Category: Culture

Traitors

I always was a great fan of The Prisoner. A British TV series that makes little sense other than being the twists and turns of a tapped man’s journey through an endless maze. Trying to understand what’s going on. Knowing that sometime the game must be played. All the time fighting to beat the system.

Until recently, I’d resisted watching The Traitors. This British TV series has retained its popularity as it’s regularly refreshed with a new cohort of players. It’s a parlour game that has walls. Walls of rules. The contestants are trapped in an unreality they must navigate. Unlike Patrick McGoohan, they are not alone.

Why resist? I guess it’s a strange reaction to popularity. It was like my thinking was based on the idea that if something gets such a massive round of hype it must be flawed. Let’s face it, recent peak viewing time TV tends to scrape the barrel. Frantically chasing ratings, it often goes for the lowest common denominator. TV is no longer king.

I’ve revised my opinion. It’s the complex social interactions that elevate this TV show above most “reality” TV. Yes, it’s a gameshow but not one with inane stupidly and overly polished lines.

The contestants are not abducted. In fact, they are all keen to be part of each week’s challenges. Each with the feeling that they are uniquely placed to win. Once they step through the doors of the gothic Scottish castle it’s as if they were abducted. The tables get turned and any sense of being in control starts to fade.

I’d say that the popularity of the British version of The Traitors owes a great deal to the show’s host. Winkleman fits the dark cloak as if she were made for it. Despite her deadpan expressions there’s a hit of glee behind her eyes.

My analogy with The Prisoner centres on the psychodrama of deception. Who can be trusted? Like sitting around a card table trying to throw fellow players off the scent. The show’s reality is that no one can be trusted but some people can be trusted more than others.

The contestants are tested at every stage of the day and night. We watch on in a voyeuristic way, knowing what they don’t know. Evaluating who’s smart and who’s destined for the chop.

Celebrity Traitors is an odd mix. Because some of the contestants are known names, it’s easy to assume that their reactions are predicable. For the most part, this assumption is misleading. Viewers start to see the veneer of performance rubbed away. Not for everyone. At distinct stages, actors act, comics make jokes and personalities do their thing. But at moments of high pressure any veneer is eroded, exposing the real person.

One revealing part of the show does disappoint me. Maybe this is a part of human behaviour that I don’t like to admit exists. The round table gives the impression of equality. Like a setting in an Arthurian legend. It doesn’t playout like that when time is short and decisions must be made.

Instinctively contestants expose or kill off first those who are perceived to be the clever contestants. Could that be primitive instinct. Reduce the competition to improve the odds of winning. Not sure I like the message that this human behaviour contains.

“I can’t seem to face up to the facts.”  The theme for the show should be The Talking Heads song “Psycho Killer”.

Not again

The art of politics. If you view politics as a war of ideas, then there’s a role for both attack and defence. Where dividing lines are drawn harshly and prisoners are not taken. One idea wins and the others, however sound are banished.

I suppose that’s a reason there are so many barristers (lawyers) in British political life. They learn how to win by framing arguments in an adversarial setting. There’s little room available for compromise or concession. No second place as winner takes all. That said, the “war” analogy is not terribly useful in many respects. One aspect of a barrister’s life is to be single minded when in court but more amical in the tearoom after business is done.

Slightly different subject. I still believe in the “bell curve.” Juvenile as that may seem, in present circumstances that simple curve says a lot. Over the years I’ve stood on a lot of doorsteps. Had lots of fleeting conversations about every subject under the sun. Well, almost. The impression that stays with me is that the general public is nowhere near as polarised in their views as the News of daily politics would have us believe. The gap between life as it is lived and life as it is depicted in council chambers and parliament is persistent. That is whoever is in power.

Traditional the political bell curve has “right” and “left” painted on either end. That’s a polarisation that the media is comfortable with as it mirrors long memories. Wasn’t the world simpler in Cold War days when the camps of East and West were so easily characterised. When Socialist workers and Tory landed gentry were firmly fixed stereotypes.

Anyway, it’s a reaction to a seasoned politician (lawyer), on the far-right of politics, defending his position, on the BBC Today programme this morning, that I’m reacting to. A documentary is to be exposing some members of a British political party as being outspoken, making objectionable remarks and being extremely offensive (in my opinion).

Listening to a politician’s defence, that mainly consisted of deflection, was boringly predicable. When it clearly doesn’t, making claims that a system of vetting weeds out people who do not share the values of a Party, that becomes a hollow argument. The age of wisdom of the saying – when you are in a hole, stop digging – comes to mind.

So, what about the mismatch? The gap between where the public are and where the ends of the political spectrum would like us to think they are. This is not a new dilemma. In fact, our British adversarial structures of governance encourage it.

Sadly. if the media output and political debate are polarised there’s not much chance of getting to grips with cost-of-living pressures or getting the trains to run on time or stopping the water companies polluting our waters or caring for those in society who need care.

The polar ends of the political spectrum have nothing to offer in building a better world.

Let’s hear more from those who are trying to fix things that need fixing. Less from those who place more value on conflict and divisive language. Drawing from the pulpit, blessed are the peacemakers. Well, I’d be happy with; blessed are the less well-known people who strive to make things work. Who works tirelessly to build a better world.

No more – please!

I would not ban Christmas. I think it was one of Oliver Cromwell’s biggest mistakes[1]. He may not have been the author of the legal ban but upholding it was a mistake (from 1644 to 1660).

But and there’s a but. Here the sun is shining and the temperature is mild. There are still bees landing on the flowers in my garden. Wander into a British supermarket or garden centre on the first of October and guess what I find. Rows and rows of Christmas goods. Anything from food in fancy tins to cheap toys from the far east. One or two shops take this to ridiculous extremes. Enter the front door and the first encounter is piles of Christmas goods. No possibility of ignoring the day that’s nearly 3-months away.

I find it insulting. It’s like we (shopkeepers) must shift this stuff, so we are going to make you pay attention. Make you loop your way through brightly coloured isles. For parents it must be awful.

The world turned upside down. Let’s bypass Halloween. Let’s bypass 5th November (Gunpower plot). Let’s bypass any other traditional winter festivals. Let’s go straight to Christmas.

I’m not alone. One local garden centre is especially bad. With the idea of continuing my efforts to eke out the last Autumnal colours and buy some compost, I walked through the doors. As I weaved may way through cavalcades of shiny lights and stuffed Farther Christmases my heart sank. Totally unimpressed with the tinsel and plastic trees. Popping out the other side, into the part of the garden centre that is a garden centre, I sighed. Others around me sighed too.

“I didn’t come here for that” and we agreed. It was too much. I wouldn’t have said the same in mid-November but, so early in the season, I was in no mood for tacky festive celebrations.

Should I lobby my Member of Parliament to ban the display of Christmas goods in the shops more than a month before the day of celebration? It’s worth thinking about. Today, I can’t say we have a puritan-dominated Parliament so there’d be little risk of igniting a religious conflict. That said, I imagine most parliamentarians have bigger fish to fry just now.

Let’s not ban Christmas but a modicum of common sense from the commercial sector wouldn’t go amiss. Ramming Christmas goods down our throats is bad practice. I know that the takings for a lot of commercial businesses go up in the festive season.

My question is – are shops there to serve customers or is it the other way around. We all like celebrations. A saturation of homogonous red and white for weeks and weeks is not celebration. It’s jolly depressing.

Shopkeepers may say – you have a choice. Don’t go in our shops if that’s your reaction. That’s a viewpoint that could drive a call to outlaw the unloading of artificial jollity on an unsuspecting public. Forcing us to grind our way through layers of stuff destined for landfills in January next.

Oliver Cromwell’s era came to an end as foolishness took over. 365 years later I think we can do without 365 days of Christmas. British winter festivities amount to more than colourful biscuits.

[1] https://cromwellmuseum.org/did-oliver-cromwell-ban-christmas/

Be fair

Here’s an example of why the public interest needs protection. It’s easy to assume that an App in common usage is comprehensive, unbiased, and trustworthy. But is it?

Sitting in a theatre there’s music playing as people fill the auditorium. Sounds a bit fancy. I’m talking about a local arts centre on a Saturday night. Playing was a compilation of songs and comic tunes few of which I knew. This kept the audience entertained as they shuffled in.

It’s the digital age. One tap on an App on my phone and the result is usually a whirring symbol whilst the App does its analysis to eventually show me what was playing. The whirring symbol kept going. This is hard, so the App excused itself. Then it drew a blank.

The next approach was to pick what seemed to be a theme in the song and look it up on a search engine. There’s the answer. A children’s show theme.

That made me think. Did the App not know the answer or did the App not bother to have reference to that type of song? I went down this line of thinking because what the App normally does is “helpfully” show where a song it has found can be purchased (streamed).

What interest could the App’s algorithm have if there’s nothing available to buy at the end of the process? Any presumption of coverage, fairness and objectivity is merely something I projected on the App’s internal workings. It’s not necessarily there.

The wider point is that placing trust on Apps that are free to download and for the most part produce useful results, as if by magic, maybe not be quite what they seem. Afterall nobody reads the small print – do they?

Some Apps compose data that is extracted from reputable sources. These become popular because of the love of convenience. Within bounds, the information provided can be trusted. This is the general assumption I may make about a freely available weather App.

A key factor here is trust. However, most often that trust only comes about by a regular “try it and see” experience. There’s no mark of quality. There’s no organisation looking after the public interest. Now, if you say to me – that’s what Ofcom[1] does in the UK, I’ll have a little laugh. That regulatory may keep a watching eye on the worst offenders as far as lawbreaking is concerned, but they are not much help in saying this App is a gold star, and this one is equivalent to a dodgy doorstep salesman.

For Apps with mechanical algorithms that chunter out information this may not be a problem. Even if their display includes advertisements and enticements to win a holiday.

What comes next with AI is more concerning. The commercial interests of a smart music identifier are evident. Making recommendations is not to my detriment. Although purposefully fishing in a restricted pool of information could be.

With general purpose Apps, which are a front to AI systems, there’s the potential for manipulation. Where commercial interests are the primary motivator there does need to be someone looking after the public interest. My interests. Yes, I am in favour of regulation.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/

Two worlds

So, Hogarth’s print of Gin Lane[1] is revived as a template for UK Conservative Party policy. It’s a classical appeal to class prejudice. In their eyes there are the deserving and undeserving poor. And it’s easy to spot the difference.

A lower class of people have a long list of vices whist another has fortitude in the face of hardship. One drinks, gambles and brawls in the streets whilst the other will do a hard day’s work for a penny and not complain. To top it all the Conservative Party’s rush to travel back 275 years isn’t based on any principles or in-depth study. It’s merely because they are being politically out paced by the Reform Party.

UK politics is peculiar in so many respects. It may be less surprising when considering the annals of history of these islands.

Hogarth didn’t castigate those who drank alcohol as being the ultimate sinners. He drew a positive picture of those who drank beer[2]. Putting that beverage at the heart of an industrious and harmonious society.

As if the mark his place as the polar opposite to the right-wing hustle above, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham is reported to be wanting to lift the drinking ban at football matches. Hooliganism was once the blight of English football. That brought about a ban on drinking alcohol in the stands at football matches. Now, 40-years on those concerns are faded.

In a popular move, it has been pointed out that drinking beer at a massive rock concert in a football stadium is treated entirely different from a match day gathering.

Here’s two sides of an English coin. Both with deep roots in our history. One to do with ingrained prejudices and the other to do with freedom and liberty. Both with an eye to future electoral popularity.

I expect there’s a cascade of draft proposals to introduce or scrap measures ready to flow out of policy makers lap-tops over the next couple of years. Differentiation is a key motivator. The struggle to stay in the top tier of pollical relevance continues. At the same time a sense of general discontent rumbles away.

Political competition is good, for the most part. Where it falls down is the attention it takes away from solving real problems by practical means. Hogarth’s prints can be interpreted as provoking thought about how divisive opposites can be. The truth being somewhere in the middle.

As discontent rumbles away it seems sad that politicians are running away from the pragmatic aspects of problem solving. Yes, effective governance can be dull. It can take time. It doesn’t always capture headlines. But what is it we really want? A good side show or a better society?

[1] https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/gin-lane-1

[2] https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/beer-street-1

Moments of Decision

It’s the time of year. Young people pass through a gateway. Exam results hit the streets. Through life there are moments of decision. Life is not linear or proportionate. Swaths of time will pass when nothing much happens. Then bang. There’s a moment of decision.

Certainly, education has a role to play in preparing people for those moments. This is where the race for superior exam performance statistics fails. It’s great for someone to struggle through and ace one subject. It’s great for a person of moderate ability to excel out of the blue. It’s great when a naturally talented individual gets more than their expected grades. The difficulty arises when people, consequently, are not prepared to know what to do.

Conflicting advice shovelled out by a fickle media isn’t the bast source on offer. Politicians juggling with volumes of statistic, a barrage of recommendations and a pile of prejudices struggle to find a line to maintain.

Is going to university important? Now, there’s a question mark that’s doing the rounds.

It’s true, I should not, on any account, judge the current situation as if it was the same as my experience of 50-years ago. 1976 was a world away from where we are in 2026. That said there are some fundamentals that stick.

At the deepest level there’s the reason universities exit at all. Let’s face it they are not an invention of the modern world. There’s a reason special places of learning were established in every human civilisation. It’s that basic hierarchy of needs. Once food and shelter are commonplace humanity gets around to asking endless questions about the world and the universe.

Is going to university important? I find the question strange in so many ways. Fine there’s a small number of institutions that don’t offer the ideals of university life or an uplift in future opportunities. However, the vast majority provide the next steps that a maturing adult needs. It may lead to a specialisation or a jumping-off point to a radically different destination.

A hardy perennial that keeps cropping up is this war of the vocational verses the academic. It’s a persistent theme.

Mechanics that fix semi-autonomous electric vehicles may not need a degree in oceanography. Researchers in the art of renaissance architecture may not need to know how to lay bricks. Engineers developing farm machinery may not need a qualification in linguistics. Need is not all.

What this presents is a false conflict. In my mind, people with a diversity of experiences are going to be much better equipped to deal with the future than those who tramline. Thus, the “hard hat verses gradation cap” is the most moronic of slogans. It’s the ultimate visualisation of the tramline. It paints a picture of a fork in the road (or rail).

I started by writing that there are moments of decision. The point I want to make is that the decision of university or not university shouldn’t be based solely on career aspiration or finances or popular fashion. Believe it or not it’s possible to read medieval illiterate and be a gifted welder. To be fascinated by the Greeks and Romans and fly a plane. To enjoy construction work and play a musical instrument to a high level. Motivation and passion are the key.

Please let’s think more widely about lifelong learning. Let’s build systems that enable lifelong learning.

Britain Needs a Written Constitution

Who cares? That’s what a lot of people might say. I mean look at our everyday problems. A cost-of-living crisis, crumbling infrastructure, conflicts in the world, turbulence of identity politics and a host of live issue that would take the whole page to list.

Lord Sumption, a crusty establishment lawyer debates with Baroness Chakrabarti, a lefty advocate and lawyer. Both capable and seasoned debaters with respectably different backgrounds. Listening to one I might say; that’s a sound reasoning. Listening to the other I might say; exceptionally good point. Thus, I my view remains the same whatever their debate.

So, for a brief few minutes this morning the subject of a written British constitution hit the airwaves. I can’t break the habit of listening to the Today programme on the BBC Radio 4.

Firstly, to explain. The UK, and its parliamentary way of doing business, is unlike our cousins across the other side of the Atlantic. They are now celebrating a nation’s coming into being, 250 years ago. The foundation stone and a launch into nationhood was a written constitution.

We have done thing differently in the UK. It’s not so easy to trace our constitution back to a moment of birth. Naturally, I will cite one document that has influenced both nations. The Magna Carta’s importance[1] is recognised across the globe. Not only by its influence on modern constitutions but what it says about the rule of law.

[Last year, was the 800th anniversary of the sealing of one version of the Magna Carta].

As an infant a school trip we made was to Runnymede. My teachers clearly wanted to plant an idea in our heads long before we would have any appreciation of what it meant.

[That primary school trip included a visit to the Rufus Stone[2]. A place where I wandered off and got lost in the New Forest but that’s a story for another time].

What I’d say to both Sumption and Chakrabarti is that the subject you debate is fundamentally important. However, it’s easy to get hung up on the word – constitution. As if there’s only two models of such a key construct. To put it basically, one we make it up as we go along and the other, we write rules on tablets of stone.

An argument for leaving things well alone is the flexibility that the traditional make it up as we go along approach can offer. Parliament being sovereign, without question. Even when it’s foolish and unrepresentative. To counter this supremacy of the executive is the dangers of fragility and vulnerability that can be exploited by an errant leader, despot or tyrant.

An argument for change, one I favour, is that our medieval system holds the country back and its not as if we don’t recognise the importance of solemn written commitments. Every Act of Parliament is as such. In fact, Acts can be enabling. So, why can’t a written constitution be an enabling document. It doesn’t have to be overly constraining or practically unamendable.

The problem lies not with agreements in favour of a written constitution; it’s more a problem of how on earth can British society take up this challenge when its mind is on so many day-to-day trials and tribulations. It’s a modern dilemma.

We have a partially broken system that’s unsuited to the coming decades, but we don’t know how to fix it. To fix it, everyone needs to engage.

[1] https://www.magnacartatrust.org/home

[2] https://new-forest-national-park.com/the-rufus-stone/

Rise of AI: A Double-Edged Sword

Spotting AI generated articles is a hobby that is designed to be a minority pursuit. There will, no doubt, come a time when the writings of a human and that of a machine will become indistinguishable. I don’t think we are there – yet. Headlines like “Aircraft flies through heavy rain” are either a bored human scribbler or a machine with time on its hands.

The early promoters of the INTERNET imagined a great library of existing material becoming easily and freely accessible to anyone and everyone. It was to be an enlightened development that drove the digitisation of massive amounts of information. Although, even now, it’s not too difficult to pick an obscure book or magazine off a charity shop shelf and find that there’s no reference to it on-line. True, it’s getting harder to do.

That which hasn’t made it to the digital world, like boxes of 35mm slides I inherited from my father-in-law, will sit quietly gathering dust in the attic. I hardly think this is a great loss to humanity. Although, random holiday snaps of Cornish landscapes from the 1970s might one day become fashionable. More likely they will gather another decade’s dust.

Making the INTERNET the modern equivalent of the great library of Alexandria[1] is a worthy ambition. Civilisation could be defined in a way that embraces a preservation of knowledge. What we find is that the 21st century version of the digital world has strayed from these high-minded ideas of its early promoters.

My desktop, tablet, and phone can access a universal store of fact and fiction, truth and lies. What is troubling is that the line between these is becoming increasingly blurred. The demand for instant and every changing material is insatiable. In the past, technology was the limiting factor. Now, it’s not.

Here’s a compilation of likely headlines from our machine friends. I can’t be sure and it remains possible that a human may have authored some of these eye-catching wonders.

“Astronauts face dangers during spacewalks.” “Most fascinating deserts on Earth.” “The beach that many consider to be the best on the entire planet.” “Study claims aliens may be hiding on Earth.” “They found a triangular UFO in the woods – then it vanished without a sound.”

I note from 5-minutes watching headlines change that the craft of catching our attention is the one that is most valued. The term – click-bait – was made to describe what’s going on. Whatever words can be framed to entice a potential reader/viewer to go here and not there, that has value.

Again, what’s concerning is that it will be algorithms that will master the art of catching our attention. They do. They will surpass smart thinkers and artful writers. Mainly because they instantly have a whole well of past successes to draw upon.

For sanity’s sake, I need to stop this line of thinking. The further I look the more we become destined to a dystopia that was portrayed in a movie that hit the screens before the mobile phone became ubiquitous. A 20th century fiction that made everyone sit up and think, as well as being highly entertaining, was The Matrix. Now, it called a classic.

A generation on and AI produced material is filling our screens. It’s not yet dominant. There’s a small amount of kick-back too. Not time for a rebellion. Question is – will those born now be the rebels or the captives of this digital revolution. 

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Library-of-Alexandria

Travel Dilemma

A dilemma. Travel is a unique way of enhancing life’s experience. Travel inevitably has an environmental cost. It’s a predicament that’s impossible to avoid. I could look at this as a balance of pros and cons. That’s to seek a reason to balance the scales. It’s what I’m inclined to do. A highly rational way of viewing a dilemma.

This doesn’t work for everyone. Belief comes into the equation. For those who see the world on a knifes edge, tittering on the brink of environmental disaster, any argument about travel is shaped by trepidation. People can get quite puritanical about travel’s burdens.

Equally, there’s a group of people who fit in the “burn baby burn” camp. Those who will not give a tinker’s cuss about global environmental arguments. That’s a bit disingenuous. There’s always the belief that God’s plan is mysterious and these matters are not in our hands.

There’s a third category. I’ve met a few who fit this one. It’s to espouse great concern about green issues and then to act in a manner that’s inconsistent with that belief. Hypocrisy is nothing new. It’s a permanent part of the human condition.

Here, I’m only going down the rational rabbit hole. It’s to harbour genuine concern for the environment at the same time as understanding the power of travel to open minds and create world where we better understand each other.

To travel or not, that is the question. Whether it be nobler to stay at home or to suffer the hassle and crammed seats of a cheap flight, for the excitement of visiting an unfamiliar place. I’ll start by putting my conclusion up-front. It’s nobler to travel.

The pros and cons of staying at home or moving in familiar territory. Restricted circles.

On the upside then it’s possible to say with a clear conscious that you have done your bit to try and minimise the environmental impact of travel. You can stand at the bar in the local pub and lambast those who you think are ruining the planet.

On the downside, not everyone will appreciate how virtuous you claim to be. Probably citing some other environmental impact. Like your gas boiler, lack of recycling or guzzling SUV.

The pros and cons of trains, planes, and automobiles, exploring new territory. Global curiosity.

On the upside then it’s likely you will not be stuck for conversation. Certainly, you’ll be carrying home the knowledge of different cultures and how others live. In fact, the experience can lead to a better appreciation of how others tackle environmental challenges.

On the downside, a conscientious traveller must account for their CO2 emissions or, at least, have mind to compensate for them in some way. Time to plant trees.

I’ve framed this piece in terms of the substance of a personal decision. That’s not the biggest factor at play. The global growth in travel is the total of the behaviour of people from all levels of society, in a mass of different situations. One element is clear. As the economic circumstances of people improves so the propensity to wish to travel increases. I’ve not lined up a convincing graph to show this relationship. However, it’s hard to argue against it. As an example, the curve for global air travel keeps going up.

So, we live with a dilemma. Making travel more accessible at the same time as minimising the cumulative costs. A familiar dilemma. One that’s inherent in much that we do. A perpetual challenge.

Nostalgia vs. Innovation

My generation, and those a bit older than me, are inclined to shrug shoulders and, in a war wearied way, lament the passing of a great era. It’s not merely nostalgia. Although there’s a degree of selective memory in what we choose to remember as good.

This week, at the BBC Proms, I sat down in the bar at the interval and was joined by a friendly couple and another. We all had the grey hairs that qualified us as Prommers[1]. It soon became clear that the older gentlemen was a music buff who had been going to the BBC Proms since the 1960s. I’ve been going since 2018. Still an innocent bystander learning the Promming ways.  

The intensity of my companion’s conversation was fascinating. Firstly, it was to comment, unfavourably, on the contemporary music that’s a hallmark of recent concerts. I liked it. I’d say it was a winsome winding through a wood accompanied by crickets playing soft percussion. Not so much adventurous as intriguing music for the Albert Hall. The view from the sofa was that these new musical fillers were a waste of time. There was a time when entire concerts were avant-garde and challenging. About the 1970s/80s, or thereabouts.

Let’s reflect. I think what the BBC is now going through is what a whole British generation is going through. An existential crisis. Not so much stop the world I want to get off, as a howl of irritation. Another sign is the annoying advert where the BBC heralds itself as a national treasure. Using the Monty Python line – what have the Romans ever done for us?[2]

The winds of change can be cruel. That’s not new. However, we’ve had a couple of decades coming to the realisation that some traditional ways of doing things are not going to nicely evolve into a recognisable future state. Incremental change has its benefits. Trouble is that it puts off the day when something more substantial needs to be done.

On two specific British cultural assets – music and comedy, we can’t afford to hang onto repetitive formats and a dependency on the likes and dislikes of an aging population.

Ghastly mush like, Mrs. Brown’s Boys is a blight on our televisions. Although it was an important part of my youth, endless repeats of Top of the Pops belong in a museum. If the BBC takes the road that only mines the past or tickles one section of the country, its fate is sealed.

Take Monty Python as an example. When first proposed it looked foolish, hopeless and niche. What’s the betting that there are creative people out there now who are being told to go away. The plethora of MBAs in media decision making roles shudder at taking risks.

Yes, there is a future for the BBC. Thing is it needs an immense kick up the backside in the fashion of Bishop Brennan. https://youtu.be/7PyI9q9AX1A?t=1335

[1] https://www.royalalberthall.com/visit/bbc-proms-faqs

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes/?item=qt0471953