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...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
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,
On 30/05/2023 09:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
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 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?
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:It will be. BBC National mux has over 400 transmitters, SDL (Times
On 30/05/2023 09:03, Brian Gaff wrote: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 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 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)
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.
On 30/05/2023 11:12, Tweed wrote:[]
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.
--It will be. BBC National mux has over 400 transmitters, SDL (Times
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)
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)
In message <kdm3t8F8o3rU2@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 30 May 2023
12:10:33, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 30/05/2023 11:12, Tweed wrote:[]
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.
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.
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition#:~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%20as%20a%20technology
On 30/05/2023 09:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
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.
On 30/05/2023 21:15, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
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?)
In message <kdonsiFl3emU2@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 31 May 2023Might be tied up with royalty payments, for effectively playing music to
12:03:46, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 31/05/2023 11:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2023 21:15, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
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 -Â 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)?
(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.
On 31/05/2023 11:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2023 21:15, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
(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
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)?
On 31/05/2023 14:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
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.
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.
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio hasIf you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're 75, just try AM.
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.
On 31/05/2023 18:26, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 12:54:51 UTC+1, Mark Carver wrote:
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio hasIf you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.
75, just try AM.
If you're 25 you won't know what FM radio is. Or, for that matter, "radio".
On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 12:54:51 UTC+1, Mark Carver wrote:
Coupled with the fact no one much uses them of course. My car radio hasIf you're 25 and you wonder what FM radio will sound like when you're 75, just try AM.
no AM section, and I don't have any AM receivers in the house now.
Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than
64 kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.
On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 14:44:57 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
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
In article <u54al3$1tp46$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
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
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.
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
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)
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for
several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember
Indeed. )-:
we’ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and televisionI thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
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 <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:BBC World Service TV has always been commercially funded, it's only
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,It used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income forI thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember >> Indeed. )-:
we’ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and television
services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is
funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,The Government passed World Service funding to the BBC a few years ago.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember
Indeed. )-:
we‘ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and television >services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)
I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
--
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:BBC World Service TV has always been commercially funded, it's only
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,It used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember >>> Indeed. )-:I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
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)
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is
funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
Radio that received an FO grant
In article <ruYMjonSPLekFwNg@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for
several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember
Indeed. )-:
The Government passed World Service funding to the BBC a few years ago.weâ€ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and televisionI thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is
funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
--
That might be why it now originates from Broadcasting House, rather than
Bush House. The lease expired there.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income forIndeed. )-:
several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember >>
we’ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and televisionI thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)
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.
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember >>>Indeed. )-:
we’ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and television >>>> services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is
funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
It used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous
licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
Well apart from the ÂŁm400 grant in aid the BBC has had since 2016. The Budget this year promised another ÂŁm20 this year and next.
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19, >>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of
income for several years during high inflation means something
has to give. Remember
Indeed. )-:
we‘ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio andI thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
television services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one
off grant)
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 Łm400 grant in aid the BBC has had since
2016. The Budget this year promised another Łm20 this year and
next.
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.
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:That’s not what it says here
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:BBC World Service TV has always been commercially funded, it's only
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19, >>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writesIt used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous >>> licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >>>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember >>>> Indeed. )-:I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
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)
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is >>>> funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
Radio that received an FO grant
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/#:~:text=The%20BBC%20World%20Service%20delivers,Foreign%2C%20Commonwealth%20and%20Development%20Office.
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19, >>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >>>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. Remember >>>>Indeed. )-:
we’ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio and television >>>>> services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one off grant)I thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
government funded? And the part we're now being forced to subsidise (is >>>> funded from the licence fee) is the over-75s?
It used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous >>> licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
Well apart from the ÂŁm400 grant in aid the BBC has had since 2016. The
Budget this year promised another ÂŁm20 this year and next.
75% is funded from the licence fee
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42183/pdf/
On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 14:44:57 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
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
On 31/05/2023 18:31, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 14:44:57 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
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 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.
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.
On 02/06/2023 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:
The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of publicJust like every other news organisation in the World, then.
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.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
On 31/05/2023 19:56, Max Demian wrote:
On 31/05/2023 18:26, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:Just accept that when you hit 75, you won't need anything better than 64
On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 12:54:51 UTC+1, Mark Carver wrote:
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". >>
kbps MP3 to make it sound like hifi.
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip] >https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition#:
~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%20as%20a%20technology
On 01/06/2023 17:19, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote: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
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:That’s not what it says here
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:BBC World Service TV has always been commercially funded, it's only
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19, >>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writesIt used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous >>>> licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >>>>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. RememberIndeed. )-:
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?
Radio that received an FO grant
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/#:~:text=The%20BBC%20World%20Service%20delivers,Foreign%2C%20Commonwealth%20and%20Development%20Office.
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....
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/06/2023 17:19, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:That's all a bit woolly. The BBC World TV service drew on the FO grant
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:ThatÂ’s not what it says here
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:BBC World Service TV has always been commercially funded, it's only
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19, >>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writesIt used to be directly funded, but as a condition of one of the previous >>>>> licence settlements it got dumped onto the licence fee.
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of income for >>>>>>> several years during high inflation means something has to give. RememberIndeed. )-:
weÂ’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?
Radio that received an FO grant
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/bbc-world-service-soft-power-and-funding-challenges/#:~:text=The%20BBC%20World%20Service%20delivers,Foreign%2C%20Commonwealth%20and%20Development%20Office.
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.
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/06/2023 16:19, Tweed wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <u59pf7$2omss$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:47:19, >> >>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
There a lot more cutting still to come. Freeze the source of
income for several years during high inflation means something
has to give. Remember
Indeed. )-:
we‘ve all had to stump up for the World Service radio andI thought the WS was the one part of the BBC that was directly
television services via the licence fee (bar the odd small one
off grant)
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 Łm400 grant in aid the BBC has had since
2016. The Budget this year promised another Łm20 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?
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.
Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
I see most of the night output is 'outsourced' to Singapore.
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;!...
On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for their >shareholders.
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.Wokeness and leftness have very little to do with it.
Bill
In article <49mc7ipevvhgc38358fnbng4mr9pblnesv@4ax.com>, Scott ><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:03:48 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip] >>https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2023/bbc-radio-4-long-wave-transition#:
~:text=This%20follows%20the%20announcement%20in,its%20life%20as%20a%20technology
Well Auntie doesn't want to spend her licence bunce on that power hungry >place and they can't use the "can't get the valves anymore" excuse so
she should claim Green credentials and cite 198 kHz as a prime source
of global warming;!...
On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for their shareholders.
On 02/06/2023 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:
The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of public
opinion. It's not interested in telling you the whole story so that
you can form your own opinion, instead it filters the news and twist
what remains in order to push public opinion into a narrow controlled narrative.
Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Don't you know the difference between trasvestites and transgender?
It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorantI doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
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.
Usually more like Oxford this week, a handful of transvestites nearly
managed to stop a sebate attended by many more than that as well as
probably put some people off going to the debate.
On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 10:30:32 UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2023 08:41, Bob Latham wrote:
The BBC has one primary goal, the forming and shaping of publicJust like every other news organisation in the World, then.
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.
But the BBC is paid for by a compulsory subscription so it should have no bias.
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:11:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for
their shareholders.
I think Sky News is in a different position in that AIUI there are
legally binding covenants about maintaining editorial independence
related to the takeover by Comcast.
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
a mention.
I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:In the 2021 census:-
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.
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
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students are
trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and 100,000
transgender people, who are being discriminated against, don't even get
a mention.
I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
Usually more like Oxford this week, a handful of transvestites nearly
managed to stop a sebate attended by many more than that as well as
probably put some people off going to the debate.
On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorant
anti-trans campaigners get ten minutes to complain that students
are trying to suppress their right to free hate-speech and
100,000 transgender people, who are being discriminated against,
don't even get a mention.
I doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the
country.
In the 2021 census:-
People were asked ”Is the gender you identify with the same as your
sex registered at birth?•,
On 02/06/2023 18:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:In the 2021 census:-
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.
People were asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”,
A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within this group:
118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity
But there are doubts about who understood the question.
"Why does the census say there are more trans people in Newham than Brighton?"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more -trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
<hypothetical> Could Burghead continue (technically) if Droitwich
closes, on the basis that a lot of the Highlands are not served by
DAB?
"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.
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 02/06/2023 18:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2023 16:10, MB wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:In the 2021 census:-
It's their idea of 'balance'.Ă‚Â 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.
People were asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex
registered at birth?”,
A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their
gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within >>> this group:
118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity
But there are doubts about who understood the question.
"Why does the census say there are more trans people in Newham than
Brighton?"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more >> -trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
The Spectator is heavily into publishing anti-trans articles, so I
wouldn't believe anything they say on the subject.
I found this a very disturbing video that starts off gentle but
becomes very serious.
https://twitter.com/realdailywire/status/1664424891372941312?s=58&t=1owFxW-V-wB5K4AUISXgOw
Every parent should see this.
[...]
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.
On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:26:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.
Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
fact.
Biologists don't seem to have any difficulty knowing what they mean by
male and female. I understand that their ultimate reference is based
on genetic code because it's easily specified and doesn't change.
To have any meaningful discussion about anything, you need some common
ground that nobody can dispute because it depends on facts that can be verified objectively and are not dependent on anybody's feelings.
With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those
categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.
You can invent categories till the cows come home, but nature has only invented two sexes. There is a survival advantage in combining
reproductive information from two parents, just two, but no advantage
in going further, so nature hasn't gone any further. As with any
complex system, any part of it can go wrong, or function abnormally,
or fail to follow the usual course (choose your euphemism according to fashion) but whatever you call it the 'spectrum' you speak of is only
a spectrum of variations in how the system functions. A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact. Anything else is fantasy.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I
do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English
language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.
Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
fact.
With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those >categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.
In article <kdpjvtFq5jmU1@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson ><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> scribeth thus[]
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;!...
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:[]
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[]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.
A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact.
On 03/06/2023 11:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:26:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
I have no involvement or special interest in the subject itself, but I >>> do take an interest in anyone denouncing the distortion of the English >>> language by those who wilfully confuse fantasy with biological fact.
Unfortunately the language finds it difficult to cope with biological
fact.
Biologists don't seem to have any difficulty knowing what they mean by
male and female. I understand that their ultimate reference is based
on genetic code because it's easily specified and doesn't change.
To have any meaningful discussion about anything, you need some common ground that nobody can dispute because it depends on facts that can be verified objectively and are not dependent on anybody's feelings.
With the current knowledge of the genetic spectrum we know there
are many variations far beyond the traditional ideas of 'sex'. Our
language divides the spectrum into two types, with no words to describe
the others; people are then using that to force everyone into those
categories and thereby 'prove' that the others don't exist.
You can invent categories till the cows come home, but nature has only invented two sexes. There is a survival advantage in combining
reproductive information from two parents, just two, but no advantage
in going further, so nature hasn't gone any further. As with any
complex system, any part of it can go wrong, or function abnormally,
or fail to follow the usual course (choose your euphemism according to fashion) but whatever you call it the 'spectrum' you speak of is only
a spectrum of variations in how the system functions. A system based
on two sexes. Two. That's biological fact. Anything else is fantasy.
Actually I understand that some fungi have thousands of sexes. Maybe Liz
is a mushroom.
In article <uo4k7iln49ek2jsqcnpuf48fqspqa9t9e1@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:11:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:30, John Williamson wrote:
Just like every other news organisation in the World, then.
Though ITV News, Sky News etc are just there to make money for
their shareholders.
I think Sky News is in a different position in that AIUI there are
legally binding covenants about maintaining editorial independence
related to the takeover by Comcast.
It could be because of Comcast and some say it is but Sky News
Australia is vastly better than ours, much more balance and far less >propaganda.
I don't know who owns Sky News Australia.
Bob.
On 02/06/2023 17:56, Scott wrote:
<hypothetical> Could Burghead continue (technically) if Droitwich
closes, on the basis that a lot of the Highlands are not served by
DAB?
I suspect more of the Highlands are served by DAB than Long Wave.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
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.
In message <5aae528561bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023
18:50:03, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
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.
You mean its output aligns more with your views (-:
On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 16:10:14 UTC+1, MB wrote:
On 02/06/2023 10:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Don't you know the difference between trasvestites and transgender?
It's their idea of 'balance'. One or two loud-mouthed ignorantI doubt whether there are even 100,000 transvestites in the country.
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.
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.
Bill
In article <kdsbnoF80oaU1@mid.individual.net>,[]
Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
On 31/05/2023 18:31, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
Radio Four is not representative of Britain; it's representative
of a small group of woke leftists. None of my friends listen to
Radio Four. Bill
Wokeness and leftness have very little to do with it.
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.
In message <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:21:56, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
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.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
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.
I think the majority of the population would say that if you're
pregnant you are a female.
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.
On 03/06/2023 14:04, Bob Latham wrote:
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.
In article <9u5Jz0BV+yekFw+9@255soft.uk>,[]
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <5aae528561bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023
18:50:03, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
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.
You mean its output aligns more with your views (-:
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.
Do you mean by population or area? (No axe to grind - I just wondered
which you meant.)
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 03/06/2023 14:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
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.
In message <5aaebc3583bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023
14:04:26, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
In article <9u5Jz0BV+yekFw+9@255soft.uk>,
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.
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.)
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.
On 03/06/2023 14:24, Bob Latham wrote:
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.
In message <u5ch2g$35c7r$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:42:24,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:[]
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 20:01:19 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[]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.)
In message <jVKrr5DribekFwv3@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:38:51,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
In article <kdpjvtFq5jmU1@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson >><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> scribeth thus[]
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 aJust 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;!...
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).
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 14:24:32 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
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.
That being so, my understanding of the prevailing modern meanings
of the terms is that 'sex' is what you really are, and 'gender' is
what you think you are.
Thus, your sex is what biology has determined for you, but your
gender can apparently be anything you like.
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.
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.
On 03/06/2023 13:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
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.
On 03/06/2023 19:15, Scott wrote:
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.
Never listen to Radio Scotland and only listened to 810 KHz a couple of
times when I have had play with the car radio, it was not any better
than Long Wave.
Medium Wave and Long Wave and mountains are not a good combination.
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?
In article <+KDJaqL$a0ekFwdg@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <5aaebc3583bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023
14:04:26, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
In article <9u5Jz0BV+yekFw+9@255soft.uk>,
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.
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.
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.
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?
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%20H >z%20range
In article <3b0n7i16g5f5gnak8ohnd030goskab300c@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 14:24:32 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
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.
[Snip]
That being so, my understanding of the prevailing modern meanings
of the terms is that 'sex' is what you really are, and 'gender' is
what you think you are.
Thus, your sex is what biology has determined for you, but your
gender can apparently be anything you like.
Yes, I had got that far myself but a pregnant man is turning
everything inside out. In reality, it's a pregnant woman.
Bob.
But no, we_must_ be live, lest - presumably - our
competitors broadcast a few tens of seconds before we do.
Of course, it's even more irritating when the thing we're interrupted for doesn't happen. "Sorry professor, I must cut you off in mid-flow so we can cut over to the prime minister. Hello, Downing Street - has he come out?
No? OK, show us a bit of Larry ..."
In message <5aaecd0011bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023
17:07:51, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
but the concept of fact checking. I think the latter is, on the
whole, a Good Thing.
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.
I meant, most media don't now have a scientific background -
certainly the average news-type presenter/reporter. With notable
exceptions (mostly older folk).
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.
I'd agree if the point wasn't overstated.
Yes, that's the real problem: interrupting something interesting to cut to something that hasn't happened yet. That's poor directing or poor
information from the site of the live event. For planned events such as statements outside Number 10, where everyone is expecting and waiting, do broadcasters get any sort of advance warning (eg Number 10 says "PM will be coming out in 30, 20, 10 seconds") or is the first that the broadcasters
know of the timing, the time when the door opens and (today's prime
minister) appears?
I have no experience of broadcasting but the schedule of news programmes >seems to be changing all the time.
On 04/06/2023 10:10, NY wrote:
Yes, that's the real problem: interrupting something interesting to cut to >> something that hasn't happened yet. That's poor directing or poor
information from the site of the live event. For planned events such as
statements outside Number 10, where everyone is expecting and waiting, do
broadcasters get any sort of advance warning (eg Number 10 says "PM will be >> coming out in 30, 20, 10 seconds") or is the first that the broadcasters
know of the timing, the time when the door opens and (today's prime
minister) appears?
From what I have heard when there have been live statements in Downing >Street, the time seems to keep being pout back and they rarely happen
on time.
I have no experience of broadcasting but the schedule of news
programmes seems to be changing all the time. Also if you were waiting
in a studio to be interviewed, would you be happy if they say it has
been delayed because they could not shut someone up so want you to hang
around. Then there is the reliance now on mobile phones and various
other systems that are all very unreliable so many interviews have to
be abandoned.
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 14:24:32 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
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.
Some usages are so new and so personal that it becomes necessary to
reverse engineer what some people say to infer what they probably mean
by words that may have been familiar to everyone else with established meanings for many years.
That being so, my understanding of the prevailing modern meanings of
the terms is that 'sex' is what you really are, and 'gender' is what
you think you are.
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 20:11:42 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I had got that far myself but a pregnant man is turning
everything inside out. In reality, it's a pregnant woman.
Of course. The concept of a 'pregnant man' is absolutely nuts.
That's according to the commonly understood meanings of the words
'man' and 'pregnant'. You can only make the phrase 'pregnant man' make anything that superficially resembles sense by changing the definition
of one of the words. (Take your pick. It's nonsense either way).
Yes, the possibility of arranging a landline backup seems to have been totally abandoned. (Not so much when it truly is a mobile, but when the interviewee is using Skype/Zoom/whatever, they're almost certainly
coming via a landline anyway, so have one. [Gawdelpus when POTS is
abandoned by 2025, of course.] I don't mind losing video - once you've
seen one bookshelf, you've seen them all, at least don't need to_keep_
seeing them - if it means what the man* is saying can be heard
properly.) [* Usually is, still, a man.]
On 03/06/2023 19:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 14:24:32 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
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.
Some usages are so new and so personal that it becomes necessary to
reverse engineer what some people say to infer what they probably mean
by words that may have been familiar to everyone else with established
meanings for many years.
That being so, my understanding of the prevailing modern meanings of
the terms is that 'sex' is what you really are, and 'gender' is what
you think you are.
I would say that "sex" is what your dangly bits (if any) tell you, and >"gender" is why a table is feminine in Latin, French and probably a few
other languages.
I would say that "sex" is what your dangly bits (if any) tell you, and >"gender" is why a table is feminine in Latin, French and probably a few
other languages.
Narrative control.
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.
In article <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
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.
I think the majority of the population would say ...
On 04/06/2023 08:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 20:11:42 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I had got that far myself but a pregnant man is turning
everything inside out. In reality, it's a pregnant woman.
Of course. The concept of a 'pregnant man' is absolutely nuts.
That's according to the commonly understood meanings of the words
'man' and 'pregnant'. You can only make the phrase 'pregnant man' make anything that superficially resembles sense by changing the definition
of one of the words. (Take your pick. It's nonsense either way).
I would accept the term if that man is largely intact and a foetus has
been implanted in his abdomen. (My friend Bing AI says this is not
possible.)
There's an article here, but it's a bit "tranny" in that it uses abbreviations like AFAB (assigned female at birth), as if parents can
decide whether they have a girl or a boy in the same way that they can
decide on the baby's name: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-men-become-pregnant
On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 14:20:58 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/06/2023 19:17, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 14:24:32 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
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.
Some usages are so new and so personal that it becomes necessary to
reverse engineer what some people say to infer what they probably mean
by words that may have been familiar to everyone else with established
meanings for many years.
That being so, my understanding of the prevailing modern meanings of
the terms is that 'sex' is what you really are, and 'gender' is what
you think you are.
I would say that "sex" is what your dangly bits (if any) tell you, and >"gender" is why a table is feminine in Latin, French and probably a few >other languages.
I think the biologists define sex in terms of genetic code rather than
dabgly bits. Even if external features don't develop according to
plan, or they are subsequently surgically altered, the genetic code is written into every cell of your body and never changes, which makes it
more useful as a reference.
In article <5aaecd0011bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Narrative control.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxKL_BPVl3E
The truth is in trouble.
Bob.
I think the biologists define sex in terms of genetic code rather than
dangly bits. Even if external features don't develop according to
plan, or they are subsequently surgically altered, the genetic code is
written into every cell of your body and never changes, which makes it
more useful as a reference.
Even that is not an absolute guide. The chromosomes can be different in >different organs of the body and we now know thay can change during a >lifetime, so the result you get may depend on where you took the sample
and when.
fBob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
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.
About 1.7% - the same as the percentage of people with red hair.
About 1 million people in the UK.
I think the majority of the population would say ...
What the majority of the population would say on any subject is not
a good guide to the truth, especially on scientific matters.
fBob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <1qbr3fa.drfniw180xnggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
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.
About 1.7% - the same as the percentage of people with red hair. About
1 million people in the UK.
In article <5I9o65UApBfkFwkp@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <5aaecd0011bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023
17:07:51, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes
but the concept of fact checking. I think the latter is, on the
whole, a Good Thing.
It would be if they could be relied upon to speak the truth but these
days, truth is illusive and the main stream media and BBC's truth is
the truth of political activists following a narrative often called
"The Science".
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.
I meant, most media don't now have a scientific background -
certainly the average news-type presenter/reporter. With notable
exceptions (mostly older folk).
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.
I'd agree if the point wasn't overstated.
But it's the truth.
Bob.
On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 21:25:43 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
I think the biologists define sex in terms of genetic code rather than
dangly bits. Even if external features don't develop according to
plan, or they are subsequently surgically altered, the genetic code is
written into every cell of your body and never changes, which makes it
more useful as a reference.
Even that is not an absolute guide. The chromosomes can be different in >different organs of the body and we now know thay can change during a >lifetime, so the result you get may depend on where you took the sample
and when.
If something like this is observed to happen, I daresay the biologists
would describe it as male and female chromosomes being found in
different parts of the body, or male chromosomes turning into female
ones, or vice versa.
They'd have to. They'd have to call them something, otherwise any
discourse or dscussion would be impossible.
In this instance, what do you think their definitions of the terms
'male' and 'female' would be based on, because they'd have to base
them on something fixed and unarguable. Science depends on fact, not feelings, it has to be the same for everybody everywhere, and it
cannot be allowed to change with culture or fashion, otherwise it
would be meaningless.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 04/06/2023 08:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 20:11:42 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I had got that far myself but a pregnant man is turning
everything inside out. In reality, it's a pregnant woman.
Of course. The concept of a 'pregnant man' is absolutely nuts.
That's according to the commonly understood meanings of the words
'man' and 'pregnant'. You can only make the phrase 'pregnant man' make
anything that superficially resembles sense by changing the definition
of one of the words. (Take your pick. It's nonsense either way).
I would accept the term if that man is largely intact and a foetus has
been implanted in his abdomen. (My friend Bing AI says this is not
possible.)
There's an article here, but it's a bit "tranny" in that it uses
abbreviations like AFAB (assigned female at birth), as if parents can
decide whether they have a girl or a boy in the same way that they can
decide on the baby's name:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-men-become-pregnant
AFAB is a term which has a specific meaning which has unfortunately been
made necessary by the current confusion of language. If you read it as "Assigned Feminine At Birth" it makes much more sense. The midfwife
looked at the baby's genitals and said "It's a girl"; from that moment
the parents brought it up as feminine until it began to reveal its true gender at the age of four or five.
Transgender people are those who have been assigned the wrong gender at birth.
On 04/06/2023 21:25, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 04/06/2023 08:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 20:11:42 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I had got that far myself but a pregnant man is turning
everything inside out. In reality, it's a pregnant woman.
Of course. The concept of a 'pregnant man' is absolutely nuts.
That's according to the commonly understood meanings of the words
'man' and 'pregnant'. You can only make the phrase 'pregnant man' make >>> anything that superficially resembles sense by changing the definition >>> of one of the words. (Take your pick. It's nonsense either way).
I would accept the term if that man is largely intact and a foetus has
been implanted in his abdomen. (My friend Bing AI says this is not
possible.)
There's an article here, but it's a bit "tranny" in that it uses
abbreviations like AFAB (assigned female at birth), as if parents can
decide whether they have a girl or a boy in the same way that they can
decide on the baby's name:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-men-become-pregnant
AFAB is a term which has a specific meaning which has unfortunately been made necessary by the current confusion of language. If you read it as "Assigned Feminine At Birth" it makes much more sense. The midfwife
looked at the baby's genitals and said "It's a girl"; from that moment
the parents brought it up as feminine until it began to reveal its true gender at the age of four or five.
Transgender people are those who have been assigned the wrong gender at birth.
Assign means decide, not perceive. A midwife makes a cursory examination
of a baby's genital area, and announces, "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!"
If she has a problem with this due to genital abnormality, she refers
the matter to a specialist.
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like.
On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 19:46:32 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:No, probably not. Remember MF and LF rely on the ground wave for
On 03/06/2023 19:15, Scott wrote:Thanks for clarifying. Okay at the top I assume :-)
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.
Never listen to Radio Scotland and only listened to 810 KHz a couple of
times when I have had play with the car radio, it was not any better
than Long Wave.
Medium Wave and Long Wave and mountains are not a good combination.
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like.
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:41:43 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like.
My grandmother dressed my father in girls clothes un till he was two
year old. She wanted a girl but, despite her efforts, he grew up as a
man and had 3 male children. I doubt clothing has any effect on
genetics and very little effect on behaviour.
On 06/06/2023 15:38, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:41:43 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like.
My grandmother dressed my father in girls clothes un till he was two
year old. She wanted a girl but, despite her efforts, he grew up as a
man and had 3 male children. I doubt clothing has any effect on
genetics and very little effect on behaviour.
Assuming that this was after the time when boy babies were dressed like
girls until they were ceremonially "breeched" at age three or so, the consequence of dressing a boy as a girl would depend on how old the boy
was and the prevailing attitudes of the time.
At one time "gay" was a
general purpose term of abuse; later it became fashionable to be gay; nowadays boys are encouraged to question their "gender" and consider "transitioning", but I anticipate that this fad will pass in a few
years or so.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2023 15:38, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:41:43 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like.
My grandmother dressed my father in girls clothes un till he was two
year old. She wanted a girl but, despite her efforts, he grew up as a
man and had 3 male children. I doubt clothing has any effect on
genetics and very little effect on behaviour.
Assuming that this was after the time when boy babies were dressed like
girls until they were ceremonially "breeched" at age three or so, the
consequence of dressing a boy as a girl would depend on how old the boy
was and the prevailing attitudes of the time.
It would have a social effect but could not possibly have an effecto on
their gender or their sexual preference. You cannot 'transgender'
someone or 'homosexualise' them.
At one time "gay" was a
general purpose term of abuse; later it became fashionable to be gay;
nowadays boys are encouraged to question their "gender" and consider
"transitioning", but I anticipate that this fad will pass in a few
years or so.
Transgender is a natural occurrence and has nothing to do with fashion
or fads. We were here hundreds of years ago and we shall still be here
in hundreds of years time. The reason you have suddenly become aware of
us is because we are finally free to say what we are without having to
hide it.
On 06/06/2023 22:37, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2023 15:38, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:41:43 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>> wrote:
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like. >>>My grandmother dressed my father in girls clothes un till he was two
year old. She wanted a girl but, despite her efforts, he grew up as a
man and had 3 male children. I doubt clothing has any effect on
genetics and very little effect on behaviour.
Assuming that this was after the time when boy babies were dressed like
girls until they were ceremonially "breeched" at age three or so, the
consequence of dressing a boy as a girl would depend on how old the boy
was and the prevailing attitudes of the time.
It would have a social effect but could not possibly have an effecto on their gender or their sexual preference. You cannot 'transgender'
someone or 'homosexualise' them.
At one time "gay" was a
general purpose term of abuse; later it became fashionable to be gay;
nowadays boys are encouraged to question their "gender" and consider
"transitioning", but I anticipate that this fad will pass in a few
years or so.
Transgender is a natural occurrence and has nothing to do with fashion
or fads. We were here hundreds of years ago and we shall still be here
in hundreds of years time. The reason you have suddenly become aware of
us is because we are finally free to say what we are without having to
hide it.
Yes it's a common trend to look back at historical figures and say that
"X" was (probably) "Y". "It's not very well known that <famous person>
was a redhead, as all their photographs are black and white. And
<different famous person> used to dye her hair black to avoid the stigma
of being a carrot top".
(Or perhaps you are thinking of operatic castrati or Indian and Chinese eunuchs.)
On 06/06/2023 15:38, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:41:43 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
Parents can decide to dress their boys in frilly frocks if they like.
My grandmother dressed my father in girls clothes un till he was two
year old. She wanted a girl but, despite her efforts, he grew up as a
man and had 3 male children. I doubt clothing has any effect on
genetics and very little effect on behaviour.
Assuming that this was after the time when boy babies were dressed like
girls until they were ceremonially "breeched" at age three or so, the >consequence of dressing a boy as a girl would depend on how old the boy
was and the prevailing attitudes of the time. At one time "gay" was a
general purpose term of abuse; later it became fashionable to be gay; >nowadays boys are encouraged to question their "gender" and consider >"transitioning", but I anticipate that this fad will pass in a few
years or so.
The
same thing used to happen with left-handers, who were blamed for all
sorts of things like crop failures, epidemics and stillbirths - so >left-handers were forced to use their right hands and suffered lasting
damage as the result.
The
same thing used to happen with left-handers, who were blamed for all
sorts of things like crop failures, epidemics and stillbirths - so left-handers were forced to use their right hands and suffered lasting
damage as the result.
It would have a social effect but could not possibly have an effecto on their gender or their sexual preference. You cannot 'transgender'
someone or 'homosexualise' them.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:43:52 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |