The end of Long wave, a pity.

[Brian Gaff]

I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich. Of course the more
cynical might suggest that this is prime building land, but surely the BBC
or whoever owns it are not that shallow?
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one transmitter can cover
a huge area, though I believe there is or was another smaller one as well.
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it close to the Equator at the
Canary islands, as long as you ignored all the lightning crashes you heard
as well, not to mention the interference from TVs.
Its a shame though, How are the cricket fans going to get their fix of
boring old farts discussing silly mid ons now?

Brian

[Brian Gaff]

One other thing struck me, in much the same way as going VOIP with phones is
happening, this is another example of eggs in one basket syndrome. With just
one transmitter needed to talk to everyone who used to have long wave on
their radios, we are now faced with distributing a signal across the country
to various transmitters instead, so if the web and Internet goes down
everything stops.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich. Of course the more
cynical might suggest that this is prime building land, but surely the BBC
or whoever owns it are not that shallow?
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one transmitter can cover
a huge area, though I believe there is or was another smaller one as well.
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it close to the Equator at the
Canary islands, as long as you ignored all the lightning crashes you heard
as well, not to mention the interference from TVs.
Its a shame though, How are the cricket fans going to get their fix of
boring old farts discussing silly mid ons now?
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

[charles]

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about
it seems its not the transmitter which is the issue, as one can get new
transmitters, but the work needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at
Droitwich. Of course the more cynical might suggest that this is prime
building land, but surely the BBC or whoever owns it are not that
shallow?

The BBC haven't owned the transmitters for over 20 years

Post by Brian Gaff
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one
transmitter can cover a huge area, though I believe there is or was
another smaller one as well.

There are two others! One in central Scotland and one on the Moray Firth.

Post by Brian Gaff
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it
close to the Equator at the Canary islands,

I've certainly listened in my car on the shores of Lake Geneva - but not
under the tram wires..

[Brian Gaff]

Seems those two transmitters are rather close by when you do consider its
range, so it must be something to do with the locations or something.
I've never heard any echo or phase issues. If you listen to other medium
wav broadcasts co channeled you can clearly hear echo on many of them, which
seems a bit odd, you might think they would make sure they were the same or
any fading would make a horrid noise.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by charles

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about
it seems its not the transmitter which is the issue, as one can get new
transmitters, but the work needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at
Droitwich. Of course the more cynical might suggest that this is prime
building land, but surely the BBC or whoever owns it are not that
shallow?

The BBC haven't owned the transmitters for over 20 years

Post by Brian Gaff
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one
transmitter can cover a huge area, though I believe there is or was
another smaller one as well.

There are two others! One in central Scotland and one on the Moray Firth.

Post by Brian Gaff
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it
close to the Equator at the Canary islands,

I've certainly listened in my car on the shores of Lake Geneva - but not
under the tram wires..
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[MB]

Post by Brian Gaff
Seems those two transmitters are rather close by when you do consider its
range, so it must be something to do with the locations or something.
I've never heard any echo or phase issues. If you listen to other medium
wav broadcasts co channeled you can clearly hear echo on many of them, which
seems a bit odd, you might think they would make sure they were the same or
any fading would make a horrid noise.
Brian

Before we got Radio 4 etc on VHF FM here, I had to use Long Wave (though
often gave up). Quite often there would be phasing problems as I got
near to the work location.

The ttransmitters are supposedly phased up but obviously they can't be
in phase everywhere.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <u5admk$2qs1o$***@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 16:32:36,
MB <***@nospam.net> writes
[]

Post by MB
Before we got Radio 4 etc on VHF FM here, I had to use Long Wave
(though often gave up). Quite often there would be phasing problems as
I got near to the work location.
The ttransmitters are supposedly phased up but obviously they can't be
in phase everywhere.

If not phased, you'd hear either a beat note if high enough, or a
breathing effect, at any one location. If phased, then in theory the
phase _difference_ at any one location would be fixed, making a pattern
(including nulls); I remember some TV or radio demo showing driving
between such (I think they were explaining about wavelengths - of FM, or
microwave or something - and just used R4 LW as an extreme example): in
practice due to varying propagation conditions there will be _some_
variation in relative phase at any one location, though I don't know how
fast that varies - not very for such a low frequency, I imagine.

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If not phased, you'd hear either a beat note if high enough, or a
breathing effect, at any one location. If phased, then in theory the
phase_difference_ at any one location would be fixed, making a pattern
(including nulls); I remember some TV or radio demo showing driving
between such (I think they were explaining about wavelengths - of FM, or
microwave or something - and just used R4 LW as an extreme example): in
practice due to varying propagation conditions there will be_some_
variation in relative phase at any one location, though I don't know how
fast that varies - not very for such a low frequency, I imagine.

From what I remember it was a bit like VHF FM with multi-path i.e.
distorted.

At one time I used to try listening using a synchronous detector or even
just listening to one side-band

[MB]

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich. Of course the more
cynical might suggest that this is prime building land, but surely the BBC
or whoever owns it are not that shallow?
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one transmitter can cover
a huge area, though I believe there is or was another smaller one as well.
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it close to the Equator at the
Canary islands, as long as you ignored all the lightning crashes you heard
as well, not to mention the interference from TVs.
Its a shame though, How are the cricket fans going to get their fix of
boring old farts discussing silly mid ons now?

It is a very expensive way to serve a very small number of people. I
can't remember if I have checked if my car has Long Wave, I think it
does but Long Wave reception is so poor in the Highlands that it is of
little use.

Has anyone estimated how many have a LW receiver, it will be very low
and most would not know where to find Radio 4.

If someone has spent at least a six figure sum on a yacht then they can
afford a NAVTEX receiver and of course the forecasts and navigational
warnings are also transmitted by the coastguard.

Let us hope that some of the money saved will be available to the BBC
for things like increasing DAB coverage but I suspect the BBC will not
get it.

[Tweed]

Post by MB

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich. Of course the more
cynical might suggest that this is prime building land, but surely the BBC
or whoever owns it are not that shallow?
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one transmitter can cover
a huge area, though I believe there is or was another smaller one as well.
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it close to the Equator at the
Canary islands, as long as you ignored all the lightning crashes you heard
as well, not to mention the interference from TVs.
Its a shame though, How are the cricket fans going to get their fix of
boring old farts discussing silly mid ons now?

It is a very expensive way to serve a very small number of people. I
can't remember if I have checked if my car has Long Wave, I think it
does but Long Wave reception is so poor in the Highlands that it is of
little use.
Has anyone estimated how many have a LW receiver, it will be very low
and most would not know where to find Radio 4.
If someone has spent at least a six figure sum on a yacht then they can
afford a NAVTEX receiver and of course the forecasts and navigational
warnings are also transmitted by the coastguard.
Let us hope that some of the money saved will be available to the BBC
for things like increasing DAB coverage but I suspect the BBC will not
get it.

I would imagine that the BBC DAB transmitter network is more use in an
emergency. It has lots of transmitters and reception can withstand the loss
of some here and there. These days people are more likely to have a working
DAB receiver than an LW one.

I suppose the other issue is the comparative resilience of the programme
feed to the LW network compared to the DAB system, and also diversity of
power supply. The DAB network sort of reminds me of the network of small
low power wartime MW transmitters.

(And before anyone moans about DAB coverage - I’m referring specifically to
the BBC network, which in my experience is vastly superior to the
commercial MUX that Times Radio uses)

[Mark Carver]

Post by Tweed

Post by MB

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich. Of course the more
cynical might suggest that this is prime building land, but surely the BBC
or whoever owns it are not that shallow?
The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one transmitter can cover
a huge area, though I believe there is or was another smaller one as well.
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it close to the Equator at the
Canary islands, as long as you ignored all the lightning crashes you heard
as well, not to mention the interference from TVs.
Its a shame though, How are the cricket fans going to get their fix of
boring old farts discussing silly mid ons now?

It is a very expensive way to serve a very small number of people. I
can't remember if I have checked if my car has Long Wave, I think it
does but Long Wave reception is so poor in the Highlands that it is of
little use.
Has anyone estimated how many have a LW receiver, it will be very low
and most would not know where to find Radio 4.
If someone has spent at least a six figure sum on a yacht then they can
afford a NAVTEX receiver and of course the forecasts and navigational
warnings are also transmitted by the coastguard.
Let us hope that some of the money saved will be available to the BBC
for things like increasing DAB coverage but I suspect the BBC will not
get it.

I would imagine that the BBC DAB transmitter network is more use in an
emergency. It has lots of transmitters and reception can withstand the loss
of some here and there. These days people are more likely to have a working
DAB receiver than an LW one.
I suppose the other issue is the comparative resilience of the programme
feed to the LW network compared to the DAB system, and also diversity of
power supply. The DAB network sort of reminds me of the network of small
low power wartime MW transmitters.
(And before anyone moans about DAB coverage - I’m referring specifically to
the BBC network, which in my experience is vastly superior to the
commercial MUX that Times Radio uses)

It will be. BBC National mux has over 400 transmitters, SDL (Times
Radio, Jazz FM etc) has about 60.

D1 (LBC, Classic FM etc) has something in between  (That's probably Bill
W's problem in the other thread)

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
I would imagine that the BBC DAB transmitter network is more use in an
emergency. It has lots of transmitters and reception can withstand the loss
of some here and there. These days people are more likely to have a working
DAB receiver than an LW one.

Hmm. I have one (DAB/FM), that someone gave me because the power
connection was faulty, not anything wrong with the receiver. Once I
fixed that, it worked fine. When I first used it, I got a few DAB
stations here. But last time I did a scan - it's DAB, not DAB+ - it
didn't find a single DAB station! OK, I'm rural, but not exactly the
back of beyond: I'm mid-Kent, TN27 0DD. Scan done indoors with internal
telescopic aerial fully extended.

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
I suppose the other issue is the comparative resilience of the programme
feed to the LW network compared to the DAB system, and also diversity of
power supply. The DAB network sort of reminds me of the network of small
low power wartime MW transmitters.
(And before anyone moans about DAB coverage - I’m referring specifically to
the BBC network, which in my experience is vastly superior to the
commercial MUX that Times Radio uses)

It will be. BBC National mux has over 400 transmitters, SDL (Times
Radio, Jazz FM etc) has about 60.
D1 (LBC, Classic FM etc) has something in between  (That's probably
Bill W's problem in the other thread)

[Tweed]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
I would imagine that the BBC DAB transmitter network is more use in an
emergency. It has lots of transmitters and reception can withstand the loss
of some here and there. These days people are more likely to have a working
DAB receiver than an LW one.

Hmm. I have one (DAB/FM), that someone gave me because the power
connection was faulty, not anything wrong with the receiver. Once I
fixed that, it worked fine. When I first used it, I got a few DAB
stations here. But last time I did a scan - it's DAB, not DAB+ - it
didn't find a single DAB station! OK, I'm rural, but not exactly the
back of beyond: I'm mid-Kent, TN27 0DD. Scan done indoors with internal
telescopic aerial fully extended.

https://getdigitalradio.com/post-code-checker/

For house number 1 it gives good reception. I am somewhere that claims no
reception according to that checker, but can get reception. Perhaps points
to your set being deaf?

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Hmm. I have one (DAB/FM), that someone gave me because the power
connection was faulty, not anything wrong with the receiver. Once I
fixed that, it worked fine. When I first used it, I got a few DAB
stations here. But last time I did a scan - it's DAB, not DAB+ - it
didn't find a single DAB station! OK, I'm rural, but not exactly the
back of beyond: I'm mid-Kent, TN27 0DD. Scan done indoors with internal
telescopic aerial fully extended.

Reception is often patchy in rural areas but can be better than VHF FM
even in some very remote places. Being more resilient against
multi-path helps at times.

I tend to just leave the car radio on DAB thought it will switch to VHF
FM itself on stations like Radio 2 and Radio 4 but there are many times
now when I will not listen to Radio 2 because of the presenter.

It is frustrating where an extra DAB transmitter would make a big
different. A few years ago I drove down to Falmouth, I got back into
DAB coverage at Tarbet and I don't lost it again (and I went into
mid-Wales to visit a friend).

[Max Demian]

I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of  closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich.  Of course the
more
cynical might suggest that this is prime building land, but surely the BBC
or whoever owns it are not that shallow?
  The thing about Long wave of course, is that just one transmitter
can cover
a huge area, though I believe there is or was another smaller one as well.
Certainly back in the 80s you could hear it close to the Equator at the
Canary islands, as long as you ignored all the lightning crashes you heard
as well, not to mention the interference from TVs.
  Its a shame though, How are the cricket fans going to get their fix of
boring old farts discussing silly mid ons now?

It is a very expensive way to serve a very small number of people.  I
can't remember if I have checked if my car has Long Wave, I think it
does but Long Wave reception is so poor in the Highlands that it is of
little use.
Has anyone estimated how many have a LW receiver, it will be very low
and most would not know where to find Radio 4.

I haven't used LW for years, but, for some (possibly sentimental)
reason, I've bought a few radios with LW in recent years.

I hope they give notice before turning the transmitter off, so I can
tune into it for one last time (though I might find it broadcasting
cricket).

[Mark Carver]

Post by Brian Gaff
I notice people chattering that BBC R4 LW is giving notice of closure in
the near future in little messages on the station. Having furtled about it
seems its not the transmitter
which is the issue, as one can get new transmitters, but the work
needed to refurbish the huge aerial array at Droitwich.

It's mostly (as with all the other LW and MW closures across Europe) to
do with electricity costs.
That's why the  1215 kHz (aka 247m) network closed down in January, and
why the 1053/1089 network operates at -6dB.

Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio has
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Mark Carver
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio has
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.

If you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're 75, just try AM.

Bill

[Max Demian]

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by Mark Carver
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio has
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.

If you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're 75, just try AM.

If you're 25 you won't know what FM radio is. Or, for that matter, "radio".

[John Williamson]

Post by Max Demian

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by Mark Carver
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio has
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.

If you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're 75, just try AM.

If you're 25 you won't know what FM radio is. Or, for that matter, "radio".

Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <***@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 31 May 2023
20:03:25, John Williamson <***@btinternet.com> writes
[]

Post by John Williamson
Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than
64 kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.

Actually, for mono material, at 44100 sample rate, 64kbps mp3 will give
you 16 kHz bandwidth (11 kHz for stereo). (And I've come across a lot of
AAC - .m4a - files recently that are only 47 and 48 k data rate, and yet
stereo 16 kHz bandwidth; I don't know how they do it! It must be a
_very_ efficient coding algorithm.)

[tony sayer]

Post by John Williamson

Post by Max Demian

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by Mark Carver
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio has
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.

If you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're 75, just try AM.

If you're 25 you won't know what FM radio is. Or, for that matter, "radio".

Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.

A good indicator of how many of us spent our misplaced yoof with heads
in Bass bins at gigs back in the day;!...

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by tony sayer

Post by John Williamson
Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.

A good indicator of how many of us spent our misplaced yoof with heads
in Bass bins at gigs back in the day;!...

I didn't - was never into heavy rock of any flavour, nor AFAICR anything
particularly loud. But when I used some of those self-test utilities a
few years ago, I was amazed to find my hearing cuts off about 8 kHz!
(I'm 63 now, though was probably 60 or less when I did the test.) Now,
this may not be entirely true, as it obviously relies on the frequency
performance of laptop speakers (though I did try headphones as well),
but I'd have thought that these would still work to well above 8 kHz.

If the cutoff really is correct, it must have happened very gradually,
as I'm not aware of the world sounding muffled, or having any difficulty
in for example conversation - and the _acuity_ of my hearing remains
high, i. e. I hear very quiet sounds (often that others don't).

[Scott]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by tony sayer

Post by John Williamson
Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.

A good indicator of how many of us spent our misplaced yoof with heads
in Bass bins at gigs back in the day;!...

I didn't - was never into heavy rock of any flavour, nor AFAICR anything
particularly loud. But when I used some of those self-test utilities a
few years ago, I was amazed to find my hearing cuts off about 8 kHz!
(I'm 63 now, though was probably 60 or less when I did the test.) Now,
this may not be entirely true, as it obviously relies on the frequency
performance of laptop speakers (though I did try headphones as well),
but I'd have thought that these would still work to well above 8 kHz.

I tried an online app until I realised the limitation could be in the
equipment rather than in my hearing. What kind of utility did you
use?

Post by J. P. Gilliver
If the cutoff really is correct, it must have happened very gradually,
as I'm not aware of the world sounding muffled, or having any difficulty
in for example conversation - and the _acuity_ of my hearing remains
high, i. e. I hear very quiet sounds (often that others don't).

I thought the upper limit for speech was 8 kHz anyway:
https://www.soundproofcow.com/difference-high-middle-low-frequency-noise/#:~:text=Human%20ears%20can%20register%20sounds,100%20and%208%2C000%20Hz%20range

[Scott]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<***@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

[Max Demian]

Post by Scott
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition#:~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%20as%20a%20technology

Doesn't say when they are turning R4 LW off.

(I don't like their use of the term "transitioning". What if I
"identify" as a LW user?)

[Mark Carver]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Scott
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition#:~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%20as%20a%20technology

Doesn't say when they are turning R4 LW off.
(I don't like their use of the term "transitioning". What if I
"identify" as a LW user?)

The electricity companies are still woefully behind replacing the E7
teleswitches, so don't assume the carrier on 198 kHz will cease in
March, they might do what the French are still doing with 162 kHz, and
keep it going with just an unmodulated (by audio) carrier

I'm sure they can give Arqiva (and by extension the Beeb) a good energy
deal for the 'lekky

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Max Demian

Post by Scott
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-tr
ansition#:~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%2
0as%20a%20technology

Doesn't say when they are turning R4 LW off.

"the BBC is to stop scheduling separate content for Radio 4 LW in
anticipation of the closure of the LW platform…
All programmes on Radio 4 LW - Shipping Forecast, Daily Service,
Yesterday in Parliament and Test Match Special – will continue to be
available on other BBC platforms."

Those two statements when taken together are confusing: the first one
implies that soon (or has it already happened?) R4LW will be identical
to R4FM, until switchoff. So does that mean that the material which had
been exclusive to R4LW will be (already is?) _only_ available digitally
(or on R5SE for the cricket)?

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Max Demian
(I don't like their use of the term "transitioning". What if I
"identify" as a LW user?)

The electricity companies are still woefully behind replacing the E7
teleswitches, so don't assume the carrier on 198 kHz will cease in
March, they might do what the French are still doing with 162 kHz, and
keep it going with just an unmodulated (by audio) carrier

Hmm. If they do that, you'd have thought they could modulate it - the
extra cost would surely not be a lot. Sounds petty.

Post by Mark Carver
I'm sure they can give Arqiva (and by extension the Beeb) a good energy
deal for the 'lekky

(-:

[Mark Carver]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Max Demian

Post by Scott
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-tr
ansition#:~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%2
0as%20a%20technology

Doesn't say when they are turning R4 LW off.

"the BBC is to stop scheduling separate content for Radio 4 LW in
anticipation of the closure of the LW platform…
All programmes on Radio 4 LW -  Shipping Forecast, Daily Service,
Yesterday in Parliament and Test Match Special – will continue to be
available on other BBC platforms."
Those two statements when taken together are confusing: the first one
implies that soon (or has it already happened?) R4LW will be identical
to R4FM, until switchoff. So does that mean that the material which
had been exclusive to R4LW will be (already is?) _only_ available
digitally (or on R5SE for the cricket)?

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Max Demian
(I don't like their use of the term "transitioning". What if I
"identify" as a LW user?)

The electricity companies are still woefully behind replacing the E7
teleswitches, so don't assume the carrier on 198 kHz will cease in
March, they might do what the French are still doing with 162 kHz,
and keep it going with just an unmodulated (by audio) carrier

Hmm. If they do that, you'd have thought they could modulate it - the
extra cost would surely not be a lot. Sounds petty.

Might be tied up with royalty payments, for effectively playing music to
the whole of Europe. The are also slowly reducing the transmitted power
bit by bit

https://www.pa3fwm.nl/technotes/tn15d.html

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Those two statements when taken together are confusing: the first one
implies that soon (or has it already happened?) R4LW will be identical
to R4FM, until switchoff. So does that mean that the material which had
been exclusive to R4LW will be (already is?)_only_ available digitally
(or on R5SE for the cricket)?

They have reduced the number of transmissions of the Shipping Forecase,
they can move it forward so it does not affect the Today programme/

It is the Daily Service that puzzles me, the majority of people are not
interested in it so if they insert into normal programmes then they are
going to lose many listeners unless they also put it on very early.

[Tweed]

Post by MB

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Those two statements when taken together are confusing: the first one
implies that soon (or has it already happened?) R4LW will be identical
to R4FM, until switchoff. So does that mean that the material which had
been exclusive to R4LW will be (already is?)_only_ available digitally
(or on R5SE for the cricket)?

They have reduced the number of transmissions of the Shipping Forecase,
they can move it forward so it does not affect the Today programme/
It is the Daily Service that puzzles me, the majority of people are not
interested in it so if they insert into normal programmes then they are
going to lose many listeners unless they also put it on very early.

Can’t the Daily Service simply go out on one of the DAB opts? There’s
already a “R4LW” DAB variant of R4. It will also likely be available on
Sounds via that new fangled Internet.

[MB]

Post by Tweed
Can’t the Daily Service simply go out on one of the DAB opts? There’s
already a “R4LW” DAB variant of R4. It will also likely be available on
Sounds via that new fangled Internet.

That would seem the obvious thing to do but ...

"The Daily Service and the longer version of Yesterday in Parliament
will also continue on LW until March 2024 and will then be available on
BBC Radio 4 Extra and BBC Sounds."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition

[Scott]

Sent in error.

[[e-mail]]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

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

[Brian Gaff]

I think that is alittle bit of a sweeping statement though. Its a
subculture, and as BBC are supposed to actually serve audiences not covered
by commercial stations, I find it hard to understand why they intend do
decimate local radio, in effect doing to it what the commercial entities did
and just broadcasting the minimal amount of local content they can get away
with.

I am not a fan of talk radio or for that matter LBC and others, whose main
aim seem to be to take the opposite view to whoever is non and annoy the
public on phone ins by cutting them off and giving them no right to reply,
instead spouting their own, or the companies view.
I just cannot listen to them these days.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

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

[Tweed]

Post by Brian Gaff
I think that is alittle bit of a sweeping statement though. Its a
subculture, and as BBC are supposed to actually serve audiences not covered
by commercial stations, I find it hard to understand why they intend do
decimate local radio, in effect doing to it what the commercial entities did
and just broadcasting the minimal amount of local content they can get away
with.
I am not a fan of talk radio or for that matter LBC and others, whose main
aim seem to be to take the opposite view to whoever is non and annoy the
public on phone ins by cutting them off and giving them no right to reply,
instead spouting their own, or the companies view.
I just cannot listen to them these days.
Brian

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
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)

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <u59pf7$2omss$***@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
Tweed <***@gmail.com> writes
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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?

[Tweed]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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

[Tweed]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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....

[Scott]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

[Tweed]

Post by Scott
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Tweed

Post by Scott
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver

[]

Post by Tweed

Post by Scott

Post by Mark Carver
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?

[]

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

Yes, I was going to say weather, but you're right about the trailers
too.

I did see within the last few days a presenter being very apologetic to
someone he'd just set up with a detailed introduction, that we have to
stop now for a break - first time I'd seen that on BBC, so clearly the
breaks have considerable power, i. e. can't be delayed a minute or two.
(Obviously I just got weather.)

[Scott]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Scott
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver

[]

Post by Scott

Post by Mark Carver
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?

[]

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

Yes, I was going to say weather, but you're right about the trailers
too.
I did see within the last few days a presenter being very apologetic to
someone he'd just set up with a detailed introduction, that we have to
stop now for a break - first time I'd seen that on BBC, so clearly the
breaks have considerable power, i. e. can't be delayed a minute or two.
(Obviously I just got weather.)

I assume it will be like Gold (radio) with a high level of automation.
I assume different parts of the world will get different ads. Could
the presenter not have continued the interview and delayed broadcast
until after the break?

[MB]

Post by Scott
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?

[Robin]

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

[Tweed]

Post by Robin

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

75% is funded from the licence fee

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42183/pdf/

[Bob Latham]

Post by Robin

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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?

Bob.

[Scott]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:28:41 +0100, Bob Latham

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Robin

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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 :-)

[Robin]

Post by Tweed

Post by Robin

Post by Tweed

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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.

75% is funded from the licence fee
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42183/pdf/

That "approximately 75%" in evidence given in January 20022 did not
escape notice given the actual percentages met by the FCDO for 2019-20,
2020-21 and 2021-22 were 29%, 29% and 29%.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Departmental-Overview-2019-20-The-BBC-Group.pdf
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Departmental-Overview-2020-21-The-BBC-Group.pdf
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/departmental-overview-the-bbc-group-2021-22.pdf

[charles]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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?
--

The Government passed World Service funding to the BBC a few years ago.
That might be why it now originates from Broadcasting House, rather than
Bush House. The lease expired there.

[Robin]

Post by charles

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed
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
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?
--

The Government passed World Service funding to the BBC a few years ago.
That might be why it now originates from Broadcasting House, rather than
Bush House. The lease expired there.

The decision to move the WS from Bush House was made public in 2000 - a
full decade before the decision to stop funding it wholly from grant in aid.

[Brian Gregory]

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

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.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a
subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of
Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

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.

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.

Those who share their world view or those that don't look outside
main stream media, will of course not see what is happening.

The BBC is pro just about every one of the modern cultist religions
however absurd they are and doesn't allow any of them to be
questioned.

Gender, Climate change, Woke, BLM, leftness, immigration,
anti-britain, pro dissolution, pro EU etc. etc.

For a large part of the country being forced to pay for the machine
that pushes propaganda at them in any programme they can squeeze it
into is unforgivable.


Bob.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Post by Bob Latham
...
The BBC is pro just about every one of the modern cultist religions
however absurd they are and doesn't allow any of them to be
questioned.

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.

[MB]

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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.

[[e-mail]]

Post by MB

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

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by MB

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

That was my first thought, but then I thought he might he saying "I
doubt there are even 100k transvestites, let alone transgender". (Though
if the statistics someone then posted are correct, he'd be wrong.)

[John Williamson]

Post by MB

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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

[Robin]

Post by John Williamson

Post by MB

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
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/

[Liz Tuddenham]

Post by Robin

Post by John Williamson

Post by MB

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
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.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Liz Tuddenham

Post by Robin
"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.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Post by Roderick Stewart
[...]
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.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Liz Tuddenham

Post by Roderick Stewart
[...]
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.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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.

[Max Demian]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Liz Tuddenham

Post by Roderick Stewart
[...]
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.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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.

Actually I understand that some fungi have thousands of sexes. Maybe Liz
is a mushroom.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Liz Tuddenham

Post by Roderick Stewart
[...]
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.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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.

Actually I understand that some fungi have thousands of sexes. Maybe Liz
is a mushroom.

Have you been looking at the photograph on my driving licence?

[Liz Tuddenham]

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

[...]

Post by Roderick Stewart
A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.

Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant school to
keep it simple. The biology of sex is far more complex than that and
more is being discovered all the time. Look up any text book for
'A'-level or above.

Now that chromosome testing is becoming easy and cheap, most of the
things we though we thought we knew are turning out to be untrue, but
the idea that humans are only male and female has been known to be wrong
for over a century.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%***@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:21:56, Liz Tuddenham

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]

Post by Roderick Stewart
A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.

Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant school to
keep it simple. The biology of sex is far more complex than that and
more is being discovered all the time. Look up any text book for
'A'-level or above.
Now that chromosome testing is becoming easy and cheap, most of the
things we though we thought we knew are turning out to be untrue, but
the idea that humans are only male and female has been known to be wrong
for over a century.

I fear you may be going too far there: yes, _brain_ does cover a broad
spectrum, and I personally have been strongly against most gender
sterotyping for as long as I've been aware of it. The _reproductive_
parts of the human, however, do come in just the two flavours (most of
the time: hermaphrodites - people with bits of both - _do_ exist, but
are _extremely_ rare), and so far there's no sign of that being
changeable. (Cosmetic - and working for sex purposes - changes can be
done, but they're not reproductively functional.)

Having said that, I think those who are violently anti-trans (who also
tend to be against women's rights, though not always) must be behind
there being little if any real research into either artificial (i. e.
external) wombs (gestation chambers) or male pregnancy.

This is way OT for UTB, though. Happy to go to email.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:21:56, Liz Tuddenham

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]

Post by Roderick Stewart
A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.

Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant school to
keep it simple. The biology of sex is far more complex than that and
more is being discovered all the time. Look up any text book for
'A'-level or above.
Now that chromosome testing is becoming easy and cheap, most of the
things we though we thought we knew are turning out to be untrue, but
the idea that humans are only male and female has been known to be wrong
for over a century.

I fear you may be going too far there: yes, _brain_ does cover a broad
spectrum, and I personally have been strongly against most gender
sterotyping for as long as I've been aware of it.

I was referring to physical biology, not psychology.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The _reproductive_
parts of the human, however, do come in just the two flavours (most of
the time: hermaphrodites - people with bits of both - _do_ exist, but
are _extremely_ rare), and so far there's no sign of that being
changeable.

That's what is coming to light with chromosome testing. There are far
more chimera than we thought and lots of people have mixed-up
chromosomes without any difference in the appearance of their genitals.
(...and others have uncertain genital appearance without any special
chromosome arrangements).

If you only consider breeding men and women, two sexes are necessary and
sufficient, but that excludes a huge proportion of the population who
don't breed for medical, social or age reasons. They are still forced
to declare they are male or female when some of them may, in fact, be
neither or both. The distinction is artificial and unnecessary much of
the time.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]

Post by Roderick Stewart
A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.

Totally and utterly wrong; that's how they teach it in infant
school to keep it simple.

Roughly as a percentage, what proportion of the population do not
have XX or XY chromosomes? I accept that those people may be harder
to classify.

On Twitter yesterday the story was of a pregnant man. There was a
picture of the individual who had done everything possible to make
him/her self look male, except for the extended lower abdomen due to
pregnancy.

Now okay, some people claim that gender is not the same as sex. But
that becomes very hard to accept when someone claiming to be a man is
pregnant.

I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
pregnant you are a female. I think it would be considered mad to
think otherwise and an abandoment of common sense and reason. Not
that that is anything unusual these days in the insane, suicidal West.

Having said all of that, I have no wish to be offensive or to cause
pain and I have sympathy but I'm not about to roll over and abandon
reason.



Bob.

[MB]

Post by Bob Latham
I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
pregnant you are a female.

I suspect that if they were allowed by medical ethics, an embryo could
be implanted in a pig, cow, monkey ... and born which is what they seem
to do with 'pregnant' men.

[Max Demian]

Post by MB

Post by Bob Latham
I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
pregnant you are a female.

I suspect that if they were allowed by medical ethics, an embryo could
be implanted in a pig, cow, monkey ... and born which is what they seem
to do with 'pregnant' men.

You could do that, perhaps, in that an ectopic pregnancy sometimes
works. In practice, I think "pregnant men" are women who have changed
some external characteristics to appear to look like men. Not sure how
hormonal manipulation would affect the pregnancy (or resulting child).

[Robin]

Post by Liz Tuddenham

Post by Robin

Post by John Williamson

Post by MB

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
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

[Bob Latham]

Post by John Williamson

Post by MB

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 21:14:48 +0100, Bob Latham

Post by Bob Latham
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.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Post by MB

Post by Liz Tuddenham
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?

[John Williamson]

Post by Bob Latham
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.

[Brian Gaff]

Yes, and often its not even deliberate. Unfortunately the Fox news effect is
deliberate, and a lot of our commercial stations seem to be leaning to the
right so far, all disabled babies will be killed at birth and all that
survive will have to work their balls off.
So Maybe the BBC left wing attitude is justified.
The impartiality of any news is a myth, as it all depends on people
seeing the news and trying to describe the events.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by John Williamson

Post by Bob Latham
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.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.

[MB]

Post by John Williamson
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.

[Scott]

Post by MB

Post by John Williamson
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.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Scott

Post by MB

Post by John Williamson
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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Scott

Post by MB

Post by John Williamson
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'm not sure about that: I don't know how much they are independent of
ITV and Sky. I thought their _primary_ reason for _existence_ is some
obligation [left over from the original ITV licencing?] to provide
_some_ news output, without that obligation having _that_ much to say
about balance/content/whatever.)

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Scott
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.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Scott
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.

To some extent yes. Their political bandwidth is wider than the
narrow controlled narrative we have from main stream media in the UK.
The widest here is GB News and Talk TV which do have some different
points of view on topics.

We have a problem in the UK. Until the last 10 or 15 years, different
views on all topics were fine, now you can be sacked for wrong think,
and ofcom jump on anything that doesn't follow the prescription.
This is the road to totalitarianism and fascism. A warning sign is
the creation of "fact checkers" or the ministry of truth. This is
controlling the narrative and controlling you.

Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This
is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
groups but nothing. Can't think why.

Bob.

[MB]

Post by Bob Latham
Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This
is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
groups but nothing. Can't think why.

I don't think the media came out of well, I saw many of the government
press conferences and the media came over as thick as the proverbial.
Very few had any medical or even scientific education (never mind actual
qualifications). Their main aim seemed to be to get a soundbite to use
on their news programme even if the question had already been asked many
times.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by MB

Post by Bob Latham
Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This
is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
groups but nothing. Can't think why.

I don't think the media came out of well, I saw many of the government
press conferences and the media came over as thick as the proverbial.
Very few had any medical or even scientific education (never mind
actual qualifications). Their main aim seemed to be to get a soundbite
to use on their news programme even if the question had already been
asked many times.

I soon became extremely frustrated with the media when they repeatedly
got wrong that which one would once have at least expected them to get
right - the technical aspects: presenting graphs at too low a
resolution, or (especially BBC News) not turning off their banner so
that important parts were obscured. This carried on far longer (i. e.
it's the case still) than was at all acceptable. I guess as for what you
refer to above - questions and the like - I'd already dismissed as
likely to be from people who don't know their gluteus from their
humerus; it was the fact that what _were_ *reasonably* scientific
presentations (even if they had a political slant, which I'm sure they
sometimes did) were rendered unusable that I can't forgive.

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Bob Latham
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.

To some extent yes. Their political bandwidth is wider than the
narrow controlled narrative we have from main stream media in the UK.
The widest here is GB News and Talk TV which do have some different
points of view on topics.

I suspect there's little point in progressing this discussion (certainly
in UTB); if you think GB News has wide political bandwidth and the BBC
narrow, and I think the opposite, then neither of us will change the
mind of the other. I do occasionally look at GBN - if I allow for its
political views, it can be interesting, and certainly entertaining. The
times I end up at GBN are usually when the BBC and Sky are indulging in
monostoryism, as they have a depressing tendency to do these days
(preoccupation with one story to the exclusion of all other news).

Post by Bob Latham
We have a problem in the UK. Until the last 10 or 15 years, different
views on all topics were fine, now you can be sacked for wrong think,
and ofcom jump on anything that doesn't follow the prescription.

Certainly "political correctness gone mad" is a common cry, and often
with justification; though what many of those crying it forget is that
the _original_ reason for the rules was a genuine discrimination. PCGM
is _usually_ caused by _unintelligent_ interpretation of rules - usually
by someone not very bright, sometimes by someone who can see the
daftness but who are under a superior (which can include an
organisation) who doesn't.

Post by Bob Latham
This is the road to totalitarianism and fascism. A warning sign is
the creation of "fact checkers" or the ministry of truth. This is
controlling the narrative and controlling you.

As always, such have their place, but can get out of hand.

Post by Bob Latham
Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This

Each individual case needs examining. (But most people don't have the
time - or, increasingly, the training in the scientific way of thinking
- necessary.)

Post by Bob Latham
is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would be
jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in all age
groups but nothing. Can't think why.

Because it's too complicated - and because most media folk aren't of a
scientific background.

Post by Bob Latham
Bob.

12d. (-:

[John Williamson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I suspect there's little point in progressing this discussion (certainly
in UTB); if you think GB News has wide political bandwidth and the BBC
narrow, and I think the opposite, then neither of us will change the
mind of the other. I do occasionally look at GBN - if I allow for its
political views, it can be interesting, and certainly entertaining. The
times I end up at GBN are usually when the BBC and Sky are indulging in
monostoryism, as they have a depressing tendency to do these days
(preoccupation with one story to the exclusion of all other news).

On the few occasions I've actually looked at GB News, they seem to be
adopting the same attitudes as the "Shock Jocks" on some radio
programmes. Pick a controversial subject and argue with those who phone
in, no matter which side they support.

[Bob Latham]

Post by John Williamson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I suspect there's little point in progressing this discussion
(certainly in UTB); if you think GB News has wide political
bandwidth and the BBC narrow, and I think the opposite, then
neither of us will change the mind of the other. I do
occasionally look at GBN - if I allow for its political views, it
can be interesting, and certainly entertaining. The times I end
up at GBN are usually when the BBC and Sky are indulging in
monostoryism, as they have a depressing tendency to do these days
(preoccupation with one story to the exclusion of all other news).

On the few occasions I've actually looked at GB News, they seem to
be adopting the same attitudes as the "Shock Jocks" on some radio
programmes. Pick a controversial subject and argue with those who
phone in, no matter which side they support.

I can honestly say I can't recall ever seeing a phone in on GBN and I
watch it quite a bit. That's not to say they don't do them though.

Talk radio do phone ins.

Bob.

[Bob Latham]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Bob Latham
This is the road to totalitarianism and fascism. A warning sign is
the creation of "fact checkers" or the ministry of truth. This is
controlling the narrative and controlling you.

As always, such have their place, but can get out of hand.

Clearly I don't see it like that. Nasty regimes often have a ministry
of truth, it's basically claiming authority to strengthen one
argument against another. Narrative control.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Bob Latham
Remember covid and how leading doctors and scientists from our
universities were shut down by the media because of wrong think. This

Each individual case needs examining. (But most people don't have
the time - or, increasingly, the training in the scientific way of
thinking - necessary.)

Are you talking about the silenced scientists or the media.

During the covid pandemic they shutdown Professor Sunetra Gupta,
She's an expert on the subject maybe even our top expert but she
didn't follow the narrative so she was pushed out.

But if you're a committed communist singing the narrative you get a
job in Sage advising on using fear as a weapon against the people of
the country.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Bob Latham
is still happening now on many topics. You'd think the media would
be jumping up and down about thousands excess deaths per week in
all age groups but nothing. Can't think why.

Because it's too complicated - and because most media folk aren't
of a scientific background.

No. It's because the government and the media know that what was done
to the public during covid is now the cause of these deaths, of that
there can be no doubt. It was predicted at the time by the silenced.
People are trying to hide the truth.

Bob.

[John Williamson]

Post by MB

Post by John Williamson
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.

[[e-mail]]

Post by John Williamson

Post by Bob Latham
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

[Scott]

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by John Williamson

Post by Bob Latham
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?

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by ***@aol.com
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.

The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of public

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Post by Bob Latham
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.

I see the BBC as somewhat conservative - with a small c - i. e., biased
somewhat towards the status quo; somewhat inevitable for any
organisation as old as it is. I think it's aware of that aspect of
itself, and tries - sometimes too hard - to go the other way, e. g.
regarding minority rights (religious, racial, sexual, and many others).

Post by Bob Latham
Those who share their world view or those that don't look outside
main stream media, will of course not see what is happening.
The BBC is pro just about every one of the modern cultist religions
however absurd they are and doesn't allow any of them to be
questioned.

I don't think I'd go that far. It gives plenty of time to those
"religions" (I assume you mean the list below) - sometimes excessively
so, but that of course is a matter of opinion.

Post by Bob Latham
Gender, Climate change, Woke, BLM, leftness, immigration,
anti-britain, pro dissolution, pro EU etc. etc.

Made me smile (ruefully!) to read someone claiming the BBC is pro
immigration! Maybe being in the south-east I see more against than some,
but I certainly wouldn't have said that. As for the other items, yes
I've sometimes felt they go too far in those directions - but sometimes
they crush them too.
[]

[[e-mail]]

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by ***@aol.com
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

[tony sayer]

Post by Scott
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
[snip]
~: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;!...

[MB]

Post by tony sayer
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.

[Scott]

Post by tony sayer

Post by Scott
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
[snip]
~: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?

[MB]

Post by Scott
<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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by MB

Post by Scott
<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.

Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
which you meant.)

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
which you meant.)

Almost certain more served by DAB by area but by population will be VHF
FM because of Inverness which is well served.

[Scott]

Post by MB

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
which you meant.)

Almost certain more served by DAB by area but by population will be VHF
FM because of Inverness which is well served.

What about vehicles though, away from population centres. My
understanding was that Radio Scotland 810 kHz had the widest coverage
and I *assumed* long wave would follow similar logic.