jonathan.rawle.org

Ever since Classic FM’s owners made half-hearted attempts to stop overseas listeners from listening online a few years ago, people around the world have been listening quite happily to internet streams of the station. If the streams are accessed directly by URL, for example using a media player, there is no check of the listener’s location. However, even if they use the official player on the website, overseas residents need only to enter a valid UK postcode in order to listen, and those are not exactly top-secret.

In recent weeks, Classic FM has been advertising its website player, referring to it as “Radioplayer”. What is not obvious from those adverts is that Radioplayer is actually a collaboration by all the major national British radio stations – both the BBC and commercial stations – that allows them all to be accessed from a single site. I can only assume Classic FM don’t advertise this fact because they don’t want people to listen to other stations, although in that case, why did Global Radio participate in the project at all?

It appears that as part of the move to the Radioplayer platform, Classic FM’s internet streams have moved to new URLs, meaning that the links people have used for a long time no longer function. It is still possible for people around the world to listen online using Radioplayer. Some people have reported that this asks for a postode, but that should be easy enough to find.

However, many people find it more convenient to use a stream URL directly, rather than having to keep a browser window open in order to listen. This is still possible, as various streams still exist. In fact, far from trying to hide these away, Global Radio have a page, albeit not a particularly public-facing one, that lists streams for their stations. There are three different streams for Classic FM, of different bitrates and formats. Each is also available either as a direct link to the raw stream, or as a playlist, meaning nine URLs in total: more than a little confusing!

The highest quality stream available is a 128kb/s MP3 stream. This will probably give better sound than the old streams. However, the higher bitrate means that overseas listeners may find the broadcast is interrupted as their connection struggles to keep up. This isn’t a case of Global Radio trying to stop foreign listerners from using it, but simply the fact that internet traffic is more likely to be delayed when it is travelling further. Some overseas listeners have already reported problems with this stream stopping after a few minutes, but in the UK I can listen to it without interruption for hours.

There are then two streams that use a lower bitrate of 48kb/s. These are likely to work better as they require less bandwidth. One stream is in AAC format and the other is MP3. The AAC stream should give higher quality sound as AAC uses more efficient compression than MP3. Therfore I only recommend people use the 48kb/s MP3 if they are unable to play the AAC stream or find it unreliable.

To summarise, in order of highest to lowest sound quality, the streams available are:

• MP3 128kb/s: http://media-ice.musicradio.com/ClassicFMMP3
• AAC 48kb/s: http://media-ice.musicradio.com/ClassicFM
• MP3 48kb/s: http://media-ice.musicradio.com/ClassicFMMP3Low

It is important to note that these link directly to raw streams, which your browser may try to download if you click on them. Such a download may never complete as the stream should continue indefinitely! You can open them in a media player, though, by choosing “Open URL” or similar from the player’s menu.

For access from a web browser, each stream has a corresponding playlist URL. This should tell your PC that it needs to use a media player in order to open the actual stream. Two playlist formats are available: M3U and XSPF. It is easy to form URLs for these playlists. Simply add .m3u or .xspf to the above. So for the highest quality MP3 stream, the M3U URL is

• http://media-ice.musicradio.com/ClassicFMMP3.m3u

and the M3U URL for the AAC stream, which is probably the best bet for overseas listeners, is:

• http://media-ice.musicradio.com/ClassicFM.m3u

I’m sure you have the idea by now, if you require a different format.

For completeness, there is one further set of streams available, although these are probably of limited use to the average listener. They are the streams used by Radioplayer. They use a protocol called RTMP, which most media players don’t support: RTMP is the protocol used by the Flash plugin. However, if you have a media player that does support this protocol, it may provide a more robust stream than using the HTTP streams above. The RTMP URLs are in the format:

• rtmp://cdn-sov-2.musicradio.com:80/LiveAudio/ClassicFM

That will give the AAC stream, but as before you can add “MP3” or “MP3LOW” to the end to obtain the other stream formats.

I hope this information will be of some use to Classic FM listeners from around the world, and will enable them to enjoy their favourite station from the comfort of their computers. Everything should also apply equally to the other stations listed on Global Radio’s page. Please leave comments below to let everyone know whether the streams work for you, and to ask for further help if needed.

Leanne Wood AM

When I was reading up on the recent Plaid Cymru party leadership election, I realised that one of the candidates, Leanne Wood, was the assembly member who was thrown out of the Welsh Assembly chamber for referring to the Queen as “Mrs Windsor”. I remembered it being reported at the time in 2004, but not who the lady who made the remark was. Members of the party have now elected Ms Wood as their leader, so what could that mean for the cause of Welsh nationalism?

Although I remember the news reports, I had never seen a film clip of the incident. The BBC now has videos both of Leanne Wood’s speech, and also of when she was subsequently asked to leave the chamber. Wood claimed she was justified in referring to the Queen in that manner as she doesn’t recognise the Queen and so was using her name. However, the video reveals one ironic detail that didn’t make it into the reports. Earlier in her speech on ID cards and civil liberties, Wood refers to leading lawyer Helena Kennedy as “Helena Kennedy QC”. Does she not know what QC stands for? If she doesn’t recognise the Queen, why use a title such as QC that could easily have been omitted entirely?

"Mrs Windsor"

As this all happened in 2004, one could suggest the speech was that of a young, naive newcomer to politics. However, a quick look at her blog reveals that Ms Wood continues to refer to the Queen as Mrs Windsor and to refuse to attend the opening of the Welsh Assembly when Her Majesty is present. What would happen if Plaid Cymru were to become the largest party (perhaps in coalition)? Could we have a situation where the First Minister of Wales was absent from the opening of the Assembly? (Incidentally, I offer no apologies for commenting on Welsh politics given that, in her blog, Leanne Wood says that although she believes Wales should be independent, she still thinks the British monarchy should be abolished.)

I can only agree with Leighton Andrews, who makes the complaint in the second video, when he says Ms Wood’s remark was childish. It is one thing to campaign for an issue you believe in, but quite another to pretend the status quo does not exist. For example, Alex Salmond thinks Scotland should be independent, but that doesn’t mean he pretends the United Kingdom doesn’t exist, or claims not to recognise the British Prime Minister. Equally, I and many others do not think the Church of England bishops should have have a constitutional role in this country, but that doesn’t mean we pretend they don’t presently hold such a position. I would still address them correctly and treat them with courtesy.

What with republicanism and unilateral nuclear disarmament, Leanne Wood’s left-wing political views make me think of Michael Foot, whose manifesto for the 1983 General Election is often referred to as the longest suicide note in history and saw the Labour Party languishing in opposition for the next decade and a half. Plaid Cymru members may have voted for Ms Wood as their leader, but it is hard to imagine this translating into votes from the Welsh electorate. Leanne Wood’s election could mean a drop in support for Plaid Cymru and the cause of Welsh independence, and for those of us who believe everyone in the United Kingdom is better off if we remain together, that can only be a good thing.

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that hit the New Zealand city of Christchurch in February 2011, the mayor, Bob Parker, vowed that the city’s famous cathedral would be rebuilt. Yesterday however, the Church authorities announced that they have decided to demolish the building completely.

Some could suggest that it is wrong for people to interfere in the business of a country they have never visited. Yet it’s worth remembering that Christchurch Cathedral was designed by one of the greatest British architects ever, Sir George Gilbert Scott. Despite having worked on the restoration of dozens of them, Scott never designed an English cathedral from scratch (unlike both his son and grandson). He did build two in Scotland, and design the ones in St John’s, Newfoundland, and Christchurch. The latter is probably the closest to how one could imagine a George Gilbert Scott-designed English cathedral looking.

There are, of course, many news articles covering the decision to demolish the building. Reading around, it becomes clear that, despite all the talk of safety, the main consideration of the Church authorities is money. They say restoring the existing building would leave a shortfall of NZ$50m after insurance payouts, while building a replica would leave a $100m shortfall. Yet they have turned down offers from city authorities to take over and repair the building, on the grounds that the land is consecrated, and that they want to build a new cathedral there. Unfortunately, I do feel that any replacement building would, due to the same financial constraints, be constructed on the cheap and would therefore not match the old one in terms of scale or quality. With a few notable exceptions, most modern church buildings are rather uninspiring. While the church may think such edifices are sufficient to allow their congregations to worship, they are not successful in providing a landmark for the wider community or as a means of attracting tourists. I’m sure far more people visit and photograph the cathedral as tourists than ever worship there.

It seems many experts don’t agree that the cathedral needs to be destroyed. Michael King, a leading structural engineer, has called the decision “criminal”. And Kit Miyamoto, California’s seismic safety officer, has said the cathedral could be restored and strengthened against earthquakes for $20m. He even offered free advice from partners in Italy who are experts in restoring buildings following earthquake damage. Yet these offers have been rejected by the Church. Religious people often have difficulty explaining why their God decides to launch disasters such as earthquakes that kill so many of His people. Could it be that church leaders are keen to submit to God’s wishes and finish the destruction of the building, rather than turn to modern engineering and technology in order to secure it?

While I think as much of the existing building as possible should be retained and restored, I don’t think it necessarily has to be exactly the same as it was before. Internally, the construction would probably need to be different in order to protect the structure from future seismic activity. But I would also be open to parts of the building that had been destroyed being replaced with sympathetic alternatives. For example, the spire could be replaced with a wooden structure. The top of the spire had already been replaced with a copper section following an earthquake in 1901. Many English cathedrals are a hotchpotch of different extensions and repairs carried out over the years. Scott himself would most probably approve, given his modern additions to cathedrals, some of which were later to be considered Victorian kitsch and removed, most notably the spectacular Hereford Screen now in the Victoria and Albert museum. What Scott didn’t do was demolish a cathedral and design a new one from scratch. I’m sure he would have considered that vandalism.

While the Church may have announced its decision, the issue is far from over yet. There is already talk of protests, and of alternative models for ownership and funding of repairs. Hopefully the people of New Zealand will not allow the total destruction of one of their best historic buildings, and instead see it restored as a symbol of recovery following the earthquake. Once everyone has come to their senses, they can count on by donation to the restoration fund. I’ll finish this post with a link to a blog containing some inspiring night-time shots of the cathedral.

Each day this week has brought news of more companies withdrawing from a government scheme to give jobless people work experience. It started with protests against Tesco last weekend. The scheme is simple enough. People who have been unemployed for a certain period of time are eligible to take part in an entirely voluntary programme where they receive work experience for one or two months in a company. They are not paid, but still receive the same benefits they would have done had they stayed at home.

Those opposed to the scheme have two main objections to it. One is the threat of losing benefits for anyone who volunteers for the scheme but pulls out after a week or more. In this case, they could lose their Jobseeker’s Allowance for up to two weeks. This provision does seem a little odd. After all, the scheme is voluntary: people who decide to sit and do nothing receive no penalty, but those who do volunteer can be penalised if they change their minds. I’m not sure what the reason for this penalty is: perhaps it reflects the cost to companies of training someone only to see them leave. However, it’s hard to see much value in retaining this sanction, particularly as it gives those opposed to the scheme extra ammunition. I would be happy to see a compulsory scheme where everyone claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance had to attend work experience or else lose the benefit; but given that they have volunteered in the first place, the present scheme would be better without this detail.

The other objection is that large companies are gaining free labour. Some have described it as “working as nothing” or even “slave labour”. Companies such as Tesco have few fans at the best of times, so unsurprisingly people are unimpressed if they appear to be profiting at the expense of the taxpayer or the unemployed. However, it’s wrong to assume that people on the work scheme are filling a job that would otherwise be filled by a paid employee. I suspect many of the positions are additional ones. The only people who are likely to gain are the other employees – no doubt on rather low wages themselves – who might find themselves with slightly less heavy workloads. The companies would have to provide training for each new person coming through the scheme, and supervise them for much of their time, as they would any other new employee. As there is a short time limit on the placement, they would need to do this on a regular basis, and so there is undoubtedly a cost to the company of participating in the scheme.

Some people who receive placements go on to receive a job offer from the company. Understandably, this will be a minority of people as there are simply not enough vacancies for all of them. That doesn’t mean their participation is worthless. Experience of a daily routine, getting up in time for work, working in a team, etc. will be invaluable and give them more self-esteem. And when they subsequently apply for other jobs, surely any employer would pick someone who has recent work experience on their CV over others who may be total unknowns when it comes to their work ethic?

It should also be noted that employers offer to pay expenses, for example towards the cost of transport and childcare. Added to the fact the participants continue to receive their Jobseeker’s Allowance, plus any other benefits such as Housing or Council Tax benefit, it’s hard to see how it can be said they are working for nothing. Many paid employees spend most of their wages on housing, council tax, childcare and transport, and I’m sure would be delighted if someone would pay these for them. Perhaps instead of complaining about a scheme where people receive benefits for working, we should be asking why people are paid to stay at home and do nothing?

Last week saw two legal rulings relevant to the religion versus secularism debate. The more widely reported one was the case of prayers being held at the start of council meetings in Bideford, Devon. The verdict was that councils can not hold prayers as part of their formal business because they only have the power to discuss council business at meetings. However, the judge did say that councillors could pray before meetings as long as it wasn’t on the agenda as part of the formal business and that it wasn’t compulsory to attend. It’s difficult to find all of the details of this story. Some reports suggest that the prayers were already optional, and that the register of attendance wasn’t taken until the prayers had finished.

However, I can still empathise with Clive Bone, who originally brought the complaint, as it can’t have been pleasant to be excluded from part of the meeting while the other councillors took part in this ritual together. Simply making provision for someone not to take part isn’t good enough. Would he have had to hang about outside, waiting until they called him in? If the prayers were held before the published start time of the meeting, that would be better, but still not ideal. Why should someone who has been elected to a council be left to feel like an outsider just because the other members decide to do something that has nothing to do with the reason for its existence: to provide certain local services? Some people have criticised the technical nature of the judgement, which suggested councils should stick strictly to business at meetings. But it is actually rather a common sense ruling. If councils were allowed to put whatever business they liked on the agenda, they could decide to use half an hour at the start of the meeting to discuss the weekend’s football results. Clearly that would be inappropriate, and so is bringing a clergyman in to say prayers.

Many of the objections to the ruling have, unsurprisingly, been that it somehow restricts people’s “religious freedom”. But surely freedom to practise a religion means the freedom to go to a place of worship to pray, and the freedom to pray in private in your own time. It doesn’t mean a right to impose that religion or views on other people, or to insist that you have the right to practice the religion at any time or place, or to insist that religion forms an integral part of a completely unrelated event. If Christian councillors believe that praying will enable them to serve local people better, why not pray before they leave home, or do so in church the Sunday before? The fact that they insist the prayers have to be held as part of the meeting shows that they want at least to encourage others to take part too. And the reason they are supported by senior figures from the Church of England is because the latter want to ensure they retain their political influence in this country. There are countries in the world where Christianity, and other religions, are banned and their adherents persecuted. That is what it means not to have religious freedom. Seeking to impose a religious activity on others isn’t freedom, but rather a free hand.

Having said all that, I do still have some sympathy with those who have suggested it is a storm in a teacup that should have been resolved out of court. There are far worse examples of the abuse of the concept of “religious freedom” where it is used as an excuse to discriminate against others. The second relevant court case this week was that of the hotel owners who banned a gay couple from staying in their establishment. They lost an appeal against the original ruling that they had acted unlawfully. They had claimed they were entitled to discriminate against people because it was an expression of their religious beliefs. (They also claimed it wasn’t discrimination because they would have equally banned any unmarried couple from sharing a room, although it would be interesting to know exactly how they determine guests’ marital status – theirs sounds rather like a Fawlty Towers-style establishment.)

It’s clear to see that it is wrong to discriminate against any such group of people. No-one would find it acceptable if “gay” were replaced with “black”. I always have a problem with any suggestion that because someone’s views are religious in origin, it makes them any more valid, and that they have any more right to discriminate against others than someone who holds views for any other reason. As far as I am aware, there is no official list that details recognised religions and exactly what the beliefs of each is. No such thing exists, and in fact it couldn’t. People’s religious beliefs tend to be based on an interpretation of a religious text, not on a rule book. For example, some Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin, whereas other churches welcome gay people or are even set up especially for them. Therefore, a religious view can be given no more weight than any other view, so discrimination is just as unacceptable.

People should be free to practice religion, but this should not interfere with others. Religious freedom does not mean freedom to force other people to take part in religious rituals at non-religious events any more than being a sports fanatic gives a right to discuss the week’s fixtures; and religious freedom does not mean freedom to discriminate against other groups of people any more than holding a BNP membership card does.