J.K. Rowling has actually spent a large part of her fortune on charity work

Thanks, I didn't realise that's how it's done now.

I remember the time when BBC programmes only stayed online for 7 days. Now we have the opposite situation.

Likewise

Also, @BBC, please remove the @BBCSounds ad before every podcast. They just feel like a mockery to overseas listeners from now on.

Please google St. Joseph of Cupertino. He was the original air friar.

I really hate how the BBC hype the @BBCProms and then severely limit access to them for overseas listeners just 3 days in.

Also, the search function in the new BBC app seems awful.

I would love to pay for a subscription to @BBCSounds. It has brought me so much good content over the years.

As an overseas listener I would happily pay the UK license fee or a subscription if only they would let me.

Yes, but only live without the option to rewind and listen again to most shows. It feels like we have gone back to square one in the early days of the internet when we had to listen to and record our favourite shows live at inconvenient times

I really hate living at a time when access to quality content can be removed by some techbro in an instant

I will miss @BBCRadio3 so much. It is much better than my own national classical radio channel 😢

Back when I started listening as an English student, programmes only stayed on the BBC website for a week, and I planned my weeks around catching up with my favourite shows. Even a week was better than reducing access to streaming only.

It is such a clear violation of the commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain

I was there, and I didn't notice any problems with the sound. I think it is just the recording

I have done the same thing, and it is one of the best media decisions I have ever made.

I don't really understand your objections to how the GLAM sector works. Everyone can access archives and see the documents they need on request.

Also, institutions are required by law to keep certain records. Selling them would be irresponsible and illegal and not benefit the poor one bit.

Cool. But do you think the world is really improved by letting a few rich art collectors (who tend to buy artworks as investments and tax evasion) get all the benefit of art that would otherwise be on public display in churches, galleries, and public spaces?

I think people have a right to beauty.

And do you make the same demands of governments and other authorities who own artworks and fund the arts as well as having the responsibility to take care of the material needs of citizens, or why do you single out the Church in this case?

The Church does lots of amazing work already. It also makes sure that its works of art are available for people to enjoy. Why do you think it would be better for the world if these works were sold to rich people who would just keep them to themselves?

Signed