The BBCC

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You could see the licence fee as a tax on the stupid. The majority understand perfectly well that it represents good value - and it also keeps the predatory, malign influence of Murdoch at bay. There will always be a few who don't get it, either because they believe Murdoch's self-serving crap, or because they cannot reach for words to form a coherent sentence. The licence fee is a remarkably efficient way of delivering television at a fraction of the cost of what Sky does charge, and would charge if it ever succeeded in persuading enough fools to support the BBC's abolition, or demotion to a subscription service. So the majority benefit; the minority whine.

 

That doesn't mean the BBC is or should be above criticism. There's a lot it could do a lot better, and there's arguably a lot it could do a lot less of. But the funding model is still sound.

 

So to conclude, its one rule for those that want to keep the wicked influence of Murdoch at bay and another that want to question the left wing bias of the BBC. I admire your honest hypocracy.

[Deppo]

you are such a boring fuk

 

That is a hurtful thing to say.

[pedg]

So to conclude, its one rule for those that want to keep the wicked influence of Murdoch at bay and another that want to question the left wing bias of the BBC. I admire your honest hypocracy.

 

I think you are referring to the two extremes of the argument as opposed the silent majority who are happy with the bbc but don't feel the need to get into a slanging match about it.

[Saintandy666]

and every tax payer has access to state education.....would you be happy to contribute to someone private education..?

if not, why not.....its education after all....

 

No, because they can get state education??? This is totally unrelated. The only way of relating this in I can think of is if state education was the BBC and private education sky?

[Verbal]

So to conclude, its one rule for those that want to keep the wicked influence of Murdoch at bay and another that want to question the left wing bias of the BBC. I admire your honest hypocisy.

 

We can have all the arguments you want about BBC bias - be my guest. We can argue about whether or not the licence fee is a sound model for paying for the BBC. We can even argue about whether the BBC should be abolished. But don't run the three together in some unholy mess that just gives the (no doubt false) impression that you simply can't concentrate. They are all separate arguments to all those but the few who, like you and delldays, seek some visceral revenge against anything and everything that makes any kind of social-contract claim on your pocket money. Sometimes, usually, the 'greater good' is a wise argument, especially when it defends the interests of the majority from the foolishness of the minority.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

No, your thinking it typical of the right. Come up with what you think are great ideas but when you get to the nitty gritty its a totally crap unimplimentable idea. So what you do is ignore the fact something is not implementable and just go back to pushing your big idea.

 

Its not a big idea. Its about choice and not having to subsidise an organisation that I do not want to.

 

How do you think Murdoch implements his system?

[dune]

So to conclude, its one rule for those that want to keep the wicked influence of Murdoch at bay and another that want to question the left wing bias of the BBC. I admire your honest hypocracy.

 

The BBC is supposed to be impartial, wheras Murdoch is entitled to have an agenda in the same way as Fox News is. I just think it's wrong that we are forced to pay a licence fee for left winged propaganda, wheras you have choice with SKy etc.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

We can have all the arguments you want about BBC bias - be my guest. We can argue about whether or not the licence fee is a sound model for paying for the BBC. We can even argue about whether the BBC should be abolished. But don't run the three together in some unholy mess that just gives the (no doubt false) impression that you simply can't concentrate. They are all separate arguments to all those but the few who, like you and delldays, seek some visceral revenge against anything and everything that makes any kind of social-contract claim on your pocket money. Sometimes, usually, the 'greater good' is a wise argument, especially when it defends the interests of the majority from the foolishness of the minority.

 

So to conclude, the public should be protected from the wicked Murdoch media but should have to pay for the BBC where a cultural left wing bias exists because you happen to sympathise with their politics. You would make a good dictator.

[Verbal]

The BBC is supposed to be impartial, wheras Murdoch is entitled to have an agenda in the same way as Fox News is. I just think it's wrong that we are forced to pay a licence fee for left winged propaganda, wheras you have choice with SKy etc.

 

Yes, dune, that's right. You are forced to pay a tax to have left-wing propaganda rammed down your throat. That's exactly why the BBC exists, and it's really no different to Fox News. There are left-wing equivalents to Beck and Hannity all over the BBC airwaves. And they are laughing at you.

[Verbal]

So to conclude, the public should be protected from the wicked Murdoch media but should have to pay for the BBC where a cultural left wing bias exists because you happen to sympathise with their politics. You would make a good dictator.

 

Oh dear, you've just gone and done what I suggested you didn't. Now sit down, have a think, take a deep breath, and re-read my post.

[bridge too far]

I notice that Sergei still hasn't answered my question. Where should I look to find an unbiased broadcaster?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It's off the point, but I have bad news for you, delldays. You DO pay for private education - through making up the huge losses to the exchequer on tax exemptions because of charitable status.

 

It depends if you take the line that children who go to private schools are saving the state system 'huge' amounts by paying for their education and not relying on the State.

[Deppo]

Isn't Top Gear one of the BBC's flagship shows? I hate all that left-wing propaganda that Clarkson comes out with.

[bridge too far]

It depends if you take the line that children who go to private schools are saving the state system 'huge' amounts by paying for their education and not relying on the State.

 

Or an opposing point of view could be that the state paid for the training of all those teachers now teaching in private schools and, therefore, got little or no return on its investment.

 

The same point of view can be adduced to doctors working in private medicine.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I notice that Sergei still hasn't answered my question. Where should I look to find an unbiased broadcaster?

 

alright alright BTF - I refer you to the reply I gave earlier; the BBC is supposed to be impartial because it is funded by the state the others are commercial and have to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Or an opposing point of view could be that the state paid for the training of all those teachers now teaching in private schools and, therefore, got little or no return on its investment.

 

The same point of view can be adduced to doctors working in private medicine.

 

So would those teachers have to be paid for by the State if there were no private schools?

[Verbal]

It depends if you take the line that children who go to private schools are saving the state system 'huge' amounts by paying for their education and not relying on the State.

 

I don't take that line because it's rubbish. The state education system would be substantially improved and enriched by the admission of bright, motivated, middle class kids. Creaming the top off into the private system impoverishes the state system. Can you now concentrate? This is a thread about BBC 'bias'.

[Verbal]

Come on then delldays and Sergei. Apply your collective intelligence to showing us how 'bias' is exhibited in the BBC's shows. Give examples - yours, not someone else's. Start with the left-wing vipers on Top Gear, or those Trotskyists making Human Planet. Let's hear specifics.

[bridge too far]

So would those teachers have to be paid for by the State if there were no private schools?

 

Of course, because if there were no private schools, then all the privately educated pupils would need to be schooled in state schools. So the number of state school places would need to increase and so would the number of teachers to staff the schools.

 

Interestingly, in some areas, the state system is suffering because of a sudden influx of children from the private sector whose parents can no longer afford school fees. This has caused the state system some difficulty as, paring their budgets to the bone, they suddenly found they had to find extra places.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Oh dear, you've just gone and done what I suggested you didn't. Now sit down, have a think, take a deep breath, and re-read my post.

 

I am surprised that somebody with such a remarkable intellect cannot identify hypocrisy when it stares out at him. On one hand begruding the 'predatory, malign influence of Murdoch' (another entry for Pseuds corner?) and then telling us that those that feel the BBC has a similar unhealthy influence should shut up and pay.

[Verbal]

I am surprised that somebody with such a remarkable intellect cannot identify hypocrisy when it stares out at him. On one hand begruding the 'predatory, malign influence of Murdoch' (another entry for Pseuds corner?) and then telling us that those that feel the BBC has a similar unhealthy influence should shut up and pay.

 

Concentrate! I mean, really think hard!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Of course, because if there were no private schools, then all the privately educated pupils would need to be schooled in state schools. So the number of state school places would need to increase and so would the number of teachers to staff the schools.

 

Interestingly, in some areas, the state system is suffering because of a sudden influx of children from the private sector whose parents can no longer afford school fees. This has caused the state system some difficulty as, paring their budgets to the bone, they suddenly found they had to find extra places.

 

So do I read into the last statement that the private school system is a welcome subsidy for the state system? People who make such a sacrifice for their children should be applauded in my opinion but I suspect BTF that you may have a contrasting view!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Concentrate! I mean, really think hard!

 

So thats a no then. I am beginning to think there is a bigger gap than I thought between how high you hold yourself in regard and the reality.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I don't take that line because it's rubbish. The state education system would be substantially improved and enriched by the admission of bright, motivated, middle class kids. Creaming the top off into the private system impoverishes the state system. Can you now concentrate? This is a thread about BBC 'bias'.

 

err concentrate Verbal you started it.

[bridge too far]

So do I read into the last statement that the private school system is a welcome subsidy for the state system? People who make such a sacrifice for their children should be applauded in my opinion but I suspect BTF that you may have a contrasting view!

 

My point was that local authorities plan their budgets on known school rolls. And they plan 3 - 5 years ahead. If there is a sudden influx of children from an unexpected source, it can play havoc with their budgets by having to provide additional places and teachers. As someone pointed out earlier, private schools are granted charitable status which means there's a lot of taxes they don't have to pay. But they still have, on their staff, teachers who have been trained by the state and at a cost to you and me, the taxpayer.

 

I don't applaud or castigate people who send their children to fee paying schools. That's their choice to make. I chose to send my children to state schools although, had I wanted to, I could have paid for them to have a private education. It was, and still is, against my principles.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

My point was that local authorities plan their budgets on known school rolls. And they plan 3 - 5 years ahead. If there is a sudden influx of children from an unexpected source, it can play havoc with their budgets by having to provide additional places and teachers. As someone pointed out earlier, private schools are granted charitable status which means there's a lot of taxes they don't have to pay. But they still have, on their staff, teachers who have been trained by the state and at a cost to you and me, the taxpayer.

 

I don't applaud or castigate people who send their children to fee paying schools. That's their choice to make. I chose to send my children to state schools although, had I wanted to, I could have paid for them to have a private education. It was, and still is, against my principles.

 

Well it might surprise you BTF that I am going to opt for the other route something that means that I will miss out on a lot of the finer things in life.

[bridge too far]

Well it might surprise you BTF that I am going to opt for the other route something that means that I will miss out on a lot of the finer things in life.

 

That's your perogative SG. My children haven't missed out on anything. They're all doing really well in their chosen careers and, more importantly to me, they're all well balanced, rounded individuals who are very caring and considerate. That's all I'd ever want from my children.

[pedg]

Its not a big idea. Its about choice and not having to subsidise an organisation that I do not want to.

 

How do you think Murdoch implements his system?

 

I am not interested in how Murdoch implements his system I want to know how you think the BBC can restrict access to their TV and radio channels and their website to only those people who have paid their licence? Should they pay to replace every TV and set top box in the country? Basically it is impossible to implement but don't let that stop you going on about it.

[hypochondriac]

I went to private school because it was the best school in the area and gave me the best chance of doing well in my exams. If I hadn't gone to the school I went to then I wouldn't have got the results I got. Simple.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

That's your perogative SG. My children haven't missed out on anything. They're all doing really well in their chosen careers and, more importantly to me, they're all well balanced, rounded individuals who are very caring and considerate. That's all I'd ever want from my children.

 

Well mine are a little too young to judge! Our politics may be different but we have the same aspirations for our children.

[Deppo]

Proof, if it was ever needed, that public school doesn't necessarily produce the brightest of pupils.

Edited 28 February, 2011 by Deppo

[hypochondriac]

That's your perogative SG. My children haven't missed out on anything. They're all doing really well in their chosen careers and, more importantly to me, they're all well balanced, rounded individuals who are very caring and considerate. That's all I'd ever want from my children.

 

Something which is totally achievable with a private school education. I went there because they consistently achieved the best results and so it proved.

[Verbal]

I went to private school because it was the best school in the area and gave me the best chance of doing well in my exams. If I hadn't gone to the school I went to then I wouldn't have got the results I got. Simple.

 

Absolutely right hypo. You wouldn't be who you are without it. You should post your GCSE results on here as a lesson to all of us.

[hypochondriac]

Well mine are a little too young to judge! Our politics may be different but we have the same aspirations for our children.

 

Send them to private schools. Most people who moan about them are just jealous.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I am not interested in how Murdoch implements his system I want to know how you think the BBC can restrict access to their TV and radio channels and their website to only those people who have paid their licence? Should they pay to replace every TV and set top box in the country? Basically it is impossible to implement but don't let that stop you going on about it.

 

I can promise you that it is possible.

[hypochondriac]

Absolutely right hypo. You wouldn't be who you are without it. You should post your GCSE results on here as a lesson to all of us.

 

You know nothing about me, simply what I choose to show you through my writing on here.

[Deppo]

You know nothing about me, simply what I choose to show you through my writing on here.

 

You choose to show that part of you? Jesus, What are you holding back?

[dune]

I had the chance to go to a public school through a trust fund that friends of the family had which they could transfer to whoever, but I was 12 or 13 at the time and I didn't want to leave the school I was at.

[Verbal]

You know nothing about me, simply what I choose to show you through my writing on here.

 

That's what I mean! You are a role model for all of us. Tell us more about how you're a walking, talking advert for private education.

[bridge too far]

Send them to private schools. Most people who moan about them are just jealous.

 

For the first time that I can remember, old misery has made me laugh

[St Chalet]

Glad to see this has gone off the topic of the BBC onto education systems and class.

[hypochondriac]

That's what I mean! You are a role model for all of us. Tell us more about how you're a walking, talking advert for private education.

 

I'm glad I never went to your school. You were probably bullied.

[hypochondriac]

For the first time that I can remember, old misery has made me laugh

 

I did say most. I don't think you are jealous though, I just think you are the biggest leftie I have ever conversed with and a little mental.

[dune]

I'm glad I never went to your school. You were probably bullied.

 

You are assuming he went to school.

[Verbal]

Glad to see this has gone off the topic of the BBC onto education systems and class.

 

They're not as disconnected as all that. The 'social' bias of the BBC is arguably towards the middle class. The shame is that we're not getting a reasoned discussion about bias because of the poorly argued rage of those with too much foam in their mouths. There IS an argument to be had - but we're still on the nursery slopes unfortunately.

[pedg]

I can promise you that it is possible.

 

How about feasible and affordable? Not to mention why 95% of the majority of the population should pay the expense of implementing it just so the 5% or less of demented right wingers can feel a warm glow inside for not paying for the communist BBC.

[dune]

They're not as disconnected as all that. The 'social' bias of the BBC is arguably towards the middle class. The shame is that we're not getting a reasoned discussion about bias because of the poorly argued rage of those with too much foam in their mouths. There IS an argument to be had - but we're still on the nursery slopes unfortunately.

 

As this is going waaaaay off topic, tell us about the time your house shook but it really didn't.

[hypochondriac]

Lets be honest, most people if they could would send their children to a school where people are relatively sensible and actually want to do work and learn compared to one where you get a bunch of mentalists running riot and disrupting it for everyone. Obviously this isn't the case for all schools but it was the case for me when I was growing up. It was basically get a private education and be educated properly or go to the school round the corner full of loons. There are many brilliant state schools but in my case private was by far the best option and many others face a similar situation. (I wouldn't send my child to Upper Shirley High or St Annes for example having had a lot of experience in those schools and seeing how St Annes especially puts a lot of children off learning.)

Edited 28 February, 2011 by hypochondriac

[Verbal]

Lets be honest, most people if they could would send their children to a school where people are relatively sensible and actually want to do work and learn compared to one where you get a bunch of mentalists running riot and disrupting it for everyone. Obviously this isn't the case for all schools but it was the case for me when I was growing up. It was basically get a private education and be educated properly or go to the school round the corner full of loons. There are many brilliant state schools but in my case private was by far the best option.

 

I agree. It's turned out brilliantly for you and for us. now back to the thread...

[aintforever]

I went to comprehensive school the last time the Tories were in charge and it was sh!t.

 

My brothers one and only field trip was to Stonehenge, the school couldn't afford the entrance fee so parked on the road opposite and made them look through the fence. My main lingering memory from school was a PSE class where the council estate kids made the teacher cry whilst a fit girl got fingered by my mate at the back of the class. Many classes were mixed ability which meant the thick hard kids made any sort of education impossible, bullying was the norm - too many ****ed up stories to mention. If I had kids i would make sure they went private.