Ofcom overture...

---

Ofcom [Link] is the UK's communications regulator; this encompasses all TV, radio, video-on-demand, fixed-line telecoms, mobile phones, postal services and "the airwaves over which wireless devices operate". Not pigeons though, or flags or smoke.



As of TODAY, i.e. effective from 3 April 2017, Ofcom becomes the BBC's first external regulator. Ofcom is developing an 'Operating Framework' covering regulation of the "BBC's performance, compliance with content standards and impact on competition."



The images HERE are a few years old but show just why the BBC must be held to account. "The BBC has a monopoly and it's abusing it". Still today BBC accounts for over 40% of all of the UK's TV and radio; when only news is considered over 50% get their main news from a BBC news outlets (TV, radio and online), this makes their honesty of paramount importance and yet the BBC's Royal Charter [PDF copy] is broken many times a day, every day.



I really truly hope that Ofcom will do the job it is announcing it will do and not just pay lip service to it. The BBC is - and has been for decades - blatantly biased, uses underhand reporting and broadcasting techniques, lies, obscures, omits and ignores many things. The extent is so bad sometimes as to be comparable - or worse - to what some people throughout history have been executed for (the various individuals known as Lord Haw Haw for instance).



Many want to close the BBC completely, I think that is wrong and almost impossible BUT a complete overhaul of all news broadcast and political content - plus the attitude and activity of staff - needs addressing. To say the BBC is a hotbed of sinister rabble rousing lefty twats is an exaggeration...but not a wild one.

Ofcom overture...

---

Ofcom [Link] is the UK's communications regulator; this encompasses all TV, radio, video-on-demand, fixed-line telecoms, mobile phones, postal services and "the airwaves over which wireless devices operate". Not pigeons though, or flags or smoke.

As of TODAY, i.e. effective from 3 April 2017, Ofcom becomes the BBC's first external regulator. Ofcom is developing an 'Operating Framework' covering regulation of the "BBC's performance, compliance with content standards and impact on competition."

The images HERE are a few years old but show just why the BBC must be held to account. "The BBC has a monopoly and it's abusing it". Still today BBC accounts for over 40% of all of the UK's TV and radio; when only news is considered over 50% get their main news from a BBC news outlets (TV, radio and online), this makes their honesty of paramount importance and yet the BBC's Royal Charter [PDF copy] is broken many times a day, every day.

I really truly hope that Ofcom will do the job it is announcing it will do and not just pay lip service to it. The BBC is - and has been for decades - blatantly biased, uses underhand reporting and broadcasting techniques, lies, obscures, omits and ignores many things. The extent is so bad sometimes as to be comparable - or worse - to what some people throughout history have been executed for (the various individuals known as Lord Haw Haw for instance).

Many want to close the BBC completely, I think that is wrong and almost impossible BUT a complete overhaul of all news broadcast and political content - plus the attitude and activity of staff - needs addressing. To say the BBC is a hotbed of sinister rabble rousing lefty twats is an exaggeration...but not a wild one.

Obama's officious Oregon owners...

---

BigThink - Strange Maps [Link]

Probably not making it onto many people's radar in current news was the take-over by ranchers in Oregon of a state wildlife protected area (Malheur); even if your read about it I bet nary an eyebrow was raised or you just thought a bunch of US hicks were restless. For me, having historical family farming connections both here and in the US (in England going back centuries) and being involved with cattle in one respect or another most of my life, it is of great interest; especially because if I had the money I'd retire to my own ranch! What many don't realise about this issue (not the first) is that the government owns most of the land (see map, click to enlarge): an average of over '47% of the 11 coterminous western states' (including 84.5% of Nevada!) and over 69% of Alaska. Now you know why Texas (only 1.9% federal owned) wants independence.



"The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink" [Keith Nantz in the WaPo]. You can sympathise when you realise that the Obama government does what governments do, especially and more religiously when it comes to the pointless and prejudice weight of regulations, usually following the modern Gods of 'green' and man-made climate change. Keith adds,"Most of the time, those regulations are written by people with no agriculture experience, and little understanding of what it takes to produce our nation’s food. The agencies that control these lands can add burdensome regulations at any time. Often, they will begin aggressively enforcing them before ranchers have a chance to adjust." If you're interested in the full story go HERE (it's a long one: pictures, maps and videos included).

The capacity for problems arising with the government is immense when - as mentioned above - you look at who owns the land; read Frank Jacobs: "Imbalance of Federal Land Ownership Sheds Light on Oregon Militia".



Update: more interesting reading and maps; How The Feds Got All That Western Land (and Why It's a Problem) [Link] by Ryan McMaken at Mises Institute and Nobody lives Here: "...4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied."

Obama's officious Oregon owners...

---

BigThink - Strange Maps [Link]

Probably not making it onto many people's radar in current news was the take-over by ranchers in Oregon of a state wildlife protected area (Malheur); even if your read about it I bet nary an eyebrow was raised or you just thought a bunch of US hicks were restless. For me, having historical family farming connections both here and in the US (in England going back centuries) and being involved with cattle in one respect or another most of my life, it is of great interest; especially because if I had the money I'd retire to my own ranch! What many don't realise about this issue (not the first) is that the government owns most of the land (see map, click to enlarge): an average of over '47% of the 11 coterminous western states' (including 84.5% of Nevada!) and over 69% of Alaska. Now you know why Texas (only 1.9% federal owned) wants independence.

"The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink" [Keith Nantz in the WaPo]. You can sympathise when you realise that the Obama government does what governments do, especially and more religiously when it comes to the pointless and prejudice weight of regulations, usually following the modern Gods of 'green' and man-made climate change. Keith adds,"Most of the time, those regulations are written by people with no agriculture experience, and little understanding of what it takes to produce our nation’s food. The agencies that control these lands can add burdensome regulations at any time. Often, they will begin aggressively enforcing them before ranchers have a chance to adjust." If you're interested in the full story go HERE (it's a long one: pictures, maps and videos included). The capacity for problems arising with the government is immense when - as mentioned above - you look at who owns the land; read Frank Jacobs: "Imbalance of Federal Land Ownership Sheds Light on Oregon Militia".

Update: more interesting reading and maps; How The Feds Got All That Western Land (and Why It's a Problem) [Link] by Ryan McMaken at Mises Institute and Nobody lives Here: "...4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied."

Olive oil options...

---

One option soon not allowed in the EU is jugs and refillable bottles of olive oil...you know, the stuff on every single restaurant table throughout the continent: "From 1 January 2014, restaurants may only serve olive oil in tamper-proof packaging, labelled to EU standards" [BBC]. I can only think this is a ploy to help the economies of the the PIGS: although the "spectacular surge in demand for olive oil in developed and emerging markets" [OOT] should help too. Oliver (yes, honestly) Bailly the European Commission spokesman said the olive oil regulation would benefit consumers because they are only "making clear that when you want to have olive oil of a certain quality in a restaurant, you get exactly the one you are paying for", what about rip-off wine? What about the 'fresh' bread in an open basket? the meat? the fish? How often does one really get 'exactly the one you are paying for'? Anyway, just like to mention that earlier this year the EU codified marketing standards for olive oil and I am in favour because reading the regulation [PDF] I don't think it's as bad as everyone is making out (no change there then!) and as early readers of Owsblog will know, I like olives...but also I am always pissed off by the obvious dodgy olive oil (I mean restaurant owners saving a few bob, not the multi-billion pound scam) passed off as super-pure cold-pressed extra-virgin.

Olive oil options...

---

One option soon not allowed in the EU is jugs and refillable bottles of olive oil...you know, the stuff on every single restaurant table throughout the continent: "From 1 January 2014, restaurants may only serve olive oil in tamper-proof packaging, labelled to EU standards" [BBC]. I can only think this is a ploy to help the economies of the the PIGS: although the "spectacular surge in demand for olive oil in developed and emerging markets" [OOT] should help too. Oliver (yes, honestly) Bailly the European Commission spokesman said the olive oil regulation would benefit consumers because they are only "making clear that when you want to have olive oil of a certain quality in a restaurant, you get exactly the one you are paying for", what about rip-off wine? What about the 'fresh' bread in an open basket? the meat? the fish? How often does one really get 'exactly the one you are paying for'? Anyway, just like to mention that earlier this year the EU codified marketing standards for olive oil and I am in favour because reading the regulation [PDF] I don't think it's as bad as everyone is making out (no change there then!) and as early readers of Owsblog will know, I like olives...but also I am always pissed off by the obvious dodgy olive oil (I mean restaurant owners saving a few bob, not the multi-billion pound scam) passed off as super-pure cold-pressed extra-virgin.