logo
We can't survive as farmers under Labour — so we're moving to France

We can't survive as farmers under Labour — so we're moving to France

Times28-05-2025

I was born and bred in Hertfordshire, and I've been farming most of my life here [ says Jo Franklin, 42 ]. My parents farmed, my father's parents farmed and their parents did too. My husband, Rob, and I set up our business 13 years ago from scratch. We're passionate about what we do and very good at it. But since the new government came in, we've realised our business isn't viable any more. So we've decided to sell our farm in England, move our family to France and start again as farmers there. We feel we have no choice.
Right now, we have a five-bedroom farmhouse in one acre near the town of Ware, in Hertfordshire. We have a 64-acre smallholding where we run a sheep dairy business, with 300 milking ewes. For our main business, we are tenant farmers across another 1,800 acres, where we have another 2,000 commercial sheep for meat, and we also do arable farming. We have 27 landlords. Our goal by this age was to stop being tenant farmers and buy our own land.
But when this government came in, we sensed the future was not going to be good. Things were already difficult. Since the Second World War, food production has been subsidised by the government. And they've continued to do it, to keep food cheap and voters happy. The supermarkets have so much power, while farmers have none — and it's a race to the bottom in terms of quality.
Labour is expensive here, and in England it's traditionally expected that farmers will house workers. The red tape is also huge in this country. I probably spend a month a year dealing with audits and inspections. We have some of the highest overhead costs in the world here, and our government is making it harder by putting national insurance up. That's really hurt small businesses. On top of that, they've brought in a fertiliser tax, without consulting farmers. At the same time, they've pulled the plug on major subsidies.
We knew that the government's Basic Payment Scheme, which gave you money to manage your land responsibly, was being wound down over seven years. But the first thing this government did when they got in was say, we're going to end that this year. So that cost us about £60,000 in annual income.
The final straw was the scrapping of the Sustainable Farming Incentive subsidy scheme. We got about £200,000 over three years for that. In March, the government closed it suddenly.
The Franklin family's five-bedroom farmhouse in Ware, Hertfordshire, is on the market for £1.25 million
AARON BARTLETT
AARON BARTLETT
Luckily we'd got our papers signed off in December last year. But in two years, when our subsidy expires, our business will fall off a cliff. We have a profitable business that employs seven people. But once the subsidy is gone, we would be a lifestyle business, a smallholder. We wouldn't be able to afford the staff, and we would literally be working to pay the rent — hand to mouth.
All our money from government subsidies previously came to about £250,000 a year. And the profit of our business is about £250,000 a year. So you take those subsidies away, and you've got no business.

In the past, France was not attractive to us, because the inheritance tax was high there. But now inheritance tax here will be about the same as it is over there. The difference is, we will be able to run a profitable enough business in France to put cash aside for the children to be able to pay inheritance tax.
'Consumers in France care about what they eat'
What appeals about France is, the land is cheaper and the country is invested in food. Consumers care about what they eat. Many consumers here don't seem to care what they eat. The more processed, the better. The supermarket aisles are filled with processed food. In France, the supermarket chains are not as big and powerful. People still go to markets, take the time to eat and consider what they're eating. They eat less but the food is better quality. And agriculture is a far bigger slice of France's gross domestic product, so it's of more interest to the government.
An aerial view of the farm in Ware
In France, farmers make profits. They don't have a lot of the red tape that we do with assurance schemes and inspections. Labour is expensive, but you don't have to house the workers, and housing is cheaper if you do. Lower property prices are a big advantage.
We spend £300,000 a year renting land in the UK. In France, our income will be about the same. But rather than spend £300,000 a year renting land, we'll be spending £90,000 a year on a mortgage.

We're selling our five-bedroom farmhouse in Hertfordshire for £1.25 million with the estate agency Cheffins. It's got an acre, with a zip line, climbing wall, vineyard and home office block. So it's ripe and ready for a family. And in a separate lot we're selling the 64-acre smallholding for £1.35 million. It's got electricity, water, fencing, an outbuilding and planning permission for a house, so it could be good for somebody who's always wanted a smallholding, or for someone who wants to build their own Grand Design.
With the proceeds from the sale of our house and smallholding in England, we're buying two adjoining farms in Confolens, near Limoges. One of the French farms has a four-bedroom house, multiple outbuildings and 247 acres. The farm next door has another 550 acres, two houses and comes with a solar business from panels on the roof of the cattle sheds. We also plan to buy 200 cattle and 2,000 sheep.
We're doing it through an agent, who will sort out all the red tape around Brexit. We will get an entrepreneur visa, and eventually be able to apply for residency.
I'm anxious about the move. Some days I'm really excited. The whole family is learning French on Duolingo. When we have a bad day, we can't wait to leave. Then if it's a lovely sunny peaceful day, I feel sad to be going. But we're taking what we love with us — the kids and the business — and hopefully leaving a lump of costs and red tape behind.
The Franklins are planning to move to Confolens, a small town near Limoges
GETTY IMAGES
'I can produce lamb to compete with the best in the world'
It makes me really cross that our family can't thrive in our own country. Farmers are told to diversify. Because we're tenants, we can't do caravan storage or whatever else. But why should farmers be expected to do Airbnb? Hospitality is not my skill set. But I can produce lamb and wheat to compete with the best in the world. With the extra red tape and costs, however, we can't do that anymore in Britain.
I plan our cashflow five years ahead. The new government keeps putting in all these changes and I'm thinking, where can we find that extra amount? We had to let two people go before Christmas and take on the extra work ourselves. We don't want to be working every hour that God sends, just for the privilege of renting.
Over the past 20 years, every time a new government comes in, they tell farmers to do something else. It's just been change, change, change, change. And you can't run a business without some sort of certainty. In France we know we can run a profitable business with or without any subsidy.
Perhaps we have rose-tinted glasses. But we've done our due diligence. We've spoken to English farmers who have moved over there and they say farming in France is like stepping back in time, when people still cared and took pride in what they did. If we can find customers that value food, I know we'll be all right.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

£43,000-a-year boarding school is forced to make 'heart-wrenching' decision to close after 125 years following Labour's tax raid on private education
£43,000-a-year boarding school is forced to make 'heart-wrenching' decision to close after 125 years following Labour's tax raid on private education

Daily Mail​

time32 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

£43,000-a-year boarding school is forced to make 'heart-wrenching' decision to close after 125 years following Labour's tax raid on private education

A £43,000-a-year boarding school has been forced to make the 'heart-wrenching' it will close after 125 years following Labour's tax raid on private education. Labour 's decision to levy VAT on private school fees has dealt a heavy blow to the sector, which some institutions have been unable to deal with. Queen Margaret's School For Girls in York has become the latest to announce its closure saying they are 'unable to withstand mounting financial pressure' following the introduction of VAT on fees. The controversial tax, pledged in Labour's manifesto, came into force in January this year. The school also blamed 'increased national insurance and pension contributions, the removal of charitable-status business rates relief, and rising costs for the upkeep and operation of our estate'. The 114-year-old institution said that 'tireless efforts' in the past 18 months to 'respond to these challenges' included a possible merger or sale and the search for 'fresh investment'. However, the school said 'none of these routes resulted in a successful outcome' and coupled with declining entries, it has 'been left with no alternative' but to close. After 'strong student enquiry levels' in Autumn, the school said 'these declined sharply in early 2025 following the implementation of VAT' and is 'below the viable level required' to keep the school open. The school added it is 'unable to meet the costs of closure' and has therefore filed a Notice to Appoint an Administrator. The independent boarding and day school for girls aged 11 to 18 will shut for good at the end of their summer term on July 5. A statement from Queen Margaret's School said: 'This is a heart-wrenching decision that no governing body wants to take, and we fully recognise that the closure of Queen Margaret's will be deeply distressing for the whole QM community. 'Our priority is the wellbeing of our pupils, their families and all of our incredible teaching staff, and we are committed to ensuring as smooth a transition as possible for everyone. 'We will work closely with every family to achieve the best possible solution for every pupil and will provide ongoing support to all members of staff.' It comes as today private school families were dealt a devastating blow after they lost a High Court challenge to Labour's VAT on fees. The judicial review claim, heard earlier this year, aimed to have the 20 per cent tax declared 'incompatible' with human rights law. However, in a decision handed down this morning, judges rejected all claims, despite agreeing with some of the arguments. Earlier this year, Maidwell Hall In Northamptonshire revealed plans to close after it had been 'adversely affected by external factors. The 114-year-old institution said it had been operating at a loss for several years but 'received further blows last November, when the announcement of VAT on school fees and the elimination of business rates relief was confirmed in the Budget'. As well as the VAT hike, private schools in England with charitable status will also be stripped of their 80 per cent business rates relief from April. Loughborough Amherst school - which began in 1850 - is another recent victim of the economic headwinds facing the sector, alongside other institutions in Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire and Scotland. Three groups of families – most of whom are anonymous – joined private schools in bringing a legal challenge against the policy. Their lawyers argued the tax is a breach of children's right to an education under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The various families also said it was 'discriminatory' – either because their child has special educational needs (SEN), has a preference for a religious education, or because they need an all-girls environment. In their judgement this morning, Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain agreed that the tax interfered with SEN children's human rights. However, Parliament ultimately had the right make the decision, they concluded. They said Parliament had a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. They added that 'the challenged legislation falls within that broad margin'. They also pointed out, more generally, that the EHCR does not 'impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' At the opening of the court case in April, families of children with SEN from all over the country protested outside. They said they have been forced to choose the private sector due to the state provision for SEN being so poor – but cannot afford the extra cost of the VAT. During the case, lawyers argued that even a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) had said SEN provision in the state sector was 'not delivering for children' and 'unsustainable'. And they pointed out Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson appeared to agree, saying in October that the report highlighted a 'broken' system. Government lawyers sparked outrage by trying to claim the NAO evidence was 'inadmissible'. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was criticised at the time for backing the Government's position. In today's judgement, judges agreed the evidence amounted to 'proceedings in Parliament' and therefore inadmissible. However, the judges said it 'does not affect the outcome' of the case because most of the key facts in that report were now 'agreed' by both parties. During one of the hearings, it was also revealed Labour had considered making an exemption for SEN children, but then decided it would not raise enough revenue. In written submissions, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Government, said: 'Having considered 17,502 consultation responses, the Government rejected the exemptions… because they were incompatible with the principles underpinning the policy, namely being revenue diminishing, unfair, unworkable and/or administratively onerous.' He said the 'central objectives' in implementing the tax included 'raising additional tax revenue annually by 2029-2030 to invest in public services, including the state education system, and enhancing the fairness of the tax system overall.' And he added that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projected the measure will yield exchequer revenue of £1.5billion in 2025/26, rising to £1.7 billion per year by 2029/30. There is already an exemption in place for SEN children who have an education, health and care plan (EHCP), which entitles them to a higher level of state-backed support. However, only a small proportion are able to get an EHCP, leaving the vast majority of SEN families having to pay the tax. In their decision today, the judges said they accepted that a 'significant number of the pupils with SEN but no EHCP who are displaced from private schools into the state sector will receive materially worse provision for their SEN than they do now.' They added: 'In some cases, that provision is likely to be inadequate, at least in the immediate future'. Among the other claimants are Jewish pupils at specialist religious private schools who fear anti-Semitic attacks if they go into the state sector. There is also a girl who had to attend a single-sex private school – the only all-girls school in her area – due to 'harassment' by boys at her co-educational state school. And there are also claimants using Christian private schools because they cannot obtain the same religious education in the state system. One is Stephen White, who has chosen not to be anonymous, and whose eldest four children are at Bradford Christian School, a private Christian school in West Yorkshire. In April, he helped stage a protest outside the High Court to mark the opening of the case, joined by dozens of other parents from around the country not involved in the case. This morning, the Christian Legal Centre, which supported his case, vowed to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents most private schools, said it would decide whether to appeal in considering its 'next steps'. ISC chief executive Julie Robinson said: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. 'We will continue to work to ensure the Government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' David Walker, director, Boarding Schools' Association (BSA), said: 'There are no winners here. 'It is unlikely VAT will raise the expected funds, given the drop in pupil numbers is already far higher than predicted, with boarding schools seeing a 4 per cent drop in pupil numbers over the last year. 'This means children and communities are suffering due to disrupted education or school closures. 'It is a particularly sad day for students with needs that cannot be met in the mainstream system. 'We urge the government to stop its assault on independent education, before more children are caught in the crosshairs.' It comes after the Prime Minister was criticised yesterday for appearing to suggest the money raised from the tax would now be spent on housing, not teachers (pictured: Sir Keir Starmer's post on X) A spokesman for parent group Education Not Taxation said: 'While we are disappointed in the overall outcome of the challenge, we are grateful that the Court recognised that imposing VAT on school fees will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on pupils with SEN but no EHCP, and therefore that the Government's measure discriminates against them. 'As the Court found, the Government's education tax violates the human rights of these vulnerable children. 'Labour have consistently demanded respect for the European Convention of Human Rights and we expect them to think hard about what these senior judges have said – does their concern for human rights not extend to these rights for children as well? 'We urge the Government to reconsider its education tax. 'We look forward to meeting with ministers soon to reiterate the harms this is causing children and families and to discuss next steps.' The Government has always maintained the tax is necessary to raise money for state schools – including providing 6,500 new teachers. However, in an X post after Wednesday's Spending Review, Sir Keir appeared to suggest housing will now be the beneficiary. He wrote: 'In the budget last year, my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools. 'The Tories opposed it. Reform opposed it. 'Today, because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation.' Replying, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'You said 'every penny' would go into state schools... but now it's housing?' In October 2024, the OBR estimated the new tax would lead to 35,000 fewer pupils in private schools. A Government spokesman said: 'We welcome the court's decision, which confirms that the legislation is compatible with the Government's human rights obligations. 'Ending tax breaks for private schools will raise £1.8 billion a year, helping to support public services including the 94 per cent of pupils who attend state schools.'

Chelsea's five pricey bosses, Liverpool's gamble on Arne Slot... and Man United's mid-season swoop for Ruben Amorim - where does Thomas Frank rank in the Premier League's most expensive football managers?
Chelsea's five pricey bosses, Liverpool's gamble on Arne Slot... and Man United's mid-season swoop for Ruben Amorim - where does Thomas Frank rank in the Premier League's most expensive football managers?

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Chelsea's five pricey bosses, Liverpool's gamble on Arne Slot... and Man United's mid-season swoop for Ruben Amorim - where does Thomas Frank rank in the Premier League's most expensive football managers?

Sometimes you have to blow the budget to get what you want. We often see Premier League clubs fork out frankly laughable sums of money to acquire the world's best talent on the pitch. The amount of cash chucked about is growing by the year, and Liverpool 's £116m bid to sign Florian Wirtz is the latest mammoth transfer fee to be thrown down in an era of excessive wealth in the game. The same now goes for managers, too. Gone are the days when clubs would turn to assistant coaches to step up when the hot seat becomes available. Nor do they wait until one falls out of work and they can snap them up for free. No, managers come with a cost now. Your main target is already in a job? Well, it's time to cough up. It has taken £10million for Tottenham to prise Thomas Frank from the grasp of Brentford, where he spent nine years. Funnily enough, he started his tenure as an assistant before becoming the big boss, but as I said: we don't see that anymore. While it's not quite the crazy figures being slapped about for players, it's still a big enough fee to earn Frank a place in the top 10 most expensive Premier League managers of all time. Want to know the other nine? Well, Mail Sport is taking a deep dive into the list - follow us in. =9. Maurizio Sarri - Chelsea - £5m Our first entry includes, you guessed it, Chelsea. Big fees in football and the Blues are like bangers and mash on a plate, they just marry up so well. The first of five Chelsea entries on this list is Maurizio Sarri, who they splashed £5m on to take him from Napoli in 2018. Was it worth it? Well, no, as is the case with a fair few in this top 10. Sarri, whose relationship with the Chelsea fans was less than positive, lasted just one season on the job before returning to Italy with Juventus. But he did win a trophy, as he led the club to Europa League glory. =9. Ronald Koeman - Everton - £5m Arne Slot was not the first Dutchman to land in a dugout on Merseyside. Before the charismatic but calm 46-year-old made the Premier League look like a breeze, his compatriot Ronald Koeman was in the hot seat across Stanley Park. After two highly successful years with Southampton, Everton were so impressed by Koeman that they paid the south coast side £5m for his services back in 2016. At first, it seemed like one hell of a deal. Koeman guided Everton to a seventh-placed finish in his first season in charge, in turn bringing European football back to Goodison Park following a dismal final year under Roberto Martinez. But one year of fun is all he got. Second-season syndrome hit hard for Koeman at Everton, and just two months into it he was sacked following a horrendous start to the campaign. 8. Jose Mourinho - Chelsea - £5.2m The Special One. The one that changed Chelsea. The one that brought glory to Stamford Bridge. As we all well know, Chelsea don't always hit the nail on the head when it comes to financial decisions, as will be evident the further through this feature you read. However, paying £5.2m to bring in Jose Mourinho from Porto may just be the smartest move they have made, and might ever make. It was a bold move at the time. Mourinho had just produced a miracle by winning the Champions League with Porto, but that sum of money was a massive deal in those days compared to the pennies it is seen as now. Worth every penny, and some. The Portuguese maverick guided a new-look Blues to their first top-flight title in 50 years in his very first season, before going back-to-back in his second. It was pure bliss for Roman Abramovich and the Stamford Bridge faithful - they had ripped Manchester United and Arsenal off their perch and looked unstoppable. Well, it didn't last. The third season brought a domestic cup double, but no Premier League title, and in September 2007 he surprisingly left the club. Mourinho couldn't stay away of course, but that's a story for another day. 7. Brendan Rodgers - Leicester - £8.8m Now, this is where things go up a gear. There is a sudden jump in terms of sums of money, starting with Brendan Rodgers. Following his sacking by Liverpool in 2015 - despite nearly winning the Premier League a year prior - Rodgers' stocks were low. No English side wanted to take a punt on him. Celtic gave him a lifeline, though, and boy did he take it. Rodgers flourished during an initial three-year stint in Glasgow and it took Leicester City a whopping £8.8m to drag him away from the Bhoys. The Northern Irishman's tenure began brilliantly with back-to-back fifth-place finishes in his first two full seasons, which would now be enough to earn a spot in the Champions League. Rodgers even led the club to their first-ever FA Cup triumph, beating Chelsea in the 2021 final. However, things soon went downhill and he was sacked in 2023 in the final months of what had been a dreadful campaign, in which the Foxes were relegated. 6. Ruben Amorim - Manchester United - £9.25m Manchester United's move for Ruben Amorim has cost them more than just money, that's for sure. You don't need me to tell you that his arrival has not got to plan, thus far. The hierarchy at Old Trafford initially opted to hand Erik ten Hag a new deal last summer, which meant the cost of sacking him and bringing in Amorim became much higher than it needed to be. Overall, roughly £21m was spent to fire the Dutchman and hire the Portuguese boss from Sporting Lisbon. All of that money to end up with a record-low Premier League points tally, their worst finish on record, their lowest-ever goal tally, and an abject defeat to Tottenham in the Europa League final. Now, Amorim is still in charge and he could miraculously turn things around which would mean the money was worth it. But based on the evidence so far, it doesn't look like it was. 5. Arne Slot - Liverpool - £9.42m 'Arne Slot! Na-na, na, na-na!' Jurgen Klopp was the first to sing it and now it's a song belted out on the Anfield terraces with pride with each passing week. Nobody thought that Klopp could be replaced, but the same was said about Bill Shankly. Slot is the Bob Paisley of his time, and he only cost the Reds hierarchy £9.42m. Just 8.12 per cent of the amount the club are paying to bring in the mercurial Wirtz from Bayer Leverkusen. The German will do extremely well to even get close to having the impact that Slot has had on Liverpool. Few managers just rock up to what is known as the toughest league in the world and make it look like a cakewalk in their first season. Mourinho did it 20 years ago, and Slot followed in his footsteps by bringing home a record-equalling 20th English top-flight title to Anfield. Even if the Dutchman struggles to win another in the coming seasons, the fee to bring him to Merseyside from Feyenoord will still have been worth it. =3. Enzo Maresca - Chelsea - £10m As you can see, the further up the list we go, the more recent the deals were made. And of course, the more Chelsea are involved. We have hit double figures for the first time in this feature, with Enzo Maresca being wrestled away from Leicester last summer, following an impressive promotion from the Championship - which was short-lived - for £10m. The move for the Italian has paid off, so far. In his first season in charge, Maresca guided Chelsea back to the promised land of the Champions League through a fourth-placed finish, while he also picked up the Conference League trophy as the cherry on top. Many questioned the appointment at the time, but 12 months on it is plausible to see Chelsea as challengers to Liverpool and Slot's crown next season. Maresca has done a stellar job. =3. Thomas Frank - Tottenham - £10m Here we are. The newest entry into the charts has landed alongside Maresca in third spot. When Ange Postecoglou was sacked, there was an outpouring of rage in WhatsApp group chats around the country, in offices, and on social media. Everywhere. Football fans simply couldn't believe it. After all, the Australian delivered on his promise. 'I always win things in my second year,' Postecoglou said in September, and that is exactly what he did by winning Tottenham's first trophy in 17 years via the Europa League. Still, that didn't matter to Daniel Levy who decided to hand £10m to fellow Londoners Brentford in order to bring Frank to north London, and all of a sudden the rage is no more. Whether the money will be worth it is yet to be seen, but what is telling is how Frank has managed to calm the outrage of Postecoglou's sacking simply by being appointed. That's how perfect of a fit he appears to be for the role. 2. Andre Villas-Boas - Chelsea - £13.3m The Not-so-Special One. Andre Villas-Boas was meant to be Mourinho incarnate - 'Mini Mourinho' he was once dubbed. Well, he ended up more like the Mourinho we witnessed struggle at Tottenham, or even worse. When Chelsea splashed a then eye-watering £13.5m on 33-year-old Villas-Boas to take the reins at Stamford Bridge in 2011, excitement matched the levels of when the great Portuguese boss was appointed in 2004. He was brought in as a young gun to spark life into what was an aging squad at the time, but all he succeeded in doing was nearly kill them off. Villas-Boas didn't even last the season. In March 2012, he was put out of his misery after unrest in the dressing room and amongst the fanbase. Chelsea would go on to produce a miracle in Munich two months later, winning their first Champions League title under interim boss Roberto Di Matteo, while Villas-Boas moved across London to bitter rivals Tottenham, where he would also struggle. 1. Graham Potter - Chelsea - £21.5m £3.07m. That's how much Graham Potter ended up costing Chelsea each month he was in charge. Just the seven, but it felt like a lifetime for those in Blue. Potter's arrival was meant to signify a new era at Stamford Bridge under Todd Boehly and his big-spending crew, but it ended up being a false dawn. To spend £21.5m on bringing Potter in from Brighton to then only give him seven months was baffling, but it shows just how badly things went for the English manager in west London. Most expensive managers in English football history 1. Graham Potter (Chelsea) - £21.5m 2. Andre Villas-Boas (Chelsea) - £13.3m =3. Thomas Frank (Tottenham) - £10m =3. Enzo Maresca (Chelsea) - £10m 5. Arne Slot (Liverpool) - £9.42m 6. Ruben Amorim (Manchester United) - £9.42m 7. Brendan Rodgers (Leicester City) - £8.8m 8. Jose Mourinho (Chelsea) - £5.2m =9. Ronald Koeman (Everton) - £5m =9. Maurizio Sarri (Chelsea) - £5m He had a promising start at the helm, going unbeaten in his first nine games, but it was all downhill from there. Boehly and BlueCo's patience for the Potter project wore thin rapidly, and by April 2023 they sent him packing, taking a huge financial hit in the process. Potter now manages at the other end of London at rivals West Ham, and has once again struggled to get going. But he is a slow-burner, and next season will be pivotal in the Hammers' new horizon.

The same, but different: our new website explained
The same, but different: our new website explained

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

The same, but different: our new website explained

People generally take a dim view of unexpected change in the daily staples of their lives, including the design of their newspapers. So the top brass here were prepared for a bit of flak when they overhauled our digital offering. A lot of the rumpus centred on problems with finding items that had previously been reached with a couple of nonchalant clicks, but to judge by readers' comments and emails, most are getting their bearings again. One aspect of our overhauled website and app that may be less obvious to readers is that it completes the transition away from so-called edition-based publishing, an approach inherited from print that does not work well for fast-moving online news. Again, some readers, used to a once or twice-daily serving of stories, have found this disconcerting, such as Tim Dawson, who was puzzled not to have been able to track down online a piece he had read in print. 'I had assumed that all of your daily content was available via the app and the website,' Tim said. 'Is this not the case, and if it is not, how much of the content is not offered via the app and the website?' Our head of digital, Edward Roussel, explained why an article might appear in print but not digital. Breaking news stories appear first online and in the app. A version is later prepared for print. There is no value in taking the print article and publishing it online as we would be duplicating stories. In other words, the print and digital articles may be substantially different. Second, he said, we edit the app in the same way as we edit print. That is to say, we determine an optimum number of daily stories, across a dozen broad areas of coverage, and focus on the quality of those stories. 'One thing we don't do,' Edward stressed, 'is simply dump all print stories online.' That used to happen at many newspapers in times gone by, but it does not make for a happy reading experience. We publish on average 185 stories a day digitally. A midweek edition of the print newspaper, consisting of the main section and Times2, has about 140 to 150, but when you add Bricks & Mortar, The Game and all the weekend sections, the daily average exceeds 200. So, yes, it's true some print stories do not appear in our digital editions — but, given that a digital facsimile of the print paper is available in the Live app, on the website and even as a standalone app, no one need miss a word. The eagle eye of Stephen Pilbeam of Southampton alighted on a divot in our report on the dentist who unexpectedly found himself playing in the US Open. 'You say Matt Vogt has struggled with 'the Wurlitzer of emotions he has ridden since he qualified'. I suggest Mr Vogt may have ridden emotional rollercoasters, waltzers and whirlwinds, but merely played a Wurlitzer.' Hole in one. The Wurlitzer firm, founded in 1850s Cincinnati, began by importing musical instruments from Germany and moved into making pianos and then the organs that accompanied silent films. Jukeboxes followed — but no modes of transport, unless you count the organ that rises out of a pit in Blackpool Tower. In time the jukebox and organ operations split, but both were eventually owned by Gibson, the guitar brand favoured by Les Paul, Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page and Angus Young of AC/DC, not to mention James Hetfield of Metallica. I don't think we can claim, though, that Vogt felt as if he had been thunderstruck, or riding the lightning. I must confess I've not read Ronald McIntosh's 1990 blockbuster Hyphenation: Discussion of the Changing Principles of Word Division, so I am not an authority on a subject considered 'stretchingly difficult' by Fowler's, but our style guide has wise advice on hyphens, which boils down to: use sparingly. They are tolerated in words with prefixes to prevent a collision of identical letters, as in co-opt and pre-empt, and likewise in composite terms such as cut-throat. Which will not, you might think, be much comfort to Dale Savage of Loughton, who complained: 'Your paper seems to have dispensed with the hyphen when appending a prefix to another word. This creates confusion to the eye and brain, trying to figure out what this strange new word is. When modifying a word with a prefix, please use a hyphen. The worst and most common example is 'miniseries'.' I can see that 'miniseries' looks like the love child of miseries and ministries, which sounds like gripping TV and is presumably why our style guide does prescribe a hyphen in mini-series. When it comes to radioisotopes, though, we're less accommodating. The outing for the cod-Latin motor bus poem last week was a trip down memory lane for David Marchant of Kent and Nuala Lonie of Linlithgow. For David it brought back Latin for Today and translating Fabula de Petro Cuniculo for bedtime stories — 'still a standard joke in my family as we recall Dominus McGregor'. Nuala impressively 'dredged up from memory' some extra couplets I had not included. Peter Lowthian of Marlow was thinking about Tolkien — who, you may recall, didn't write the poem. He had been to an exhibition at the British Library that 'featured some of Tolkien's correspondence, including a fan letter from Joni Mitchell, which I suspect impressed me more than it did him. Quite a few people wrote to him in the languages he invented, which Tolkien corrected in red ink and sent straight back again.' One of those red marks would have ornamented my column last week, for I erroneously referred to 'Elvish languages' when I clearly meant 'Elven' — many thanks to Ben Rapp for setting me straight on the correct way to refer to imaginary tongues. Write to Feedback by emailing feedback@ or by post to 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store