No. 10 Self Destruction - Volume 92....allegedly briefing against Wes Streeting amid claims of him making a leadership challenge... Certainly not a fan of Streeting, but unless some kind of mishandled false flag operation, the problems in the highest office always appear to centre around McSweeney. WTF Starmer hasn't sacked him yet is just another example of his weakness I fear. And I'm not fan of Streeting, but his response to Sky News was excellent... Asked to rule out a plot to oust the PM after the budget, Streeting says "Yes" - this is not going to happen. "Nor did I shoot JFK, I don't know where Lord Lucan is, had nothing to do with Shergar, and I do think that, the US did manage to do the moon landings. "I don't think they were faked certainly not by me." So....when do we think Streeting will announce his candidacy?
The waffling gargoyle now claims he's going to boycott the BBC Yeah, about that... please log in to view this image
Now this is good to see! Mamdani stickinvit to FIFA! And it actually looks like to can play a bit which is itself unusual in any politician! https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOZuwlzDrDG/?igsh=MWFkZDd5ZTg2ZGRvbQ==
Tech should (have) allow(ed) for Sky (and similar) to do a CAS on all BBC a/v streams, so a subscriber could opt to have those streams non-receivable (therefore not violating the BBC licence reqt) .
What I was objecting to is the criminalisation of those who don't pay the lience fee against the background of the BBC misbehaving in the manner it has. It will be the licence payers who will effectively foot the bill when the BBC has to pay Trump compensation. There is no justification for making non payment a criminal offence. And the licence fee is outdated and inappropriate anyway. If the government wants to fund the BBC, it can do so from general taxation. I agree that much of the BBC's content is excellent; so they could raise additional revenue from that if they were able. I don't see any problem in having some form of subscription for certain parts of their output, commensurate with what TV licence payers are now expected to fork out. And there are other revenue streams they could exploit if market forces were allowed to prevail. Advertising, sponsorship etc. Their content may be even better if they had the resources to commission content which budget constraints presently prevent from happening. There is nothing to prevent an amount of funding (whether from taxation or commercial revenues of both) being ringfenced for "public service" content. With greater opportunities for raising revenue, they could even widen the scope. With a charter in place, the commitment to providing "independent" and "unbiased" news coverage etc can remain. There is no reason why changing the way the BBC is funded means that they have to sell to commercial interests.
Trump/WH in panic mode this evening it seems and from what I can see, anything released today is hardly earth shattering.... I wonder if they know there is more to come - and that 'more' might actually be more dangerous for him.
They did their usual zone flooding and have tried to convince Boebert to change her mind on the vote. It's just blatant that he's heavily involved, the fat, orange nonce.
Now if I was in charge of the BBC ...well one, the bloke who asked Streeting this morning if he was a Faithful or a Traitor would have been sacked live on air... ...but every single time he is featured in a news story, I'd make sure to drop in the minor detail about the Epstein infodumps just keep implicating him whether or not that's part of the story Because it is the BBC's duty to inform, educate and entertain after all
Disagree. The licence fee is a tax to fund public service broadcasting. If you decriminalise income tax many would stop paying. Pay out of general taxation for the BBC would just mean raising taxes and effectively just relabel the licence fee. Moving the burden from people using the service to people in work would be a mistake.
