5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 23, 2020 10:22:21 GMT
There are plenty of contentious choices for handouts of this fund. Why choose to highlight this racially aggravated article by the facist Daily Mail? "Ah nice to see the repulsive diatribe still going strong on here." When words like facist (sic) are thrown around casually, they loose all meaning. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Oct 23, 2020 10:58:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 11:07:07 GMT
There are plenty of contentious choices for handouts of this fund. Why choose to highlight this racially aggravated article by the facist Daily Mail? "Ah nice to see the repulsive diatribe still going strong on here." When words like facist (sic) are thrown around casually, they loose all meaning. Just following suit. You telling me the Daily Mail reporting quoted, putting their 'unfair' spin on a black artist getting financial support, isn't part of their facist agenda? |
|
8,163 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alece10 on Oct 23, 2020 11:08:28 GMT
I was in a taxi this morning and the driver was listening to LBC radio and a discussion on the arts council grants being given currently for Covid. Now the radio was quiet so apologies if I have got some of the detail wrong. Anyway the broadcaster was talking about a cabaret act called Le Gateaux Chocolate, my ears pricked up as I had seen the act once and was, well, odd to say the least.
Anyway it appears the act has been given a grant of about £250,000 for one person and they were comparing it with smaller grants for bigger companies and ones that did not get any at all. They then spoke to someone from The Astor Theatre in Deal and apparantly they had only asked for £80,000 and not give anything at all.
Makes you wonder how they are dishing them out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 23, 2020 11:19:58 GMT
I was in a taxi this morning and the driver was listening to LBC radio and a discussion on the arts council grants being given currently for Covid. Now the radio was quiet so apologies if I have got some of the detail wrong. Anyway the broadcaster was talking about a cabaret act called Le Gateaux Chocolate, my ears pricked up as I had seen the act once and was, well, odd to say the least. Anyway it appears the act has been given a grant of about £250,000 for one person and they were comparing it with smaller grants for bigger companies and ones that did not get any at all. They then spoke to someone from The Astor Theatre in Deal and apparantly they had only asked for £80,000 and not give anything at all. Makes you wonder how they are dishing them out! Yes but apparently as it was reported also in the Daily Mail then the grant is fine ! I have so far highlighted two grants that seem odd. Up the thread I highlighted £770,000 or thereabouts to the Orange Tree. This is apparently approximately one full year of spending for them. For such a small theatre it seems completely out of proportion to grants made to roughly equivalent venues. The other one is this £250,000 grant to an individual freelance performer who has no building to maintain, has limited costs and has never come close to earning that amount in a year. In both cases you would hope the bulk of the money would be distributed to freelancers who would normally be employed by these two, but one somehow doubts it. |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 23, 2020 11:23:34 GMT
I assume he put together an application which included a substantial body of work to be put on soon.
Same with the orange tree.
Are the applications available online? I'm fine with transparency on it. However, certain emphasis in the articles seem to highlight him being black and LGBT, which is a red flag for me in terms of what LBC and Mails game is
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 23, 2020 11:29:51 GMT
I assume he put together an application which included a substantial body of work to be put on soon. Same with the orange tree. Are the applications available online? I'm fine with transparency on it. However, certain emphasis in the articles seem to highlight him being black and LGBT, which is a red flag for me in terms of what LBC and Mails game is I haven't seen any applications available online. They would be interesting, especially if they included the amount of money requested. The very few that I know about directly were either awarded the exact amount they asked for or nothing. One hopes that that wasn't repeated across the board. |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 23, 2020 11:44:49 GMT
I assume he put together an application which included a substantial body of work to be put on soon. Same with the orange tree. Are the applications available online? I'm fine with transparency on it. However, certain emphasis in the articles seem to highlight him being black and LGBT, which is a red flag for me in terms of what LBC and Mails game is I haven't seen any applications available online. They would be interesting, especially if they included the amount of money requested. The very few that I know about directly were either awarded the exact amount they asked for or nothing. One hopes that that wasn't repeated across the board. A music venue called the lexington only got 40% of what they requested so some places havent had all of what they requested |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Oct 23, 2020 12:09:20 GMT
"Ah nice to see the repulsive diatribe still going strong on here." When words like facist (sic) are thrown around casually, they loose all meaning. Just following suit. You telling me the Daily Mail reporting quoted, putting their 'unfair' spin on a black artist getting financial support, isn't part of their facist agenda? If it was a one man show about WW2 by a guy dressed head to foot in poppies the Daily Mail would be complaining he hadn’t been awarded enough. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Oct 23, 2020 12:11:36 GMT
I was in a taxi this morning and the driver was listening to LBC radio and a discussion on the arts council grants being given currently for Covid. Now the radio was quiet so apologies if I have got some of the detail wrong. Anyway the broadcaster was talking about a cabaret act called Le Gateaux Chocolate, my ears pricked up as I had seen the act once and was, well, odd to say the least. Anyway it appears the act has been given a grant of about £250,000 for one person and they were comparing it with smaller grants for bigger companies and ones that did not get any at all. They then spoke to someone from The Astor Theatre in Deal and apparantly they had only asked for £80,000 and not give anything at all. Makes you wonder how they are dishing them out! Yes but apparently as it was reported also in the Daily Mail then the grant is fine ! I have so far highlighted two grants that seem odd. Up the thread I highlighted £770,000 or thereabouts to the Orange Tree. This is apparently approximately one full year of spending for them. For such a small theatre it seems completely out of proportion to grants made to roughly equivalent venues. The other one is this £250,000 grant to an individual freelance performer who has no building to maintain, has limited costs and has never come close to earning that amount in a year. In both cases you would hope the bulk of the money would be distributed to freelancers who would normally be employed by these two, but one somehow doubts it. It was a detailed and comprehensive application process. There are so many factors to take into account when looking at the grant amounts awarded that it really isn’t fair or possible to make assumptions without that information. |
|
8,163 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alece10 on Oct 23, 2020 14:10:29 GMT
I was in a taxi this morning and the driver was listening to LBC radio and a discussion on the arts council grants being given currently for Covid. Now the radio was quiet so apologies if I have got some of the detail wrong. Anyway the broadcaster was talking about a cabaret act called Le Gateaux Chocolate, my ears pricked up as I had seen the act once and was, well, odd to say the least. Anyway it appears the act has been given a grant of about £250,000 for one person and they were comparing it with smaller grants for bigger companies and ones that did not get any at all. They then spoke to someone from The Astor Theatre in Deal and apparantly they had only asked for £80,000 and not give anything at all. Makes you wonder how they are dishing them out! Yes but apparently as it was reported also in the Daily Mail then the grant is fine ! I have so far highlighted two grants that seem odd. Up the thread I highlighted £770,000 or thereabouts to the Orange Tree. This is apparently approximately one full year of spending for them. For such a small theatre it seems completely out of proportion to grants made to roughly equivalent venues. The other one is this £250,000 grant to an individual freelance performer who has no building to maintain, has limited costs and has never come close to earning that amount in a year. In both cases you would hope the bulk of the money would be distributed to freelancers who would normally be employed by these two, but one somehow doubts it. Sorry. Didn't realise you had already covered this earlier in the thread. I need to scroll up a bit more in future.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 20:09:32 GMT
An article about people left without support is fine.
An article singling out someone who, it is claimed, does not deserve funding is not, where there is no consideration of the application that was made and the circumstances surrounding it.
Growing up in the working class you got used to this schtick. Turn people against each other and then sit back and say ‘look at them arguing among themselves’. Divide and rule. It stinks.
|
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Oct 23, 2020 20:27:08 GMT
Sad to see that Pizza Express Live (four live music venues in London and a couple of others around the country), which had just opened up for socially-distanced shows with lots of West End peeps in the listings, have pulled the plug and cancelled all shows until Spring 2021:
"Despite a successful trial re-opening at PizzaExpress Live in Holborn during October and working hard to implement extensive safety measures, we believe these precautions could become increasingly intrusive in our small, intimate Live venues - particularly if national restrictions increase as COVID cases rise nationally."
|
|
5,160 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 24, 2020 9:06:14 GMT
The next round of recovery grants has now been announced. These are the big ones up to £3 million!
Sheffield Theatres, which includes the world-famous Crucible, has been awarded £2.2 million, Birmingham Rep receives £1.4 million, Manchester's Royal Exchange £2.9 million and Newcastle Theatre Royal £3 million.
Grants have also been awarded to the Old Vic, Shakespeare's Globe, ENB, Rambert and Sadler's Wells.
|
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Oct 24, 2020 11:44:27 GMT
The next round of recovery grants has now been announced. These are the big ones up to £3 million! Sheffield Theatres, which includes the world-famous Crucible, has been awarded £2.2 million, Birmingham Rep receives £1.4 million, Manchester's Royal Exchange £2.9 million and Newcastle Theatre Royal £3 million. Grants have also been awarded to the Old Vic, Shakespeare's Globe, ENB, Rambert and Sadler's Wells. Mayflower Theatres, Brum Hipp and Norwich Theatre also get £3 million. And Bill Kenwright Ltd £1.5 million! Smaller, but still substantial grants to Northampton Theatres (Royal & Derngate), Theatre Royal Plymouth, Wolverhampton Grand, Leeds Playhouse, Leeds Grand & Opera House, and Bolton's Octagon (at £670k, the only grant below £1m in this round). |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Oct 24, 2020 14:04:35 GMT
Birmingham Town Hall and Symphony Hall awarded £2.53m . It is good to see so many venues getting some support. Lets hope its enough to see them over this period.
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Oct 25, 2020 7:55:31 GMT
But this then meant we were at times within one metre of the other group, all of us without masks, The bowling alley is in a tier 2 location, and we'd travelled from tier 1, which was a bit concerning. They also didn't have any screens or anything like that in the restaurant, although it was reasonably quiet. I don't really know why I'm so bothered about this, but it annoys me that we're not allowed to sit in a theatre with masks, yet we're allowed to bowl in close quarters. I understand it's very hard for small businesses to get by on reduced numbers, and they wouldn't want to turn people away when they had lanes empty, but it's what cinemas and other places have to do. And after everything that's been drummed into us over the past seven months, it just felt like it suddenly didn't really matter any more. You should be concerned about close contact without mask. Do you know how well the ventilation system works? We know now that in most cases aerosols are responsibele for transmission. Wearing masks can reduce them and you need a good ventilation system with fresh air exchange (and with suitable filters), distancing helps too. In a good ventilated theatre, with people wearing masks and with a bit of a distance there is safety. But I don't think most of the old theatres have them. Also running them full capacity would not be safe. I realise it won't be practical for many venues, for technical if not financial reasons, but I would love it if some theatres could use this time to improve their ventilation with a view to it being not roasting during non-pandemic times. Legroom would be very welcome too, thanks. |
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 25, 2020 8:27:19 GMT
Hear Hear!
(They won’t though)
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 25, 2020 10:01:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2020 10:04:44 GMT
Baroness Dido Harding, currently at the helm, should be "given a well-earned break" so she and others could "reflect on the lessons learned so far", [Sir Bernard Jenkin] wrote
A well-earned break. Ouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 9:47:22 GMT
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Oct 30, 2020 10:33:03 GMT
Academic research confirms the blindingly obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 10:37:49 GMT
Academic research confirms the blindingly obvious. To some it's obvious, others I've spoken to are outright convinced that EOtHO played absolutely no part in the resurgence of infections (perhaps because they were out most days and refuse to believe they were part of the problem). I also found it interesting that the economic benefits were "short lived". |
|
2,762 posts
|
Post by n1david on Oct 30, 2020 10:59:06 GMT
I also found it interesting that the economic benefits were "short lived". Part of the point was to convince people that it was safe to be out in restaurants. With increasing local lockdowns, the curfew and reported increase infection rates, that confidence will have been short-lived for many people. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 11:00:47 GMT
It's important to remember that "significant" in this context is "statistically significant", meaning probably not attributable to chance variation, rather than "this is why we have a problem today". As the paper itself says, although the infection rate rose a little during the scheme — between 8% and 17% — which is entirely expected if people are mixing more, it dropped back afterwards. It wasn't until September that there was a prolonged rise in the number of infections and it took until the start of October for the rise to become alarming. So yes, Eat Out to Help Out had an effect on the infection rate, but so did many other things in July and August and none of them are the reason we're in the situation we're in right now.
|
|
