draconian march towards a police state!), with a covering bombardment of random "evil Tories" headlines, and Deception Plan provided by BLM.
This - and particularly the second para.

They can't say "we'd prefer you to wear a mask in a shop because it may limit the spread, but we will not compel you to do so" because they are immediately assaulted by numerous lobby groups plastered all over the media calling for crucifiction of "Roooolbreakers.....". Trouble is by pandering to this sort of nonsense they're just encouraging more of it. Why not in pubs? Why not in restaurants? Why not {add tenuous example here) ......

What would be really interesting is to see the scientific evidence of the effect of masks on transmission. Not just wishy-washy "it seems to have had an effect in asia", but more like actual effect on probability of transmission.

The whole social distancing shift from 2m to 1m, increased the likelihood of infection from 1.5% to 3% or thereabouts, compared to 13% with NO SD. Yet strangely, the whole debate was couched in terms of "going from 2 down to 1 doubles your chance of infection", which is true in one sense, but devoid of context.

They really have got to stop being reactive like this.
 
Let’s see how the police manage to enforce the mask issue. Thousands of calls a day to confrontational situations that aren’t apparently a necessity today, but magically are on 24/07.

It should be a condition of entry to a shop, not a reactive call to police once you have allowed them in.

More shambolic reactive crap legislation.
 

Latest Threads

Top