Things that don't belong anywhere

General chatter that doesn't fit any forums below.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 301 times

What Is Sex Magick?

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Satanic Dance Scene (Severance)

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

Screenshot_2024-06-24_11-26-52.png
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1505 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Things that don't belong anywhere

Unread post by rachel »

Posted for the EU money video. Usually with this type of mirroring I dismiss it because it's pretty standard to get a face shape...but on my second watch, I do think the eyes look deliberately contrived.

PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Things that don't belong anywhere

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

It seems like a face that was put there deliberately, plus it's inside the crown of stars. It looks to me like a mix between a snake and a witch face.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Things that don't belong anywhere

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

For Charles, there is an asymmetry with the eyes, it looks like 2 people merged together. I just checked a picture of him, I didn't see something as pronounced.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1505 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Things that don't belong anywhere

Unread post by rachel »

I get what you mean. I couldn't put my finger on it. To me, he has a very Prince Harry look.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 301 times

UK General Election - The 322 Ritual

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »



I don't really trust this guy but maybe he's right about the connection with the number 322.
Screenshot 2024-07-01 at 17-28-15 Calculate Duration Between Two Dates – Results.png
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-69050450
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Dogs at polling stations

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

Voters are good boi
Screenshot 2024-07-04 at 19-38-51 UK general election live Voting continues as millions have their say.png
Screenshot 2024-07-04 at 19-38-27 UK general election live Voting continues as millions have their say.png
Screenshot 2024-07-04 at 19-38-10 UK general election live Voting continues as millions have their say.png
DonPowell
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 13, 2024 5:33 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Things that don't belong anywhere

Unread post by DonPowell »

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard
The Board must uphold and protect the independence of the BBC and make its decisions in the public interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/docum ... mar-24.pdf
3. The Chair’s Conflicts of Interest
3.3 The Board approved the recommended approach to the management of Dr Shah’s
remaining conflicts of interest, and noted the commitment he had made to the BBC by
stepping down as CEO of Juniper Productions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Shah#Broadcasting
Shah's appointment as one of the then three non-executive directors of the BBC in 2007 led to a potential conflict of interest, as Juniper was supplying programmes to the BBC, with Greenslade in 2007 reporting that Shah "steps out if the board touches on any area that might affect his business expertise in broadcasting is considered".[12] Shah was involved in advising director-general Sir Mark Thompson over the Crowngate affair which resulted in BBC1 controller Peter Fincham resigning from the BBC.[12] Shah was reported as claiming in 2008 that "One BBC ethos" presented a "monolithic posture that makes it appear anti-competitive".[13]
It has been a conflict of interest since 2007. That can't be acceptable. Surely
Then no wiki page. ever. That is never good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... edirect=no
For me it is worse there is a wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juniper_Networks
Juniper
Title's like
Hitler’s Muslim Legions
An Article "Americanize" Telling you to be more like us. While over here we are told we are a horrible country.
Susie concludes with an exhortation to all of us to throw off our British linguistic reserve and to Americanize – even if only a little bit. She encourages us to embrace the verve of American vocabulary

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/samir-shah
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... isparities

Like so many of you in your own family
and work situations during this time of COVID-19, the
Commission has never met face to face.
Nothing like a 500 page report, working to prove or disprove that white British people are racist, written by people that have never met.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... g-research
I hope this insight about where your television comes from leads to further discover.
For all I know the guy is great. The best. Having a 16 year conflict of interest with his position at the BBC, while participating in reports about racial conflicts of interest, is cause for further research or attention. He also has a family member on the BBC radio side.
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac ... rality.pdf
3.2 The BBC, Viewed from Inside and Out
Samir Shah
Recently, I attended a lecture by Lenny Henry. It was, as you might
imagine, funny, full of entertaining clips and wonderfully delivered. But
it was on a serious topic. Lenny had decided to speak out about the
lack of progress, on-screen and off, in achieving cultural diversity in
British television. In the question and answer session that followed the
American producer of The Cosby Show argued that diversity wasn’t a
question of doing good but pure business sense. It was commercially
sensible to address the concerns of black people. Focus on the
money question, she advised.
Unfortunately for her, the biggest player in British broadcasting doesn’t
need to earn any money. The licence fee puts the BBC in an enviable
position, free to spend almost £4 billion a year, unencumbered by the
business of having to worry about advertising revenue or subscriptions.
This brings with it responsibilities – responsibilities both as a champion
of diversity, and of a wider definition of plurality. As spectrum scarcity
disappears and with the broadband world almost upon us, the hard
question for the BBC is why should it be the sole beneficiary of money
designed to deliver the public good? In particular, in the key public
duty of capturing the plurality of voice, culture and opinion that Lenny
Henry was discussing, how do we ensure there is an economic basis
for a diversity of suppliers to do that job? And shouldn’t those suppliers
have a plurality of places to broadcast their programmes?
At the heart of this issue is the relationship of the BBC to the rest of
pubilc service television. In an era where there will never again be
a shortage of channels or choice, shouldn’t we just relax and let the
market take care of things? My answer to that is an emphatic ‘No’.
One of the great glories of the Public Service Broadcasting (PSB)
that has developed in Britain is how it became the place for the
national conversation. Whether by luck or design, we have a system
in which our democracy can speak to itself. The BBC pre-eminently
has been the place the British people have traditionally turned to
for a collective experience at moments of crisis and celebration. But
now online communities are growing as society becomes increasingly
fragmented. It is the way people engage with each other. And
as broadband becomes the dominant delivery platform, this
fragmentation of discourse is set to grow. In the digital marketplace
of the not-too-distant future, competition from traditional and new
media, from overseas as well as the UK, will provide a vast array of
voices and views for the consumer to pick and choose. Already, if
you scroll down the Sky EPG to the higher numbers, you see what the
market delivers. There is OBE TV which has a programme called The
Salone Show billed as ‘music and reports for the UK’s Sierra Leone
community’, the Muslim communities are well served with channels
such as Islam TV and mta–muslim TV, while the many different cultures
from India have any number of channels in their native tongues:
Mana Telugu, Zee Gujerati, Bangla TV and Channel Punjab. These are
66
channels in which different communities in the UK speak to themselves
and their ‘home’ community in all their multilingual and multicultural
glory. Online versions of newspapers and magazines vie with global
providers to offer a plurality of news and comment without the need
for state intervention. What’s more, genuinely new voices are coming
through which would not have seen the light of day in the fast fading
traditional environment. Now, there are aggregators such as Google
and other search engines which dispense these new primary suppliers
to consumers. But the fact remains these are atomised spaces where
like-minded people talk to themselves with no sense of connection
to the wider community. The fragmented nature of the broadband
world increasingly reflects the breakdown of society into its various
tribal groups. And many of these spaces are unregulated and, in
some cases, dangerous.
What a mature and effective democracy needs is a place where its
people can share a public discourse, to work out what we have in
common, what binds us. In an increasingly fragmented society with
different cultural groups with different values, we urgently need to put
weight behind centripetal rather than centrifugal forces. Just as class
and gender relations were the central fault-lines of modern society in
the last century, so questions of ethnicity, faith and belief will be what
divide us and will generate tensions and conflict in this century. The
challenge for us all is simple: how will we all live with each other? The
need for a dispassionate, sober and considered examination of this
question is more pressing now than ever. There is no greater public
purpose than to debate and discuss what defines us as a people.
What is needed in this anarchic new media landscape is a public
service broadcaster whose central purpose is to provide the space
where the community gathers together. That is, one whose scale
ensures that its content reaches a wide audience, cutting across
group barriers and delivering real impact. This is a key future role for
the BBC. A core responsibility of the BBC in the future may be to act as
a PSB aggregator, assembling content with a public purpose in such a
way we all can find it. What’s more the BBC brings added value to this
job: it is both safe and trustworthy.
But the BBC’s scale helps in another key way. Its many outlets, with
its range of different tone and voice, aimed at different audiences,
enable the diversity of views and opinion that reflect modern British
society to be properly aired. Viewed from within the BBC, these
arguments are compelling. But viewed from outside, other factors
carry weight, too. The idea that the only place where society can
speak to itself is via the good offices of the BBC worries many.
Decision-making is in the hands of a handful of people and, pace
Lenny Henry, that handful does not yet reflect the world outside the
BBC. Its manifold strengths are also its weakness. For all its multiplicity
of outlets, its range of tone and voice, there is a singular cultural
idea that permeates the BBC, that binds it and makes it pull together
and punch even higher than its very considerable weight. It is what
accounts for the genuine sense of shock and horror at the uncovering
of fakery and fixing and its exemplary response; and it is what makes
Samir Shah
67
those pan-BBC events such as Comic Relief such triumphs. That same
culture, though, informs a deeply held sense of a BBC ‘point of view’.
And of course that runs counter to the notion of plurality of voice.
It would worry any producer that, whatever contribution you might
wish to make to the national conversation, whether in drama or
documentary, you could only go to the BBC. If that drama you
want to make does not appeal to one of that gilded handful of
commissioners, there must be an alternative place to go. Competition
for the best ideas from suppliers delivers quality, ensures variety and
range, and keeps all sides on their toes. It is vital that suppliers have
places to go which still sit within a public service framework. Right now
there are such broadcasters: pre-eminently Channel 4 and, to a lesser
extent, Five and ITV.
The question is how to ensure that public service broadcasters have
sufficient financing to perform these pubilc service duties. There
may not be much we can or should do to control the direction of
commercial revenue, from subscription and advertising, towards
particular public goals in programming. This money will follow the
market wherever the consumer goes. But what we can control is the
£4 billion of the licence fee. From inside the BBC there is a mountain
of paperwork produced almost daily that demonstrates how every
penny is – one way or the other – spent on its public purposes. The
BBC argument is that you need all kinds of programming to justify a
universal licence fee. It is in any case the only way large numbers of
people bump into programming they would otherwise miss; a fortiori if
you want to engage in a national conversation.
That argument looks more convincing from the inside than the
outside. Taking some of the licence fee could help other public
service broadcasters (primarily Channel 4) to provide competition
to deliver plurality of voice. But what would be the consequence?
The experience of British television is that different revenue streams
have delivered different outcomes – within the PSB context. The
BBC’s licence fee deeply affects the way the BBC sees the world. It
operates, inevitably, in a politically constrained context. It exists due
to political will not consumer will. The fact that politicians control its
revenue affects the way it thinks. Not in any crude way but its ethos
and culture is, quite rightly, alert to political sensitivities. Channel 4
is much more attitudinal, edgy and confrontational. That’s not just
because it wants to differentiate itself from the BBC, its revenue base
frees it to do so. There is a huge risk that if Channel 4 depends on
the licence fee it will become, slowly and steadily, little more than
a department of the BBC, developing the same ethos and culture.
Channel 4 needs to survive but not through state intervention if it is
to offer a real choice to suppliers, and then to consumers. A new
financial settlement that weakened the BBC’s budgets and at the
same time weakened Channel 4’s sense of its own identity would not
help solve the question of plurality in PSB.
But if the BBC is to be the sole recipient of the licence fee, it needs
to offer real plurality in supply and delivery. Is it doing enough? It’s
3.2 The BBC, Viewed from Inside and Out
68
certainly trying to reach a diversity of suppliers. Regional quotas are
there to ensure a geographic spread across the nations and regions.
It has by law to deliver a 25% independent quota and has recently
added the Window of Creative Competition which allows that
number, in theory, to go up to 50%. The BBC measures with astounding
application its spend and the number of hours devoted to specific
genres. And now, to deal with the accusation of a London bias, a
massive out of London exercise is underway to move great chunks of
the BBC to Salford in Manchester.
Could it go further and bring about other internal changes that
addresses even better the need for plurality? It’s the BBC’s monolithic
posture that makes it appear anti-competitive. The need for other
institutions to deliver pubilc service content would be dramatically
diminished if the BBC reformed itself and developed real competition
within itself.
The ‘One BBC’ ethos has many strengths. But it is competition that
delivers quality. Take the example of drama and let us cast our minds
back to the days when ITV was internally competitive. Granada,
LWT, Yorkshire all produced drama for the network, competing with
each other. We got Jewel in the Crown (Granada) and Poirot (LWT).
The BBC’s recent drama successes seem intimately connected to
the competitive instinct. Dr Who is from BBC Wales and that string
of successes – Spooks, Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes – were all
made by an independent producer (Kudos). Here’s a kite: if the BBC
were to pursue its current plans even more boldly to the extent that
the institution itself no longer felt so monolithic but became rather a
federation of smaller entities with real power – with devolved air-time
as well as money, spread across the nations and regions – then we
may well be on the way to the kind of institutional reform that lessens
the need for other institutions to deliver pubilc service content. Here’s
another: make BBC Two a sort of in-house Channel 4. That is, the
25% indie quota is directed entirely to BBC Two. Window of Creative
Competition arrangements would then supply independent access
to BBC One, Three and Four. And then transplant BBC Two to, say,
Birmingham. Such a BBC Two could give Channel 4 a real run for its
money. Once again this kind of radical institutional thinking (I suspect
even I, now wearing my BBC hat, would say this last idea is a step too
far) would result in real plurality of both supply and voice.
There’s little doubt, whether looking at it from inside or outside, the
BBC has the central role to play in sustaining and ensuring plurality;
firstly, in its role of being the place where, because of its size and
scale and resultant reach and impact, we can engage in a national
conversation so vital to the health of our democracy; secondly, in its
role as a supplier of a range of voices, opinion and argument; though
it could engage in a more radical vision of itself. Such a transformation
could place the BBC both at the centre of the national conversation
and at the same time make it the guarantor of its diversity and
plurality And that would please Lenny Henry no end.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1505 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

Re: Things that don't belong anywhere

Unread post by rachel »

That is an old document from maybe 10+ year ago it sounds, things have gone down hill considerably since then. But it is interesting they got a comedian to front it.
Post Reply