[Tubby Isaacs]

The Government, as I understand it anyway, have a fair few appointments they could make to the BBC Governors now and in the near future. While I'm sure they won't be as blatant as Bozo appointing Gibb, I think the discontent with Mason-ism goes a fair bit wider than Labour partisans, and we might see a few changes. Nandy is pretty low profile in this stuff, but the standards committee has already been reformed with a weakening of Gibb's power. I would be surprised if we don't see a few more changes to improve things.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's so plausible

It's also to do with them being relatively progressive and having found a path in the Budget that didn't cause "war" with backbenchers or send the markets crashing. They're still annoyed that Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng did that, and not Starmer-Reeves.

[Youngian]

Every fucking week for the past 20 years has had 'a focus on immigration.' Who can even be bothered to watch this shit?

[Boiler]

Every fucking week for the past 20 years had had 'a focus on immigration.' Who can even be bothered to watch this shit?

Not me. Can't stand the programme, can't stand the presenter. She should fuck off and stick to dealing with nice middle-class people sniffing around to see how much their family heirloom is worth.

[Killer Whale]

Weird how, for example, A Place In The Sun isn't trailed as having "a focus on immigration".

[Boiler]

Weird how, for example, A Place In The Sun isn't trailed as having "a focus on immigration".

But they're ex-pats.

[Killer Whale]

Weird how, for example, A Place In The Sun isn't trailed as having "a focus on immigration".

But they're ex-pats.

And towns are always sold on having a 'thriving British ex-pat community' because, y'know, fuck integration or anything like that.

[Youngian]

An insightful take on the 'ex-pat.'

[Boiler]

An insightful take on the 'ex-pat.'

Two memories stand out from working abroad: one, the bell-ends who pretended they had an injured child with them in the admittedly seriously over-crowded area by the Sydney Opera House to see the fireworks at the closing ceremony of the 2000 Olympics (and it was obvious from the guy's near-laughing tone of voice that there was no child - and the locals saw straight through it), and my deliberately speaking French to any Anglophone that rocked up during the 2016 Euros in Paris.

The former incident was the only time I felt the urge to apologise for being British to people. The response was usually along the lines of "we can see you're not, maybe he'd be more at home on the Costas".

[Bones McCoy]

Question time has now acquired a permanent subtitle of "Focus on Immigration".
Immigration usually features in one question and takes a quarter to a third of the show


I feel there are other shows which deserve the "focus on immigration" tag.
But they won't because the shows are:
* Escape to the Continent.
* Living in the Sun.
* The Travel Show.
* Wanted Down Under.

[Boiler]

In the midst of all their political shite, comes something the BBC can do well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articl ... stmas-past

[Youngian]

In the midst of all their political shite, comes something the BBC can do well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articl ... stmas-past

There's so much of this stuff on 4Xtra alone. Anyone who says 'there's nothing on the BBC' is either a liar or a dull vacuous airhead.

[Boiler]

Ah, but it doesn't have pictures to watch! I was planning to listen to Destination - Fire! on Sounds (having watched Robert Beatty in Dial 999 on TPTV) but it seems I've missed my chance

I wonder if all the fash who've recently "discovered" Christianity will be listening to the office of Compline on Radio 3 tonight, for example?

[davidjay]

In the midst of all their political shite, comes something the BBC can do well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articl ... stmas-past

There's so much of this stuff on 4Xtra alone. Anyone who says 'there's nothing on the BBC' is either a liar or a dull vacuous airhead.

4Extra is worth the licence fee on its own.

[Boiler]

So, it's filed the suit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvd81470v1o

I sincerely hope the BBC will stand firm and tell its lawyers to refer to Arkell -v- Pressdram.

[Oboogie]

My understanding is that Trump is going to have to prove that the BBC's coverage of Jan 6th influenced voters in Florida where the programme was not shown or available for streaming.

Furthermore, in his WH presser yesterday he doubled down and claimed that the BBC used AI to put words in his mouth which he didn't say. The BBC were not the only broadcaster who filmed his speech, every broadcaster in the world who could get a camera team there covered the PROTUS inciting the mob to march on the Capitol and "fight, fight, fight". Did they all use AI as well?

In unconnected news, he's just cancelled the tech deal he signed with Starmer as well.

[kreuzberger]

Might my interlocutors consider their correspondent somewhat churlish in that he finds most wearisome this 18th century literary slop.

[Andy McDandy]

He's doing a fine job of torpedoing his case. Which makes me wonder, what's he up to?

1. He doesn't know, and is just making angry noises.

2. He's got a good ol' boy pet judge lined up, who will just wave it through.

3. He wants to tie the BBC up in lawfare (which only nasty Democrats use) so as to scare the rest of the media.

I'm thinking 3.

[Youngian]

Trump makes nuiscance law suits against most media conglomerates. They settle out of court as he's the POTUS and can make trouble for them. What's the worst he can inflict on the BBC, ban them from White House press Q&As and call Sarah Smith rude names?
As Trump told an English court to go and whistle, I assume the BBC can do the same to a Florida court.

Trump has refused to pay £290,000 in legal fees after case dismissed in UK, court told https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... court-told

[Abernathy]

I find the “argument” that some Floridian viewers may have been using VPNs to watch the Panorama programme at issue and may thereby have had their views on Donald Trump’s “good” reputation adversely influenced shall we say, unconvincing. The phrase “clutching at straws” springs to mind. But that’s just one aspect of the implausibility of Trump’s so-called case.

I’m very pleased that the BBC has decided to contest the action, and the Arkell vs. Pressdram response does indeed seem very apposite.

But Trump is simply doing what powerful, obscenely wealthy men have been doing for many decades - from
Robert Maxwell through the erstwhile Lib Dem MP John Hemming, to Jeff Bezos -using their wealth and power via the legal system to intimidate, crush, and suppress criticism. It’s disgusting tactic, befitting someone who may be the most disgusting human ever to walk the earth.