Today’s headlines .........

[mezzaninedoor]

It should be about the network, not the content. You need a licence to watch TV, not to watch the BBC. Anything over costs to maintain it should be coming from other revenue streams in my opinion. I'm not sure how much does and doesn't but since they have such a huge content level and all the costs that go with it I would be suspecting the licence fee goes on content too. These days that's contentious as it beings in value for money. Poor performance isn't challenging because it's a tax.

Im pretty sure that most of the licence fee goes on content Terry.
I thought that was the point of having a public service broadcaster that in theory isn't swayed by only ratings.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Im pretty sure that most of the licence fee goes on content Terry.
I thought that was the point of having a public service broadcaster that in theory isn't swayed by only ratings.

Those that don't watch the BBC a lot would be right to question why they get money for little service then.

They are swayed by ratings though. They aren't going to produce programmes no one watches or run on a series when the ratings are falling.

There are elements of being a public broadcaster that you can argue are for the good of the country. News (balance, unbiased...good luck on that one), education, etc. EastEnders? No so much.

So just how much of the programming is different to other channels?

[MyNameIsTerry]

Liu Xiaoming, China’s British Ambassador says:

‘….excluding Huawei from Britain's 5G network "sends a very bad signal.”’

OK everyone, make up your own jokes (it’s too easy!). But seriously, this is more threatening behaviour from China.

Freddie Starr’s coffin had the Elvis Presley song title Return To Sender engraved upon it.

Change UK changes its name again! It’s now going to be known as ‘Guess Who?’, to avoid any problems arising from a) calling themselves something they’re not, and b) confusing themselves… (Like erstwhile CHUK party member Chuka Umunna has by deserting two political parties in rapid succession – it’s fair made his head spin! It’s just a matter of time before he joins The Brexit Party – the only party truly for leavers of all persuasions.)

In Starr's case it was more a case of Payee Unknown.

CHUK are done, they will only slide into oblivion. They might as well get on their bellies and get it over with. Some already are.

Umunna is a typical opportunist politician. A couple of years ago he was stating on social media he would never trust the Lib Dems because they firmly back Remain The guy was too scared to go up against Corbyn for leadership and is drifting around looking for the job elsewhere. Other than gaining one seat, for now, I don't see what they gain from taking him on as he is a bit of a toxic character these days.

Do Huawei matter? Surely post Brexit we will be returning to cups & string?

[mezzaninedoor]

Those that don't watch the BBC a lot would be right to question why they get money for little service then.

They are swayed by ratings though. They aren't going to produce programmes no one watches or run on a series when the ratings are falling.

There are elements of being a public broadcaster that you can argue are for the good of the country. News (balance, unbiased...good luck on that one), education, etc. EastEnders? No so much.

So just how much of the programming is different to other channels?

Personally feel that BBC & Channel 4 are the bravest broadcasters content wise in the UK.
I didn't say not swayed by ratings I said in theory isn't swayed by ratings.
The BBC should be, I agree, still held to the Reithian principles of Educate, Entertain & Inform.

Unique things that I really treasure about the BBC are many including BBC4, BBC6, BBC Radio 4 & BBC Radio 3
I must admit that BBC News has lost its way a bit recently and needs to get back to being the impartial filter for us all again

I could quite happily do without the Daytime templated BBC content where we get endless Antique shows in various formats and makeover shows, there must be better Daytime content than that

I, though Im sure many disagree, believe that there is a quality threshold with BBC drama that means we get quality UK drama from the BBC thats unique like Years and Years, Gentleman Jack, Les Mis etc etc

[mezzaninedoor]

Boris tonight trotted out something else that he hadnt fully understood:-

Boris Johnson was challenged by Rory Stewart to detail what tariffs (taxes on imports) would be charged on agricultural goods crossing the border.


He said there would be "no tariffs or quotas" because "what we want to do is get a standstill in our current arrangements under GATT 24" until a free trade deal had been negotiated.


GATT 24 is an article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Supporters of a no-deal Brexit say it would allow the UK to continue to trade with the EU without tariffs for up to 10 years, while the two sides were negotiating a permanent future trade agreement.


But you can't use it in this way - a trade agreement has to be agreed in principle before Article 24 can be used.


It also needs the two sides to agree - the UK can't just impose it on the EU.

[MyNameIsTerry]

It would have to be agreed before A50 ends. Therefore it takes us back to the WA and agreeing to terms favourable to the EU or they won't commit to trade deals anyway. Remember, the EU won't agree to even talk without the WA yet the WA itself outlines future trade agreements in principle (and more).

However, how do we know anything Boris says will be anything like it will be once PM? For all we know he could push a CU and that removes GATT24 unless it's a new form of CU in which case GATT24 comes into play. So, is he advocating Corbyn's McGuffin?

So, doesn't he understand it? Or is it a matter we don't understand what his plans are? He could unite Parliament behind a CU deal, since he's a popular Tory and the CU was popular across the House, and stitch up voters...who I don't think he's gives a toss about. I also doubt he cares about bringing down the Tories as his career is all important and will continue regardless as we are seeing already. The House will happily sign us up to a CU and brush as much of Leave under the carpet as possible.

My take? I will listen to them once we have a PM. Until then it's as valid as Corbyn and his McGuffin. They can trot out any old BS as it's all grandstanding to get the job. Only the politically naïve are going to take any of this without a border busting lorry load of salt.

May's WA has clauses to cover future relationship. That would be why the EU was said to have granted a transition period yet that's more that GATT24 allowed for it and we both agreed to it. But I find it interesting that A50 has wording to suggest a future relationship too and so it will come down to the detail in GATT24 about the minimum requirements to fulfil such an agreement.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Here is GATT24:

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e...on_art24_e.htm

Note that you cannot opt for a worse trade deal in this process unless by two thirds majority.

Looking at the clauses it would appear what May was negotiating would fit this. No Deal certainly can't other than to agree to a plan and schedule. At that point the transition period kicks in whilst you agree the new agreement.

So, what constitutes a plan? Bare in mind the WA, as published by Parliament on the legislation site, contains no information about what it will achieve other than for us to sit down and have some chats about something. So, does that constitute a plan even though it has nothing in it? Therefore can you argue you can set up a meeting schedule and still leave under A50 whilst preserving this future agreement? Yes.

Stewart wants to know actual tariff info but that constitutes the finer detail doesn't it? Had May agreed to that? Therefore, subject to interpretation by "the lawyers" as Ian Hislop would drawl, he could have passed the minimum bar there.

[mezzaninedoor]

Here is GATT24:

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e...on_art24_e.htm

Note that you cannot opt for a worse trade deal in this process unless by two thirds majority.

Looking at the clauses it would appear what May was negotiating would fit this. No Deal certainly can't other than to agree to a plan and schedule. At that point the transition period kicks in whilst you agree the new agreement.

So, what constitutes a plan? Bare in mind the WA, as published by Parliament on the legislation site, contains no information about what it will achieve other than for us to sit down and have some chats about something. So, does that constitute a plan even though it has nothing in it? Therefore can you argue you can set up a meeting schedule and still leave under A50 whilst preserving this future agreement? Yes.

Stewart wants to know actual tariff info but that constitutes the finer detail doesn't it? Had May agreed to that? Therefore, subject to interpretation by "the lawyers" as Ian Hislop would drawl, he could have passed the minimum bar there.

Youre spot on Terry.
And I get that none of them are PMs yet.
They all worry me to some degree but Boris general dishonesty worries me the most.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Another MP facing a by-election due to public petition:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=spartanntp



If I did this I would have been sacked so I'm glad we are seeing the people having a voice in what should be an automatic by-election for disgrace in a public office.

[MyNameIsTerry]

This issue is currently raging in the US over abortion but I had no idea we had our own problems:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-contraception

And an interesting point is how the pharmacist avoided citing the real issue, likely religious beliefs?

https://rightsinfo.org/is-it-legal-f...moral-grounds/

In a statement, LloydsPharmacy said that it was investigating the incident to “better understand” what happened to Siani.A spokesperson said that they “adhere to the GPhC guidelines which allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication that goes against their personal beliefs if there is adequate alternative care available for the patient.“As part of our own guidance, we encourage our pharmacists to use their professional judgement, but they must always put the patient first. In this case, the pharmacist was a locum pharmacist, not a full time employee. However, we will be communicating to our colleagues to remind them of this guidance.

AND

The General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) guidelines state that the religion, personal values or beliefs of pharmacy professionals may influence “day-to-day practice, particularly whether they feel able to provide certain services”.This includes contraception, fertility medicines, hormonal therapies, mental health and well-being, substance misuse and sexual health.However, the guidelines also advise pharmacists to “respect cultural differences” and make sure every person is treated fairly whatever their personal views.It also states that pharmacists should “recognise their own values and beliefs but not impose them on other people” and that they should “take responsibility for ensuring that person-centred care is not compromised because of personal values and beliefs”.

Medical and religious shouldn't collide. If your religion means you cannot administer legal treatments acceptable to the patient then you shouldn't be in the job. The law trumps religion.