(Apologies, Stephen, I shouldn't be filling your Replies with my rant, it's just starting to get to me.)

We're dealing with agents of foreign influence here.

Will Nandy be up to the job?

Of course not.

Anyone (Farage, Michael Prescott, the Mail and Telegraph) calling for the British Broadcasting Corporation to put toadying to any foreign power - the US, Israel, China, I don't care who - ahead of accurately informing the British people that Trump tried to overthrow an election, should be called out

This whole thing is an opportunity to restore balance at the Beeb (my preference would be for someone with a background outside of news, which is only a fraction of BBC output - Attenborough once ran BBC2 FFS) and, as Ed Davey says, get rid of Gibb.

Same.

Gonna have a drink on that.

Hope I don't regret it when the replacements are announced....

Side issue here, perhaps, but you’re so right to note that *some* people *at the time* were critical of e.g. slavery, the exploitation of India by the East India Co, Boer War Concentration Camps etc etc.

Always important to note that when the “different times” defence is wheeled out.

National history is just *relevant*, it's not a morality tale.

People didn't live their lives for our benefit.

God, yes, so much this.

On the contrary: I think claiming pride in, say, The Battle of Britain is a form of stolen valour and equally holding someone responsible for the crimes of someone you are genetically descended from verges on racism.

Can anyone remind me if there were any prominent British politicians on Russia Today when it was pumping hate and disinformation into people's homes?

And, I know this is wild, but could there have been a hostile foreign government behind Russia Today? If so, which one?

And it needs to be a fucking sight tougher than the current regulation of UK broadcast media, which is already failing on both BBC impartiality and on GB News acting as a party mouthpiece for RefUK.

It wouldn't be OK if it was controlled by faceless business people and used to promote commercial interests.

If the Internet is supposed to be the public forum, it must be controlled for and in the interests of the public.

Regulation is the minimum requirement here.

I blame the lack of Dripping.

Bread fried in dripping is a different beast altogether.

I think the latter approach is still a problem on your analysis, since firstly, some seek an American alliance in preference to Europe, while even those of us who prefer Europe aren't really prepared for the the continuing conflicts of interest, or understand how to resolve them.

It seems to me that you are saying that the Continental response to centuries of war is to assume continuing clashes of interest which must be resolved by rules.

But I think the British response is to either dismiss it as irrelevant due to The Channel or to seek allies.

I'm a Brit who became Pro-EU precisely *because* I saw it as a peace project; in O level history we did 1914-45 ending with The Common Market as part of a look at transnational organisations, the moral seemed obvious to me.

But I don't think I've appreciated the Aquis point enough.

Don’t you think some might have been people being *more* tactical?

Election called: Q: "who are you going to vote for?” A: “Not the bloody Tories for sure, so Labour I s’pose"
One month of campaigning later: “OK, so Labour have never won this place in my life, what are my options?"

It’s also relying heavily on the assumption that in a given constituency the voters will be aware that their choice will be between Labour and Reform and not between A N Other and Reform. (Scottish and Welsh Labour will be especially vulnerable.)

As a Lib Dem I’d say that “open” is *exactly* why I am a Lib Dem.

It’s also why I get on very well with a load of people in Labour but I’m afraid very much don’t with another load of people in Labour (which, in my experience, doesn’t translate to left/right centre within Labour.)