Things you don't know if you watch the BBC

[Antepli Ejderha]

Lies, damned lies and fucking Brexit bullshit.

[ooh aah]

'It gives us an independence of spirit' said Mr Dyson from his company's new HQ in Singapore.

[Nefertiti2]

https://twitter.com/rossmccaff/status/1384210428213960713?s=21

[Nefertiti2]

here she is again, framing David cameron's antics by making it clear there's nothing wrong with lobbying
norhing wrong with lobbying

https://twitter.com/DanFinn95/status/1384933446930378755?s=20

[Nefertiti2]

“Do people care?”

https://twitter.com/peterstefanovi2/status/1386015507707486209?s=21

[ChrisJ]

“Do people care?”

https://twitter.com/peterstefanovi2/status/1386015507707486209?s=21

Problem is - not nearly enough of them do. Poll tonight says despite all the evidence, only 37% think he's completely or mostly corrupt. And 44% are going to vote Tory. So there's a big chunk of voters who know he's either wholly, mostly or partly corrupt - and they'll vote for him anyway.

Don't forget, Nef, we're post-Brexit, post-Trump, post-truth. I check in on your thread most days, share the outrages on FB and Twitter, but TBH, we're fucked.

[Nefertiti2]

still not acceptable for the BBC, though.

[Nefertiti2]

Of course they have form here, and their chief political correspondent in particular

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1385913216610578432?s=21

With also pointing out that the head of BBC politics programming at that time Robbie Gibb (now Sir Robbie) is revealed himself and extremely right wing figure who is a co-owner of the Jewish Chronicle and a founding figure in GB news

[Nefertiti2]

laura' s still onside... what a headline

https://twitter.com/JujuliaGrace/status/1386660380194320387?s=20

[Sporting]

She probably won't have been responsible for the headline.

[ursus arctos]

The first five paragraphs of her piece are devoted to the concept of "tittle tattle"

[Nefertiti2]

[/Mr Johnson's carefully cultivated persona before he entered Downing Street was of someone who wanted to push the boundaries, who didn't pretend he was free of flaws. Some of his allies are confident that less-than-perfect behaviour is therefore priced in.

“Indeed I put considerable time and effort into helping him cultivate that persona-you may be familiar with some of my interviews with him”

[Logan Mountstuart]

5 Live don't seem to really do proper news much anymore. The Drive show is just appalling. More attention is given to Tony Livesey wittering on about an inconsequential theme than major news like rampant Tory cronyism or the crisis in India. Today it was about a meaningless revival in music cassettes.

The only mention of the pressure on Johnson was concerning his flat refurbishment. I'm not actually sure if this is the BBC's fault or Labour's pathetic concentration on it. Not a word about The Bodies Pile Up or the criminal waste of public money on PPI contracts and track and trace.

Headline news was concussion in teenage women's football. A worthy subject, but not exactly the main news of the day.

The only serious presentor/ interviewer on the station now is Rachel Burden, and she's diluted by having to deal with Nicky Campbell's ego.

I barely listen anymore. Today's experience will not help.

[Etienne]

Robbie Gibb joins the BBC Board as the Tory takeover nears completion. I imagine it's likely to put GB News out of business, by denying it a raison d'etre.

[Felicity, I guess so]

Well you won't know from the 'British' Broadcasting Corp sport website that Partick Thistle won the league last night- there isn't even a match report

[sw2borshch]

It got a mention on R5 earlier.

[Gerontophile]

Well you won't know from the 'British' Broadcasting Corp sport website that Partick Thistle won the league last night- there isn't even a match report

And Queens Park are no longer amateur! Who knew?

Well, probably the wrong thread, but, yeah, I did.

Congrats to the Mary's on here.

*Christ, my typing is so wrong. Congratulations to all the Bunnets on here. And who are Cove Rangers?

[Balderdasha]

This article is terrible, complete lack of understanding of the situation for prospective first time buyers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56941162

Firstly, it claims that buyers would only need a deposit of 19,500 GDP for a 10% deposit on a house which is interesting maths given that the national average house price is now over 249,633 GDP for the whole of the UK, and much higher in most of the South, estimated at over 513,997 GDP for London. Even within the same article it claims that the average house price is 238,831 GDP so that 10% figure is complete nonsense.

Secondly, it notes that the average property price has increased by 15,916 GDP in the last year, without making any mention of the fact that this means you'd have to save 1,326 GDP per month just to tread water. Someone working full time (35 hours per week) and earning the over-25 minimum wage earns 1,322 GDP per month before tax, so even if they were somehow subsisting on air and sleeping secretly in a store cupboard at work with zero expenses, they still couldn't keep up with the house price inflation.

This country's economy is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Etienne]

Hmm, well to be fair to the BBC they are quoting the chief economist of Nationwide. I wonder if the average house price for a first time buyer is lower than the average price overall - I'd expect it is.

I totally agree about your final point - Will Davies article - https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-prices-wages is very good on this

[Balderdasha]

The other calculation that is seemingly always left out of these articles is whether or not the remaining non-deposit 90% cost of a house is affordable.

So, let's say that the article is accurate and a first time buyer's average house cost is 195,000 GDP. Let's have a mythical couple who are over 25 and have both managed to land stable full-time jobs (very rare for that generation, it's all temporary and part-time and zero hours contracts). If they're both working full-time and earning the minimum wage, their combined annual income is 31,728 GDP. Most mortgage lenders will lend you 4.5 times your annual salary, so they can borrow 142,776 GDP. Somehow magically let's say they've got the necessary 19,500 deposit. This still only adds up to 162,276 GDP. Where does the remaining 32,724 GDP come from?

This shortfall is never, never addressed in articles about home ownership.

[Etienne]

Yes, it's all those articles about how young people have amazingly managed to save enough for a house and the answer is ALWAYS that they've either inherited or been given money .

[Nocturnal Submission]

Well you won't know from the 'British' Broadcasting Corp sport website that Partick Thistle won the league last night- there isn't even a match report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56936302

[Balderdasha]

Also, I just checked Rightmove. The only properties within five miles of my house that cost 195,000 GDP or less are one bedroom flats, which might technically count as buying your first house, but it's not exactly a home you can comfortably raise a family in, is it?

[Balderdasha]

I mean, I know families who are raising their children in one bedroom flats and doing so admirably, but it shouldn't be the norm to have to share your one bedroom with your four year old daughter, say.

[ursus arctos]

This is an interesting short OECD paper on housing tenure types in OECD countries

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-...ng-tenures.pdf

Is the relative penury of private (I.e., non-subsidised) rental accommodation in the UK primarily a reflection of cultural norms, or is it more complicated than that?

The difference in attitudes towards renting in the UK and Germany has always struck me as particularly stark.