why the bbc is going down the pan
- Thread starter frogwoman
- Start date
PTK
Paul Kegan
"there is and was no risk to the children"
But what if they ingested it? They may have become obese.
Have cabinet ministers been boycotting Newsnight? I know they barely ever do C4 News now.
teqniq
DisMembered
I have no idea tbh having not watched Newsnight or in fact the BBC for a very long time (no licence).
GarveyLives
Well-Known Member
It appears that the government have found the right man for their the job:
New BBC chair is co-author of Boris Johnson’s controversial race report
New BBC chair is co-author of Boris Johnson’s controversial race report
Just watching Strictly Come Dancing 
THE FINAL!!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You’ll want the right thread.
Strictly Come Dancing 2023
Nigel Harman is out!! I wasn't his biggest fan but it's a shame and does that mean they'll be an elimination tonight or not!! BBC News - Nigel Harman pulls out of Strictly Come Dancing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67600909
www.urban75.net
Disgraced ex-peer Michelle Mone, fresh from her release from prison, will be partnered with Anton du Beke next year.You’ll want the right thread.
Strictly Come Dancing 2023
Nigel Harman is out!! I wasn't his biggest fan but it's a shame and does that mean they'll be an elimination tonight or not!! BBC News - Nigel Harman pulls out of Strictly Come Dancing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67600909
GarveyLives
Well-Known Member
Ian Wright: Match of the Day pundit to step down at end of season
"I feel very privileged to have had such an incredible run on the most iconic football show in the world."
"I feel very privileged to have had such an incredible run on the most iconic football show in the world."
not a trot
Well-Known Member
BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
Ah that's a real shame. Wright is class.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Those of us North of the border may like this one:
All good until about two thirds down where 'Musselburgh' is spelt as 'Musselborough'...
Rare 'rainbow cloud' spotted in UK skies
Clouds with beautiful iridescent colour were captured by BBC Weather Watchers.
www.bbc.co.uk
All good until about two thirds down where 'Musselburgh' is spelt as 'Musselborough'...
Last edited:
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
I did report the error and recommended a UK road atlas in the secret Santa for the writer
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
[Content warning: murder and rape]
A woman has been found guilty and jailed for life for her complicity in the murder of Joanna Parrish, as well as another killing and the kidnapping of a 9 year old girl whose body was never found. The BBC have written an article on the aftermath of the verdict for Ms Parrish's parents, and how they had to fight for 33 years to see any kind of justice.
Monique Olivier is the former wife of serial killer Michel Fourniret, who died before he could be brought to trial for the above crimes. Both had already been serving life sentences: Fourniret for multiple abductions, rapes and murders, and Olivier for her complicity.
But this is just wrong:
The young women and children the BBC refer to were aged 12, two aged 13, 17, 18, 20 and 22.
12 and 13 years olds, and even 17 year olds, are not women.
Finally the corporate media have (mostly) stopped referring to grown women as "girls", yet here we are with the adultification of murdered children.
A woman has been found guilty and jailed for life for her complicity in the murder of Joanna Parrish, as well as another killing and the kidnapping of a 9 year old girl whose body was never found. The BBC have written an article on the aftermath of the verdict for Ms Parrish's parents, and how they had to fight for 33 years to see any kind of justice.
Monique Olivier is the former wife of serial killer Michel Fourniret, who died before he could be brought to trial for the above crimes. Both had already been serving life sentences: Fourniret for multiple abductions, rapes and murders, and Olivier for her complicity.
But this is just wrong:
The young women and children the BBC refer to were aged 12, two aged 13, 17, 18, 20 and 22.
12 and 13 years olds, and even 17 year olds, are not women.
Finally the corporate media have (mostly) stopped referring to grown women as "girls", yet here we are with the adultification of murdered children.
Last edited:
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
It’s 50 years today since a police officer and two others were shot in Devon. A bbc local news feature on the memorial plaque.
Michael Winner has been dead for 10 years, so if we rule out him speaking to us beyond the grave, then this is a pretty big mistake.
PC Dennis Smith: Torquay memorial to honour murdered officer
PC Dennis Smith was shot dead on 21 December 1973, by a man who went on to kill two other people.
www.bbc.co.uk
Michael Winner has been dead for 10 years, so if we rule out him speaking to us beyond the grave, then this is a pretty big mistake.
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
Front page news.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
'Had' in what sense I wonder?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Not usually one for the dirty innuendo but LLoyd Webber and a poltergeist was too much to resist.
elbows
Well-Known Member
People writing or editing todays nuclear story havent got a fucking clue what they are talking about when it comes to a particular major claim that they seem to have entirely pulled out of their own arses....
The article has already changed quite a bit while I've been fact checking it, but the detail I'm pointing at has arguably got even worse, more absurd, less plausible during that time, while maintaining its central error.
First it said:
Right now it instead says:
What the absolute suffering fuck is this quadruple supplies shit? Its total nonsense, especially in the context of a single plant! Even if you dont know a single figure relating to nuclear or any other form of generation capacity, how could you possibly think that a single plant could quadruple energy supplies?
It doesnt even make sense that ministers would describe a single new project as being the "biggest expansion of the sector in 70 years" given that we already have one of these plants under construction, and another one on the table, so adding one more does not represent some new scale of expansion at all.
Here are a few numbers which illustrate the actual reality, and quite how absurd this BBC bullshit about quadrupling is:
The entire government ambition for nuclear is 'up to 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050'. Todays document says that this "would cover up to a quarter of the country’s projected electricity demand"
In the same document, the claim is that the nuclear share of electricity generation has falled from a peak of 27% to 15% currently.
The same document states that the current nuclear fleet (that was built long ago, ie not including the under construction Hinkley Point C) has a generation capacity of 6GW. Thats compared to the peak of installed nuclear capacity which was about 12.7 GW in 1995, since lots of reactors reached end of life and shutdown since then.
A new large plant equivalent to the under construction Hinkley Point C, featuring 2 reactors, would give an output of about 3.2GW
If I look at some of those numbers and try to work out where the BBC article has gone wrong, the simplest explanation is that they have conflated what a single new plant can offer with the entire stated GW ambition for 2050! Because current nuclear capacity of 6GW multiplied by 4 is 24GW.
So if I wanted to make the claim properly, it would be that the entire nuclear ambition, including all the large and smaller reactor projects to be built over the next 25+ years, could quadruple the amount of nuclear electricity generation capacity in this country compared to current nuclear generation levels. But I'd have to point out that we are talking about nuclear output here, not our nations entire electricity supplies or the even vaguer 'energy supplies'. And that also there is a reason the governments own roadmap has the words 'up to' in front of 24GW, they want to keep a degree of flexibility in their ambitions because they dont actually know what the electricity needs of the country and market will be in 2050 or the exact proportion of large, small and non-nuclear projects that it will make sense to utilise to deliver on those needs.
UK government plans further nuclear power expansion
It is hoped a new plant could quadruple supplies by 2050 but industry warned progress can be slow.
www.bbc.co.uk
The article has already changed quite a bit while I've been fact checking it, but the detail I'm pointing at has arguably got even worse, more absurd, less plausible during that time, while maintaining its central error.
First it said:
Right now it instead says:
What the absolute suffering fuck is this quadruple supplies shit? Its total nonsense, especially in the context of a single plant! Even if you dont know a single figure relating to nuclear or any other form of generation capacity, how could you possibly think that a single plant could quadruple energy supplies?
It doesnt even make sense that ministers would describe a single new project as being the "biggest expansion of the sector in 70 years" given that we already have one of these plants under construction, and another one on the table, so adding one more does not represent some new scale of expansion at all.
Here are a few numbers which illustrate the actual reality, and quite how absurd this BBC bullshit about quadrupling is:
The entire government ambition for nuclear is 'up to 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050'. Todays document says that this "would cover up to a quarter of the country’s projected electricity demand"
In the same document, the claim is that the nuclear share of electricity generation has falled from a peak of 27% to 15% currently.
The same document states that the current nuclear fleet (that was built long ago, ie not including the under construction Hinkley Point C) has a generation capacity of 6GW. Thats compared to the peak of installed nuclear capacity which was about 12.7 GW in 1995, since lots of reactors reached end of life and shutdown since then.
A new large plant equivalent to the under construction Hinkley Point C, featuring 2 reactors, would give an output of about 3.2GW
If I look at some of those numbers and try to work out where the BBC article has gone wrong, the simplest explanation is that they have conflated what a single new plant can offer with the entire stated GW ambition for 2050! Because current nuclear capacity of 6GW multiplied by 4 is 24GW.
So if I wanted to make the claim properly, it would be that the entire nuclear ambition, including all the large and smaller reactor projects to be built over the next 25+ years, could quadruple the amount of nuclear electricity generation capacity in this country compared to current nuclear generation levels. But I'd have to point out that we are talking about nuclear output here, not our nations entire electricity supplies or the even vaguer 'energy supplies'. And that also there is a reason the governments own roadmap has the words 'up to' in front of 24GW, they want to keep a degree of flexibility in their ambitions because they dont actually know what the electricity needs of the country and market will be in 2050 or the exact proportion of large, small and non-nuclear projects that it will make sense to utilise to deliver on those needs.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
By the way the new reactor thing was also only a small part of todays announcement, which was more about an overall roadmap, and it wasnt the stage of commitment where you could make much of a solid story about it. Specifically, in the roadmap document its described as a commitment to:
(SZC FID is the final investment decision for the SIzewell C reactor which is the 2nd of this new generation of large new nuclear plants).
The roadmap document is not hugely exciting but I'll link to it anyway since I quoted from it and got some figures from it with which to take the piss out of the BBC. https://assets.publishing.service.g...6.8610_DESNZ_Civil_Nuclear_Roadmap_report.pdf
(SZC FID is the final investment decision for the SIzewell C reactor which is the 2nd of this new generation of large new nuclear plants).
The roadmap document is not hugely exciting but I'll link to it anyway since I quoted from it and got some figures from it with which to take the piss out of the BBC. https://assets.publishing.service.g...6.8610_DESNZ_Civil_Nuclear_Roadmap_report.pdf
Last edited:
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
BBC online reporters are as callow and ignorant as their counterparts in all other newsrooms, but they are particularly prone to parroting deliberately deceptive HMG spin.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Obviously I wasnt a fly on the wall in whatever briefing they received but unless some minister or other government official didnt know what they were saying and totally misspoke in the briefing, the governments own spin would not have included the absurd BBC claims. It would have included big claims about their overall level of ambition and commitment though, so that bit of the BBC article does reflect the grandstanding of the government.
The foreword by Claire Coutinho in todays roadmap document certainly includes plenty of hyperbole, but not the shit the BBC came up with. Rather its shit like this:
Even if they achieved 24GW of nucear by 2050, and thats a big if, it would hardly be 'incomparable'. UK wind has apparently already reached about 30GW of installed capacity! If the BBC point their bluster in the direction of the turbines perhaps we could even exceed rated output for that generation source.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
Which is not an implausible scenario. Written materials are at least checked before release.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yeah its possible but I dont think its the most likely explanation in this case, I think those BBC reporters just fucked it up. Certainly I havent found other media repeating the mistake or taking the piss out of a minister making such a large gaffe. The big claim made by Coutinho that should be picked at by the media is that these plans are “the biggest expansion in nuclear power for 70 years”.
Even the Telegraph have managed to report usefully on this stuff, eg:
I did notice that most of the reporting I've seen so far totally leaves out the 'up to' bit in front of 24GW.
elbows
Well-Known Member
By the way, press reporting on stuff that affects current nuclear generation in this country is fucking shite, even in winter when supply-demand balance is tighter.
For example, a steam valve failed in a reactor recently, taking it out of action, and likely as a result of that 3 more reactors are now also offline for steam valve inspections. Add in refuelling of one more reactor at present and half our current fleet isnt even generating at the moment. But I usually have to dig around to discover this stuff, non-specialist publications dont tend to report on such things it seems.
For example, a steam valve failed in a reactor recently, taking it out of action, and likely as a result of that 3 more reactors are now also offline for steam valve inspections. Add in refuelling of one more reactor at present and half our current fleet isnt even generating at the moment. But I usually have to dig around to discover this stuff, non-specialist publications dont tend to report on such things it seems.
Similar threads
