Joensuu

I do try to see the good in everything. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Perhaps you're right, I might be 'bigoted' in my finding this rag (and anyone who is in agreement with it) rather offensive. I wouldn't want to tar all of the Daily Express readers with the same brush, just those who read it, understand it, and then still find themselves in agreement with it. This I feel is a fair summary: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_Express

http://www.whathaseuropedone.eu/

As 'cool' as a crusading knight might seem, you must remember that the majority of 'crusaders' were from the continent, I'm not really sure they represent the anti-Europe vibe the campaign wants to promote. I think a slave trader might be more appropriate, you know, that would encapsulate the moment in history when Britain began to muscle itself to the fore of Europe, while still retaining all of the divisive undertones and racism that the crusader logo does to keep the xenophobes who read the Express onboard.

Not a divisive theme at all then eh?

So this vigorous, concerted action, doesn't have it's origins in the latin 'crux' then? Might not another word have been more, er, appropriate?

Why join the Express? (oh and why have they mistakenly chosen to call this a 'crusade'? The word means 'to mark with a cross' )

And that sir, is both where you are wrong, and where you show yourself up. If you agree that it's okay to heckle a German MEP with an infamous Hitler quote, I think your opinions are disgusting.

Exactly, so do tell us again why you claim to support a party which is so obviously fascist? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11828319

Why do some of you seem to hate science so much? Why not simply accept that the theory is currently science's best interpretation of the avaliable evidence? Politics certainly don't drive the process of scientific method. People who disagree with an established scientific theory, without having a solid scientific reason for doing so, are almost certainly influenced by a non-scientific agenda. Often, it's because their personal political views prevent them from accepting the established science, and not because they have evidence of a more accurate interpretation of the evidence. In short, unless you are working at the forefront of climate science, if you disagree with the current established theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, you are in the same breath disagreeing with the process of Scientific Method.

1) There is a nut in charge... why would he care about the wellbeing of his own people? 2) If Seoul is too close... why not target Busan instead?

Surely, the absolute worst case scenario is not the 5th (SK) and 6th (NK) largest armies in the world squaring up, but the fact that it might lead to the largest (China) and second largest (USA) squaring up (only of course, if some politicians put their egos before their brains...)

Largely depends upon the interest rate of your debt. At the moment, interest rates for savings are so low that most of them are actually devaluing if you factor in inflation. Even the best fixed rate ISAs are now around 3.75%. If the interest rate on your debt exceeds that sort of rate, you are definately better off paying your debt off before making any savings. [The other factor to mention, is that the government is (IMO) trying to raise inflation. This will devalue sterling, in order to reduce their actual debt. Having debt right now might actually be a sensible thing... (if it's fixed at a low rate of interest), as if the government does manage to induce inflation, the total real value of that debt will be reduced. However, you'd only stand to benefit if your debt is at a fixed rate, and if the inflation is substantial enough to force your employer to significantly up wages. As such I think this scenario is less likely to occur, and as such, you are almost certainly going to be better off by paying off your debt asap.]

Not being a UAF member i'm probably not best placed to answer. But there may be several reasons behind this decision: 1) the BBC report has only been out a short while, perhaps the UAF are considering issuing a statement? 2) the UAF might have taken this as a given. I.e they can't possibly issue comments about every event, perhaps as they are anti-racism generally, one might conclude that they are equally anti-Muslim children being taught anti-semiticm? As such perhaps they don't feel they need to issue a statement. 3) Perhaps while objecting to the the 'education' (sic) the BBC have identified, the UAF consider this to be something that the MCB are in a better position to comment on. Irrespective, while I am not party to the UAF rational, I don't think anyone could conclude that the UAF and it's supporters are anything but 100% opposed to the horriffic 'education' the BBC have identified in some Muslim schools. The implication of your line of questioning seems to be suggesting that you feel the UAF might for some illogical reason support these extreme examples of racist 'education': if so, on what grounds?

While seemingly 'fairer', the model you propose would in a single stroke remove most of the highest quality television and radio from our country. We would be left with a mess of commercial tat, with the odd gem shining through (but inevitably coming at a hefty charge). The majority of people would find themselves choosing between watching utter crud, or switching to expensive commercial channels who would buy up the better content, and sell it at a premium. Any form of educational content would be provided only if the producers think it will sell. By and large, this will lead to quality documentaries becoming few and far between. You only need to look to America to see what could happen if the BBC lost it's funding mechanism. Instead, I'd suggest going completely the other way. Get the BBC were to drop the necessity to entertain, and instead just aim to inform and educate. Perhaps the BBC could even be moved under the Dept for Education, and funded centrally? That would be a fairer system, as just like the NHS, or police everyone would have unrestricted access to the information, and everyone would pay equally (whether they choose to use the service or not, society as a whole benefits). The few people who chose not to have a television, radio, or computer with internet access, would obviously lose out, but how many of them are there anyhow? I think the major problem with this would actually be ensuring the the BBC's content could not be influenced by Westminster - so it would be essential to somehow remove the ability of politicans to tinker with the BBC's purse strings.

'I'm not racist but... '

Partially agree with you, partially disagree. I agree that the BBC's remit should be to Inform and Educate, but personally I'm arguing that the BBC should be asked to no-longer Entertain. My rational is that the BBC is the only provider who seeks to seriously Inform or Educate, whereas, the BBC is in direct competition with commercial stations when it comes to Entertainment. As such, if the BBC were to stop Entertaining, we'd loose a little, but commerical stations would fill the void; whereas no other channel provides such high quality Information or Eduction. If the BBC were to focus it's money on Informing and Educating (instead of paying Brucie his bonus), the overall balance and quality of television would be improved. Or to sum, more David Attenborough, less David Dickinson.

As a liberal I strongly object to non-secular schools. As a liberal I strongly object to any pupils asked to list any 'reprehensible' qualities of people of any other religion (race, sexuality etc) As a liberal I am strongly opposed to authoritarianism, and will support any group who seeks to prevent the rise of authoritarian governments (whether left or right). As such, I wholeheartedly agree with the founding principles of the UAF, and I am joined in doing so by David Cameron, and numerous other politicians, from both the left and right. Religious schools, discrimination, and totalitarian views should all be opposed. [bTW, thank you BBC, for providing us with a information about a subject, which without the licence fee would have been largely overlooked by the ratings-obsessed commercial media]

Sorry, but IMO, there is no commercial channel who devotes anywhere near the same proportion of airtime to events abroad. This has not always been the case, in c. 2001-2004, Channel 4 News started focussing on international news, and for a few years I felt that the BBC had finally been surpassed in quality of coverage. However, it wasn't to last, Channel 4 have sunk to a distant second again (albeit, still of significantly higher quality of coverage, analysis and reporting that either Sky or ITV have ever offered). Disagree. They are, IMO, far too impartial in this respect, always trying to 'balance' the argument by having experts from both sides of the debate. This works when it's a 50-50 argument, but goes horribly wrong when they try to give equal airtime to unbalanced debates (for example giving equal airtime to an argument like MMR with science vs 'irrational fear', or Global Warming, with 95% of scientists vs 5% of scientist). However, I can only conclude, that the impartiality of the BBC is second to none (and often too much so). From what I've seen of the BBC's coverage of the Knox case, they haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other, they consider it a matter for the courts to decide. I have noticed however how most media sources on both sides of the political spectrum have focussed on Knox because of her looks. IMO, the BBC (alongside, the Indy, and the FT) should be commended for not following the same trend. Sorry, I must have missed this. Wasn't it caused by Lord Young himself making silly comments in the Telegraph? I can't find any evidence of the BBC overreacting. In fact, I tried googling to see if I could evince your claim, and which website seems to be discussing it the most, err: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=BBC+oversteps+%22lord+young%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6a600fbb046e9d89 So reporting a potential change in the leadership of the country, isn't 'news' in your opinion? Or are you saying that the BBC is biased against Labour? I'm fairly sure the BBC was reporting Taliban atrocities before the rest of the UK media. In fact, I'm confident, that the BBC have never tried to make the Taliban seem to be 'good guys'. They may have tried to add more depth to their reporting, to try and understand the motivations behind people who join or support the Taliban (which IMO is a superb step forward). They also don't portray our soldiers as bullies. The coverage of our troops is very favourable, showing how they are doing a difficult job, and doing it well. What they have done is shown balance by also reporting the fact that some of our soldiers have taken things too far in some circumstances. Reporting this isn't undermining or tarnishing all of our soliders, however, not reporting this would be the sort of propaganda you'd expect from an unbalanced media outlet. You seem to prefer a 'version' of the truth that fits your personal worldview, rather than the balance the BBC is showing. I'm sure they will, just like the BBC have consistently done. [Again, as commerical news goes, Channel 4 is as close as I have ever seen to being impartial - sometimes it has even surpassed the BBC] Almost certainly. And I agree, BBC breakfast does promote some awful aging pop stars in their 'filler' sections. Mind you, have you ever tried to watch the alternative trash the commercial outlets roll out? Personally, I'd get the BBC to drop it's need for ratings (see post 118 ), and instead focus on quality instead of aging pop stars and x-factor failures. Err... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-11813051

or watched any of these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000179423

Of course, during a recession, high unemployment and with the 'fear of loosing their jobs' to keep us all in line, the quandry is somewhat alleviated, as there becomes a rational economic reason to justify the authoritarian objective. In other words, during a recession your views seem to contradict themselves slightly less than they normally would. What happens when the economy is growing again?

The social rights and wrongs of immigration are not a left-right thing, they are a liberal vs authoritarian decision. If however you are talking about the economic benefits of immigration, then I think you will find that you are wrong. Economically immigration is an advantage to people on the right, as it boosts the economy and keeps wages down. Dune, you must be in a right quandary over immigration. Do you follow your economic principles and wholeheartedly welcome more people, or do you allow your authoritarian side to win the debate, and support a migration ban?

Agreed, they do produce some of the best comedies... but also loads of dross like Scallawagga, and the recent Miranda. It's all a bit scattergun for my liking, with each good comedy outweighed by 5 or 10 distinctly unfunny shows. Also, commerical stations can compete in this area, Channel 4, is especially strong, with Peep Show, Inbetweeners, and plenty of other examples of the funniest shows on TV over the last 20 years. Generally, while I'd miss some of their comedies, I feel the BBC money would be best spent providing more of the content that commerical channels choose not to: documentaries etc.

VW, so you want to see the back of all the high quality programmes the BBC produce, and have a world filled with 'When horses go wild' or 'Worlds fattest women' and other such high quality commerical channel offerings? Scrap the BBC, and you are scrapping almost all of the highest quality television. Bring on the impartiality of Fox news eh? NB, Stricky is definately not fitting of the definition of 'quality' or value for money - see post 118.

Not the best or least forgettable, but when Léandre Griffit scored on his debut against Rovers, I thought he might have a future... shows what I know!

franny, IMO, the key point that you are making is incorrect. I believe the BBC tried its best to hold Labour to task, in the same way that they are currently trying to hold the coalition govenment to task. However, I do think the Labour party tried to influence the output of the BBC. The Hutton Inquiry, was IMO, a whitewash, which forced the BBC to take a more considered approach when being cricital of the government. As such, Labour forced the BBC to seem to be more pro-Labour, which IMO isn't something we should blame the BBC for.