In the news

That's fighting talk where Buzz Aldrin comes from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a705hL-Rdz0

When the BBC started doing lighter-hearted stuff back in the 90s, it was in the context of a broader argument about how the news was too serious and depressing and that this was switching off younger viewers. Basically, they decided they would try to get younger people to watch/read the important stuff by tempting them in or at least leavening it with a bit of lighter fluff.

Okay, it may not be to everyone's taste, but this constant 'omg my tax dollars are being spent on sleb gossip' is a bit preachy and holier-than-thou. It's there for a reason, and that reason is the hope that the people who want to read sleb gossip might actually read some of those more important articles while they're on the site.

If people want to read it though then who is the arbiter of what is news and what isn't?

Ian Hislop and Paul Merton obviously.

That may well have been the initial intention but do you think it has actually worked?

A couple of clicks a day to the BBC should be enough to see large scale AB testing of click bait titles (even for more hard hitting articles) and the population of the front page with largely meaningless "stories" or entertainment with an ever decreasing amount of serious news or editorial.

Working in 'meeja' myself, i fully understand the need to provide content that an audience actually wants to maintain a profitable business but I believe that the BBC should try to maintain a higher editorial standard given it's a publicly funded organisation.

I don't think that's holier-than-thou or preachy. I'm certainly not advocating a world wide ban on fluff pieces; just asking that this particular organisation rise above them.

Imagine trying to overtake this on a bike.

airport shuttle?

In that case all those looking for celebrity gossip will head to the Mail Online, click on other stories, become indoctrinated in some strange "the immigrants are to blame" mindset and then where would we be ...

Nope. Will be on the streets of Rio De Janeiro soon. All ninety-eight feet of it.

at least the daily mail has the good grace to visually separate it's celebrity guff from it's undiluted racist bullshit. the big british castle currently has a story about institutionalised child abuse alongside one about an old bloke who got a job because he was a bit fed up with having shit all to do all day. not a strong look.

Or worse, it overtakes you.

Aren't those in use on the dedicated bus lanes to/from Ataturk Airport in Istanbul going across the 1st Bosphorus Bridge?

Maybe. But this is a specific model for a route through Rio.
They should get some of those Chinese elevated trams of death as well just for lols.

A year to forget for Zac

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38178486

Sorry, but knobheads..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-38184599

re that

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-very-precise-calculation-of-exactly-how-many-cows-are-being-murdered-for-the-new-fivers

"...And if you get about 40kg of tallow-worthy fat from the average cow, how many cows would you need to make every single £5 note in circulation?

JUST OVER HALF OF ONE COW"

I assume they're also checking all customers for leather shoes / belts and ensuring all pets entering the cafe are fed entirely on carrots...

I don't think people are generally vegan based on a quantitative analysis of the amount of animal murder that goes into each product made with animal products.

yes, but presumably your revulsion of said products must be in some way related to said quantity of animal murder

your revulsion of said products

I'm not the one rejecting fivers.

must be in some way related to said quantity of animal murder

While it can be related to the quantity, it certain does not need to be - and many people would argue it must not be.

Interesting thought in some ways though - we want (I submit) our murder to be proportional.

For e.g. the current rate of half a cow per total volume of fivers sounds ok, one cow per fiver sounds too much.

It's the same exercise that the Morlocks must have created an algorithm for - acceptable murder rate.

With air pollution it would seem to be 25,000 people/year (no idea how many cows).

Considering that meat eaters are handling bank notes everyday surely there must be animal fat transference, by touch, to every note in circulation?

They could refuse to accept paper fivers if they wished. It's their business. This actually makes sense

2016 will probably be remembered as the year it all started really going to shit.

In Europe, mainstream politics seams to be taking a (very regrettable) swing to the far right - and there are worrying signs that the banking systems of Germany and Italy could well be in deep shit.

In the UK, many of our political leaders and the media are openly suggesting we simply ignore the result of a public, democratic referendum, just 'cos they don't fancy how it turned out.

The Middle East is in turmoil, and there are literally millions of homeless and dispossessed trying to find sanctuary somewhere in the world.

The United States - the most dominant military power on earth have elected a retard as President.

Meanwhile, in Cambridge, some over-privileged sanctimonious melts are up in arms because there are trace elements of tallow in the new fiver.

Get a fucking grip.

yes, and following the logic they could refuse to accept all forms of currency given that the people producing them eat animal products.

It makes no sense, but it is their business, so they can do whatever they want, and good luck to them.