Hogmanay and Cheese Rolling Could Become Protected as UK Heritage
Hogmanay, cheese rolling and London's Notting Hill Carnival could be among the cultural events and traditions to be officially recognised and protected in a new heritage list.
The Government will soon be seeking submissions from members of the public to nominate their favourite traditions that best reflect the nation, to be recorded in the new Inventory Of Living Heritage in the UK.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Cynthia Erivo and The Vivienne among ‘LGBT+ changemakers' in 2025 Pride List
Wicked actress Cynthia Erivo and drag queen The Vivienne are among the stars who feature on a list 'celebrating the most influential LGBT+ changemakers of the past year'. The Independent's Pride List for 2025 also includes retired Olympic diver Tom Daley, actor Bella Ramsey, artist David Hockney, comedian Joe Lycett and author Juno Dawson. Erivo, 38, who won a Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (Glaad) Award earlier in the year, was placed at number four on the top 10 list while The Vivienne, the drag alter-ego of the late James Lee Williams, is seventh. The Vivienne, who won the first series of RuPaul's Drag Race UK and spoke publicly about prejudices faced by LGBT+ people and by the drag community, died in January at the age of 32 and is a posthumous inclusion on the list. Topping the 2025 Pride List is Victoria McCloud, a lawyer, former judge and transgender woman who announced she would take the Government to the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman. Dr McCloud said: 'I'm delighted and honoured that The Independent has included me in its Pride List this year. 'In 2025, more than ever before, amidst increasing oppression and segregation at home, with court and state against us, people from the trans community yearn to be bathed in rainbow light. 'These are uniquely dark times but we will challenge those who wish to marginalise us, be they Government or activists with money and the odd mega-yacht to spare. 'We have been here for centuries; we will be here for centuries to come. The quiet majority walk with us.' In April the UK's highest court unanimously ruled that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Chloe Hubbard, UK editor of The Independent, said: 'We are proud to champion our most influential LGBT+ changemakers once again on our annual Pride List in a year where the community has been further marginalised on both sides of the Atlantic. 'Visibility and pride within the queer community feels more vital than ever and we are dedicated to continuing to occupy our unique place in the media on LGBT+ issues.' In 2023, The Independent relaunched its Rainbow List as the Pride List, to recognise 50 extraordinary 'LGBT+ changemakers'. The 2024 list included Doctor Who and Sex Education star Ncuti Gatwa, commentator and former England footballer Alex Scott, Wicked and Bridgerton actor Jonathan Bailey and screenwriter Russell T Davies. To mark the publication of its Pride List, The Independent will host an event at Queer Britain on June 11. This year's top 10: 1. Victoria McCloud, former judge of the King's Bench2. Juno Dawson, author3. Bella Ramsey, actor4. Cynthia Erivo, actor and singer5. Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care6. David Hockney, artist7. The Vivienne, drag artist, singer and television personality8. Joe Lycett, comedian, television presenter and artist9. Tom Daley, Olympic gold medallist and television personality10. Yasmin Benoit, model and activist
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the house widespread theft. 'We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data after the death of a child. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
Forbes
06-06-2025
- Forbes
How Foreign Governments Control Entertainment Content
Censored! Many foreign countries have laws that purport to endorse free speech principles, but the governments in power often find a myriad of ways to suppress entertainment content they don't like. Here is a summary of the subtle (and not so subtle) techniques they use: Licensing. One technique to influence content is through the grant or revocation of government licenses, such as national broadcast or internet licenses or even local city licenses to operate a theater. These licenses often hinge on a number of subjective factors that have nothing to do with the content, but it is rather easy for the government to expressly or implicitly threaten to grant or, more importantly, revoke a license if the government doesn't like the content being shown. Withholding Funding. One simple way a foreign government can exert control over content is to withhold any funding to any company that isn't following the government's script, since many companies receive government subsidies in one form or the other, and media companies in particular may receive significant revenue from government advertising. Withholding Access. Companies that show content that is not approved by the foreign government might be denied access to information or interviews that are provided to their competitors, giving companies that behave a competitive advantage. Economic Pressure. Many foreign media companies are owned by oligarchs that have their fingers in various pies, and the government can easily make life difficult or helpful for the oligarchs through (a) the control of government contracts and grants or (b) implementing tax and other laws that favor 'good' companies and punish 'bad' ones. These oligarchs usually cozy up to the government for profit, and the content they permit always reflects it. Censorship. Foreign governments often rely on stretched interpretation of laws regulating content, censoring content the government deems defamatory, fraudulent, biased, or supporting terrorist activities. Government Controlled Content. Foreign governments often own national public broadcast or news networks, which they can flood with pro-government propaganda. Tax. There is always the time-honored technique of tax audits of misbehaving companies or individuals, including criminal prosecution if needed. Smear Campaigns. Foreign governments often engage in smear campaigns against anyone that does not toe the line, subjecting them to public excoriation and private surveillance. Chilling Effect. Foreign governments often rely on the chilling effect accomplished by coming down hard on a few companies using any of the tactics mentioned above and making sure the others get the message. It doesn't take long before everyone else is looking over their shoulder wondering 'who's next?' or 'what other nasty thing could this government think of doing?' The net result is that governments in foreign countries that espouse free speech principles can, if they want, achieve almost the same control over content that is achieved in unapologetically totalitarian systems.
