MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.

If you like that you'll love this.
That's an internal poster for managers at homebase, staff have claimed that since the addition of staff on "work experience" many have had their hours cut from 48 to 8 a week. Of course if someone on work experience decides not to go in one day they have their benefits stopped for anything up to 3 years.

What I don't understand is why would it be good for the economy to reduce the spending power of people by replacing them with state funded free labour.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Jack should get a proper job instead of being an 'out of work actor', or more accurately, a 'bum'.

My father is an actor. He starred as the lead in a fair number of shows (from Frankfurter in Rocky Horror to Val Jean in Les Miserables). He's done more tours than I can count, more shows then even he can comfortably remember, and yet there are still periods of months where he has no work and has to go on benefits.

The acting profession is difficult enough that even those that are reasonably successful at it have periods where there is no work available. The small size of the industry and vast number of people who wish to be in it guarantees that.

Not to mention the difficulty involved in shifting careers when you went to drama school at 16, left at 21, and then performed on off for a few years. You don't tend to have much in the way of alternative qualifications or prospects.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There's no need for that, at all.

Albatross wrote:If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.

And I was being serious.

Wyrmalla wrote:Albatross you insulted Pumpkin and are now acting unashamed about it. Here's an easy link to this forum's posting rules, the first of which is to be polite.

Wyrmalla wrote:You inferred that you someone knew more about their life than them. That Pumpkin was apparently too lazy to go out and find a job, despite having stated that they had been looking one. You could go into their environment and find a job for them no problem. Its quite insulting to be unemployed and for someone who has one to turn up and say that its your fault for not being able to find one.

When questioned on it you acknowledged that you had caused offense, but didn't apologies. It was a personal slight, that's why I called you on it. =/

If the insult was indeed unintentional, for which I shall take Albatross's word, then I suppose I was a little harsh. I guess one should always remember that not everything that's implied in an argument is necessarily intentional. Let it be a learning experience for the both of us!

 Ketara wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
[
I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.

Yep, I said that above and Albatross agreed as well, free labour to the private sector is detrimental from all angles but the business' own, and obviously they are in favour of free workers at the very bottom end of their strata.

I'm not sure that Albatross necessarily agrees with the reasoning though, but rather thinks it's 'not a bad idea, but...a bad political move at this time.'

Well, yes and no. Yes, the current plan has been fairly stupidly executed. In my opinion, the policy was a victim of the Coalition trying to do too much too fast, because, well, there's a lot that needs to be done. And yes, all of the things you pointed out in your Lidl example are accurate, more or less. However, I'm not opposed to work experience per se - for a young person with no education, training or skills, work experience, even in a private company, can be vital in securing gainful employment. For the last 6 months, I've been out of full-time employment (University archiving project went tits-up, but on the plus side, I got a free trip to the USA out of it...), so I've been working part-time and volunteering in a local specialist private school. I am convinced that this made me more attractive to my new employer. In fact, I know it did. And, if I recall correctly a significant number of people have gone on to secure full-time employment as a result of the government's work program.

That said, it would have made much more sense politically, ideologically and materially to make it a program that puts people into pro-rata voluntary positions that give back to society .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Under the system we have now, poorer people have (or can expect) a roughly similar level of income when studying at university. I should know I was one of them etc.

As a full time student with OU I get a tuition loan, but no other funding, but that obviously isn't the norm.

Do you not get a combination maintenance grant/loan through the OU, like? That's actually quite surprising. In any case, good luck with it. What are you studying?

One group of people is paying for it out of money they have earned, another is not. Also, poor people will still be comparatively poor, you've just moved the baseline. Still not equal.

Inequality will always come second to poverty for me, if that baseline change means that people can afford to heat their house then that's grand by me. It's not really about being Robin Hood, it's about finding a system that works and provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

I thought equality was the point, though?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
"Britain does not have a serious ‘social mobility problem’, but it does have a serious ‘underclass problem.’" (6). Albatross, I read a bit of your social mobility article but how does this quote disprove that there isn't a social mobility problem if underclass children are having there life chances

blighted how is that not a social mobility problem?

Basically what that means is that the disadvantages inherent in being a member of the underclass (into which I was born, incidentally - almost textbook) aren't merely limited to simple economic determinism, but to other factors such as parental dereliction. Here's the relevant passage:

Underclass children growing up in welfare dependent households are frequently abandoned by their fathers and brought up by young mothers who cannot cope. They may be exposed to substance abuse in the home, have no structure in their lives, and no positive adult role models.

If you recall, this is something that I alluded to earlier when speaking about the education of young people. Stable attentive parents are just as much a factor in a child's success than money, if not more so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pumpkin wrote:

If the insult was indeed unintentional, for which I shall take Albatross's word, then I suppose I was a little harsh. I guess one should always remember that not everything that's implied in an argument is necessarily intentional. Let it be a learning experience for the both of us!

For what it's worth, I wasn't implying that you were lazy. And looking back the 'CV' thing probably came off a little harsh, but I wrote that before I realised you were out of work, as I was working my way through the posts that required my attention. I'm mean, but I'm not that mean!

And I was being serious - I bet I could find you a job. You might not like it, but that's another story. Still haven't received your PM, by the way.

 Albatross wrote:
Basically what that means is that the disadvantages inherent in being a member of the underclass (into which I was born, incidentally - almost textbook) aren't merely limited to simple economic determinism, but to other factors such as parental dereliction. Here's the relevant passage:

Underclass children growing up in welfare dependent households are frequently abandoned by their fathers and brought up by young mothers who cannot cope. They may be exposed to substance abuse in the home, have no structure in their lives, and no positive adult role models.

If you recall, this is something that I alluded to earlier when speaking about the education of young people. Stable attentive parents are just as much a factor in a child's success than money, if not more so.

I agree, but I don't see that being an issue that is separate from Social Mobility but rather a part of it as I interpreted Social Mobility being one's ability to move up or down the social ladder so things like parenting, life chances, money, diet, ability, skill sets, direction, support, etc would effect

your odds of improving your social class/status.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Basically what that means is that the disadvantages inherent in being a member of the underclass (into which I was born, incidentally - almost textbook) aren't merely limited to simple economic determinism, but to other factors such as parental dereliction. Here's the relevant passage:

Underclass children growing up in welfare dependent households are frequently abandoned by their fathers and brought up by young mothers who cannot cope. They may be exposed to substance abuse in the home, have no structure in their lives, and no positive adult role models.

If you recall, this is something that I alluded to earlier when speaking about the education of young people. Stable attentive parents are just as much a factor in a child's success than money, if not more so.

I agree, but I don't see that being an issue that is separate from Social Mobility but rather a part of it as I interpreted Social Mobility being one's ability to move up or down the social ladder so things like parenting, life chances, money, diet, ability, skill sets, direction, support, etc would effect

your odds of improving your social class/status.

You're right, it's not a seperate issue. However, the reason oft cited for the lack of opportunities experienced by underclass is poverty, which is not strictly true, as shown in the rest of the paper.

 Albatross wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Basically what that means is that the disadvantages inherent in being a member of the underclass (into which I was born, incidentally - almost textbook) aren't merely limited to simple economic determinism, but to other factors such as parental dereliction. Here's the relevant passage:

Underclass children growing up in welfare dependent households are frequently abandoned by their fathers and brought up by young mothers who cannot cope. They may be exposed to substance abuse in the home, have no structure in their lives, and no positive adult role models.

If you recall, this is something that I alluded to earlier when speaking about the education of young people. Stable attentive parents are just as much a factor in a child's success than money, if not more so.

I agree, but I don't see that being an issue that is separate from Social Mobility but rather a part of it as I interpreted Social Mobility being one's ability to move up or down the social ladder so things like parenting, life chances, money, diet, ability, skill sets, direction, support, etc would effect

your odds of improving your social class/status.

You're right, it's not a seperate issue. However, the reason oft cited for the lack of opportunities experienced by underclass is poverty, which is not strictly true, as shown in the rest of the paper.

Yeah, that makes more sense to me thanks for the clarification.

 Albatross wrote:
And, if I recall correctly a significant number of people have gone on to secure full-time employment as a result of the government's work program.

Alas not, 3.6% have found work, which is well below the target of 11.9%, and 5% would have found work without the programme. So it would appear less successful than doing nothing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191

 Albatross wrote:

Do you not get a combination maintenance grant/loan through the OU, like? That's actually quite surprising. In any case, good luck with it. What are you studying?

Thank you, I'm most of the way through the first year of a Social Sciences course, once I hit the second year I will have to specialise in something. Still deciding between Politics, Sociology and Criminology. As for the funding, I'm the first year they have allowed to do full time, but its OU so while it says full time it just means finished in 3 years, only really takes up 25 hours a week. I don't really mind as I'll only owe 15k at the end.

I thought equality was the point, though?

It's more about reducing the detriments of inequality (poverty and crime and such) if we could do that while remaining the way we are currently I'd be more than happy. There's no point doing something just because it looks good on a graph, its more about managing the consequences. There are options on how you would reach greater equality, Japan is a far more equal society than Britain and has lower taxes, they achieve this by paying higher wages to the low paid.

Stable attentive parents are just as much a factor in a child's success than money, if not more so.

I agree with that, but it's not a factor that someone has any control over, any more than the socio-economic status they are born into.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

For your consideration: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/socialmobilitydelusions2012.pdf

That is an interesting report, which asks very good questions regarding the methodology of other studies. The writer is a bit guilty of the things he accuses others of at times, but it does show the failings of a lot of reports regarding social mobility.

The main conclusion I gained from it is that mobility between classes is more common than between income. Moving from upper working class to middle class is quite common, but that is not the sign of a meritocracy. If you are born in the underclass it is highly unlikely you will never earn 500 grand a year regardless of your natural talent.

 dæl wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
And, if I recall correctly a significant number of people have gone on to secure full-time employment as a result of the government's work program.

Alas not, 3.6% have found work, which is well below the target of 11.9%, and 5% would have found work without the programme. So it would appear less successful than doing nothing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191

Read the article more closely:

"The Work Programme has found 207,000 people employment up until the end of September 2012. That isn't shown in the DWP statistics published in November because to register in those statistics you need to be in employment for at least six months,"

 Albatross wrote:

Do you not get a combination maintenance grant/loan through the OU, like? That's actually quite surprising. In any case, good luck with it. What are you studying?

Thank you, I'm most of the way through the first year of a Social Sciences course, once I hit the second year I will have to specialise in something. Still deciding between Politics, Sociology and Criminology. As for the funding, I'm the first year they have allowed to do full time, but its OU so while it says full time it just means finished in 3 years, only really takes up 25 hours a week. I don't really mind as I'll only owe 15k at the end.

Is that the reason you didn't go to a campus university, or is it a work-related thing (as in, you don't want to give up full-time work)? Just curious. I've considered doing OU - I was accepted into the College of Law, but I don't think I'm gonna pursue that just yet. Also, a bit of friendly advice - I wouldn't do criminology. I know one or two folks who did that, and whilst they enjoyed it immensely, it's an incredibly hard field to break into, making a degree in it almost as useless as the one I've got! Almost, but not quite.

I thought equality was the point, though?

It's more about reducing the detriments of inequality (poverty and crime and such) if we could do that while remaining the way we are currently I'd be more than happy. There's no point doing something just because it looks good on a graph, its more about managing the consequences. There are options on how you would reach greater equality, Japan is a far more equal society than Britain and has lower taxes, they achieve this by paying higher wages to the low paid.

They're also onto their second lost decade, and have a looming pension crisis if I'm not mistaken. They also have a much bigger debt than even we do.

Stable attentive parents are just as much a factor in a child's success than money, if not more so.

I agree with that, but it's not a factor that someone has any control over, any more than the socio-economic status they are born into.

That doesn't give the state the right to be a third parent. I don't want to live in a country like that.

 Albatross wrote:

For your consideration: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/socialmobilitydelusions2012.pdf

That is an interesting report, which asks very good questions regarding the methodology of other studies. The writer is a bit guilty of the things he accuses others of at times, but it does show the failings of a lot of reports regarding social mobility.

The main conclusion I gained from it is that mobility between classes is more common than between income. Moving from upper working class to middle class is quite common, but that is not the sign of a meritocracy. If you are born in the underclass it is highly unlikely you will never earn 500 grand a year regardless of your natural talent.

It is highly unlikely you'll earn that whichever class you belong to though, so the point is moot.

BBC Radio One says its going to play Ding Dong the Witch is Dead in its weekly chart show. However, despite saying that they won't be censoring it, they'll only be playing five seconds. They say that this is not to cause offense and that the campaign to raise it in popularity has been made to force them to play the song.

Oh and Prime Minister's Question time is also set to be cancelled. I guess the BBC's going out of their way to make sure nary a bad word's being made against that woman. It may cause offence, but I think disallowing people to even discuss the matter is against free speech.

Maybe after her funeral the media will cut off their apparent embargo and allow for the counter arguments to be published? She may have just died, and that's the stick that the media's taking, ie don't speak ill of the dead, but again, just because someone's died doesn't make their actions in life less reprehensible. I guess we'll see what happens in the coming weeks and whether the media acknowledges that public opinion extends further than her just having made "an impact on the British people".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
BBC Radio One says its going to play Ding Dong the Witch is Dead in its weekly chart show. However, despite saying that they won't be censoring it, they'll only be playing five seconds. They say that this is not to cause offense and that the campaign to raise it in popularity has been made to force them to play the song.

Oh and Prime Minister's Question time is also set to be cancelled. I guess the BBC's going out of their way to make sure nary a bad word's being made against that woman. It may cause offence, but I think disallowing people to even discuss the matter is against free speech.

Maybe after her funeral the media will cut off their apparent embargo and allow for the counter arguments to be published? She may have just died, and that's the stick that the media's taking, ie don't speak ill of the dead, but again, just because someone's died doesn't make their actions in life less reprehensible. I guess we'll see what happens in the coming weeks and whether the media acknowledges that public opinion extends further than her just having made "an impact on the British people".

PMQ's is only broadcast by the BBC it is not a BBC show. Question Time is something totally different even it that were cancelled i could understand why.

As for media embargos, have you read some of the articles and bylines in recent newspapers? There has been plenty of negative commentary on the radio and on the TV too. They just don't keep bashing people over the head with it.

 Wyrmalla wrote:


Oh and Prime Minister's Question time is also set to be cancelled. I guess the BBC's going out of their way to make sure nary a bad word's being made against that woman. It may cause offence, but I think disallowing people to even discuss the matter is against free speech.

Free Speech is about not being criminalised for what you have to say, it doesn’t entitle you to a platform or an audience.

The BBC refusing to play the song in full (which is a pretty crass and immature campaign regardless of your view on Thatcher as a PM) isn’t a violation of the principles of freedom of speech.

The BBC's been putting out the line that she was a great prime minister. They may have allowed for some counter arguments, but they haven't changed their point. So despite acknowledging that people didn't like her, they seem to be under the conception that they can throw out their biased point. But its the BBC, so though they can throw about the idea that their unbiased, when it comes to the ruling party they'll praise them whole sale. The majority of the coverage that Thatcher is receiving now is from people that feel positive about her, with the odd token counter argument that does nothing to change their view. Then again they are funded by the government, and of course, you don't want to annoy the people that are paying you. =P

Other news sources may be giving a more balanced opinion, but the mainstream media, barring a few (ie the liberal ones), definitely isn't right now.

The BBC didn't play a Kesha song after the 7/7 bombings either, according a report I read. They didn't play Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Relax for ages either and that arguably was more of a case of censorship than this one. It's nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with not being puerile and callous.

Albatross wrote:
Read the article more closely:

"The Work Programme has found 207,000 people employment up until the end of September 2012. That isn't shown in the DWP statistics published in November because to register in those statistics you need to be in employment for at least six months,"

Which would often be a day or two temping, which isn't really the point of such a program.

Albatross wrote:
Is that the reason you didn't go to a campus university, or is it a work-related thing (as in, you don't want to give up full-time work)? Just curious. I've considered doing OU - I was accepted into the College of Law, but I don't think I'm gonna pursue that just yet. Also, a bit of friendly advice - I wouldn't do criminology. I know one or two folks who did that, and whilst they enjoyed it immensely, it's an incredibly hard field to break into, making a degree in it almost as useless as the one I've got! Almost, but not quite.

A number of reasons really, it was a lot cheaper, plus I really enjoy the flexibility of working entirely at my own pace, and being able to move around Europe in my second or third years if I so choose. I get to keep my life relatively unchanged too, don't have to move somewhere new and find a new job and live with people. I'm glad I went this route.
Cheers for the heads up

Albatross wrote:
It is highly unlikely you'll earn that whichever class you belong to though, so the point is moot.

In 2005 there were 22,000 people who earned over that in the UK. If anyone fancies funding such research I would happily go ask each one what class they were born into.

Mr. Burning wrote:
PMQ's is only broadcast by the BBC it is not a BBC show. Question Time is something totally different even it that were cancelled i could understand why.

QT was on last night, from Thatcher's old constituency, and was pretty balanced overall.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
The BBC's been putting out the line that she was a great prime minister. They may have allowed for some counter arguments, but they haven't changed their point. So despite acknowledging that people didn't like her, they seem to be under the conception that they can throw out their biased point. But its the BBC, so though they can throw about the idea that their unbiased, when it comes to the ruling party they'll praise them whole sale. The majority of the coverage that Thatcher is receiving now is from people that feel positive about her, with the odd token counter argument that does nothing to change their view. Then again they are funded by the government, and of course, you don't want to annoy the people that are paying you. =P

Other news sources may be giving a more balanced opinion, but the mainstream media, barring a few (ie the liberal ones), definitely isn't right now.

However government funding is just a popular myth.

Contrary to popular belief, the government do not fund the BBC. The license fee is collected from us, the public, on behalf of the Beeb by the post office, who retain a small proportion for doing so. The BBC also sells its programmes abroad & to other channels to supplement its funding.

From yahoo answers.

he BBC received over £2.65 billion in licence fees for the financial year 2002-2003. Added to it’s other income, such as commercial sales of programmes, merchandising, Open University payments and EU Grants, the Corporation had a total income of over £2.68 billion.


However, the government does set the license fee.

Personally I resent the enforcement the BBC has with the licence fee. Paying for Tv channels as a demand, I'd rather have commercials, or selling the right to show the program on say sattelite or virgin media. We don't even have the option of not watching it. If you own a functioning tv, you need a licence.

 dæl wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Read the article more closely:

"The Work Programme has found 207,000 people employment up until the end of September 2012. That isn't shown in the DWP statistics published in November because to register in those statistics you need to be in employment for at least six months,"

Which would often be a day or two temping, which isn't really the point of such a program.

Are you guessing, or do you know that?

Albatross wrote:
Is that the reason you didn't go to a campus university, or is it a work-related thing (as in, you don't want to give up full-time work)? Just curious. I've considered doing OU - I was accepted into the College of Law, but I don't think I'm gonna pursue that just yet. Also, a bit of friendly advice - I wouldn't do criminology. I know one or two folks who did that, and whilst they enjoyed it immensely, it's an incredibly hard field to break into, making a degree in it almost as useless as the one I've got! Almost, but not quite.

A number of reasons really, it was a lot cheaper, plus I really enjoy the flexibility of working entirely at my own pace, and being able to move around Europe in my second or third years if I so choose. I get to keep my life relatively unchanged too, don't have to move somewhere new and find a new job and live with people. I'm glad I went this route.
Cheers for the heads up

No worries. The problem is that jobs in the police force are incredibly difficult to get. Even just to volunteer to be a Special Constable is massively over-subscribed, and difficult to get into besides. One of my best mates has just done it. Add to that the fact that even if you want to become a bog-standard beat-bobby, they only recruit from Special Constables, and then a handful of vacancies at a time. Also, it's stands to reason that there would be fewer and fewer jobs further up the ladder, and even fewer positions for specialists. Add a very powerful union into the mix and you have a pretty much textbook closed shop.

Mr. Burning wrote:
PMQ's is only broadcast by the BBC it is not a BBC show. Question Time is something totally different even it that were cancelled i could understand why.

QT was on last night, from Thatcher's old constituency, and was pretty balanced overall.

 Albatross wrote:

Are you guessing, or do you know that?

I don't have any facts as freedom of information requests are denied due to the involvement of private companies. There will be some instances of people not keeping their jobs for 6 months, but there will also be instances of those jobs being short term contracts. There are also instances of people being "encouraged" to register as self employed, where they would be able to claim tax credits, and the provider claims the fee. There are also a lot of stories of people who have found their own job before even starting the programme, who are then hassled to provide details of the job so the provider can claim the fee for that. The fees claimed by the provider can be as much as £13,000 a person.

The whole system just seems quite dodgy to me. And that is before you factor in the various fraud allegations against the largest provider, or the fact that benefit sanctions have more than tripled since the start of the work programme.

 filbert wrote:
The BBC didn't play a Kesha song after the 7/7 bombings either, according a report I read. They didn't play Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Relax for ages either and that arguably was more of a case of censorship than this one. It's nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with not being puerile and callous.

To be honest, it's not even that good of a song.
Anyway, on topic; I dunno, on the one hand, the BBC is paid for by the same people who also put that song where it is in the charts now. It seems that they've decided to speak for the people who pay to keep them in existence, which could be argued as wrong, and somewhat presumptive on their part. In addition, the Beeb could be accused of jeopardising it's attempted fair stance by doing so (whether those accusations are fair or not), as Thatcher's a PM who still excites strong feelings one way or another across the UK and there'll be some who'll take the song as their anthem.

That said, I dunno, Thatcher was kind of gone long before she actually died. It seems a little crass to glory in her demise now, really, as all that'd be being glorified was the death of an old woman who was succumbing to dementia, and that doesn't seem altogether right to me; as my mum said, she won't shed any tears over her by a long bloody stretch but she won't celebrate Thatcher's death in the streets either.
The battles were already fought during her reign, I don't necessarily know that she needs to be attacked now at the end of her life.

 Eetion wrote:
Personally I resent the enforcement the BBC has with the licence fee. Paying for Tv channels as a demand, I'd rather have commercials, or selling the right to show the program on say sattelite or virgin media. We don't even have the option of not watching it. If you own a functioning tv, you need a licence.

Yet the quality of programming from the BBC is overall superior to those alternatives. You'd rather have adverts? Ugh. While there's some question of independence due to the royal charter, there's much greater and more obvious risk of bias from a channel having to bend to the requirements of its investors and sponsors. For programming and quality as a news source the BBC it very well regarded around the world, as it's one of the few fairly independent sources that doesn't have strong political bias due to government or corporate control.

What will happen if the BBC had to be funded by advertising money is that you'll lose the last channel free of continual advertising in the middle of programmes, the BBC will have to constantly cater to the lowest common denominator rather than offer a range of programming that includes niche interests, and it'll be subject to the bias of its advertisers directly affecting its editorial independence. Which is exactly what people like the Murdoch's want when they continually attack the BBC hoping to see it pulled apart and given to media corporations like theirs to control. It'll turn to gak.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yet the quality of programming from the BBC is overall superior to those alternatives. You'd rather have adverts? Ugh. While there's some question of independence due to the royal charter, there's much greater and more obvious risk of bias from a channel having to bend to the requirements of its investors and sponsors. For programming and quality as a news source the BBC it very well regarded around the world, as it's one of the few fairly independent sources that doesn't have strong political bias due to government or corporate control.

What will happen if the BBC had to be funded by advertising money is that you'll lose the last channel free of continual advertising in the middle of programmes, the BBC will have to constantly cater to the lowest common denominator rather than offer a range of programming that includes niche interests, and it'll be subject to the bias of its advertisers directly affecting its editorial independence. Which is exactly what people like the Murdoch's want when they continually attack the BBC hoping to see it pulled apart and given to media corporations like theirs to control. It'll turn to gak.

Really? I watched BBC news before I moved to the US, now that I'm here I watch BBC News America complete with ads and I can't see a huge difference in the reporting.

 Eetion wrote:

Personally I resent the enforcement the BBC has with the licence fee. Paying for Tv channels as a demand, I'd rather have commercials, or selling the right to show the program on say sattelite or virgin media. We don't even have the option of not watching it. If you own a functioning tv, you need a licence.

I have seen what passes over here in the states for news reporting, I've seen the learning channel give us 'honey boo boo', the history channel give us 'ancient aliens' and national geographic provides 'Amish: Out of Control!'. The entirety of American tv is awash with ultra-cheap-to-make reality tv garbage about more and more useless and banal things.

Every single day you wake up and switch on the BBC and get to see a David Attenborough documentary or intelligent documentary or any number of other good programming the BBC produces on television or radio, thank your lucky stars for it, thank them again for all the children who'll get additional education or a bit of culture in their lives from it.

And pray you never see the day when what's befallen American tv comes to the UK. The BBC is a bloody godsend.

Solution: Don't watch TV. The internet is a thing now guys. I can even get the BBC's news channel with a couple presses of a button. For about $80 less then cable AND internet to boot.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Eetion wrote:

Personally I resent the enforcement the BBC has with the licence fee. Paying for Tv channels as a demand, I'd rather have commercials, or selling the right to show the program on say sattelite or virgin media. We don't even have the option of not watching it. If you own a functioning tv, you need a licence.

I have seen what passes over here in the states for news reporting, I've seen the learning channel give us 'honey boo boo', the history channel give us 'ancient aliens' and national geographic provides 'Amish: Out of Control!'. The entirety of American tv is awash with ultra-cheap-to-make reality tv garbage about more and more useless and banal things.

Every single day you wake up and switch on the BBC and get to see a David Attenborough documentary or intelligent documentary or any number of other good programming the BBC produces on television or radio, thank your lucky stars for it, thank them again for all the children who'll get additional education or a bit of culture in their lives from it.

And pray you never see the day when what's befallen American tv comes to the UK. The BBC is a bloody godsend.

Doesn't the US have a lot of high rated dramas though?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Eetion wrote:
Personally I resent the enforcement the BBC has with the licence fee. Paying for Tv channels as a demand, I'd rather have commercials, or selling the right to show the program on say sattelite or virgin media. We don't even have the option of not watching it. If you own a functioning tv, you need a licence.

Yet the quality of programming from the BBC is overall superior to those alternatives. You'd rather have adverts? Ugh. While there's some question of independence due to the royal charter, there's much greater and more obvious risk of bias from a channel having to bend to the requirements of its investors and sponsors. For programming and quality as a news source the BBC it very well regarded around the world, as it's one of the few fairly independent sources that doesn't have strong political bias due to government or corporate control.

What will happen if the BBC had to be funded by advertising money is that you'll lose the last channel free of continual advertising in the middle of programmes, the BBC will have to constantly cater to the lowest common denominator rather than offer a range of programming that includes niche interests, and it'll be subject to the bias of its advertisers directly affecting its editorial independence. Which is exactly what people like the Murdoch's want when they continually attack the BBC hoping to see it pulled apart and given to media corporations like theirs to control. It'll turn to gak.

Really? Quality Programming?

Lets examine that claim... lets have a l;ook at tghe average weekday, i choose this coming Monday 15th
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/guide/bbc/london/20130415

Asides from a David Attenborough documentary and a documentary on ancient Egypt on after midnight (both are repeats) on before people finish work and Panorama, we have utter innane dross day time tv until about 5 all of which are repeats..... and Eastenders if you like to waste your life. So including Panorama and im gonna assume Prisoners will be entertaining/informative and worth a go... Thats 3 hours of tv id consider watching... but only 1 hour of that is in a reasonable time for mass viewing.

But mayube im mistaken... got to be something good on a saturday 20th

Dr Who? The Voice? If you can be bothered with that? Casualty? maybe... on BBC 1, On BB2 8pm prime hour... Some Mothers do 'ave 'em... Thats how many decades old.. a repeat of QI.
During the day we have snooker, rugby challenge cup.

As far as im concerned im gonna give Sat night a miss.

But that aside im not slating the channels or the news reporting (which in my opinion ... I totally get that some people still want to watch repeats of homes under the hammer or bargain hunt.
However to enfoce a charge without choice for a service that may not be wanted...
I can choose my phone providers, mobile providers, internet providers to recieve the services I want. I really dont care on if they advertise or continue to charge a fee for their channels... but a choice should be permitted on if you wish to recieve their services.

You're forgetting BBC3 and 4, News 24 and Parliament, Eetion.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't the US have a lot of high rated dramas though?

No, it has a small few. Gemstone's in a beach of dogshite.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, it has a small few. Gemstone's in a beach of dogshite.

Dude, I've watched British television before. I'd take some of the rose tint out of those specs.

 Albatross wrote:
You're forgetting BBC3 and 4, News 24 and Parliament, Eetion.

And all the radio channels...

BBC Radio 1
1xtra
2
3
4
4xtra
5live
5live extra
6
Asia Network
The World Service
Radio Scotland
Radio Nan ghadeal
Radio Ulster]
Radio Foyle
Radio Wales
Radio Cymru

Oh and 40 local BBC radio stations.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, it has a small few. Gemstone's in a beach of dogshite.

Dude, I've watched British television before. I'd take some of the rose tint out of those specs.

Yeah, I imagine there's quality stuff on both sides of the pond but I would imagine most of it's mediocre or worse (for both sides of the pond).

Nope didn't forget. Just concentrated on the 2 main channels. The ones most people pay their licence fee for.

But my point still stands. Most of what's on are repeats, I'm not arging that they can and do produce a few gems, and some nights it can be quite good, but for the most part its not worth it.

Broadchurch for example is one of the best dramas out of the moment and that's itv and lightfields just finished, both of which were ITV.

I say again that I'm not against the BBC but I am against the premise that everyone has the priviledge of having no choice and having to pay.

Sor example, I rarely make use of any BBC services other than parliament or news, someone else may only listen to radio 1 and bbc 1 and 2, someone else radio 3 and 4 and bbc 2 and 3. It not fair that a service payment is provided for things you don't want.

I wouldn't touch ITV with a bargepole. Channel 4 occasionally puts out some good stuff with the likes of Black Mirror and Utopia recently, but without doubt the BBC is streets ahead of the competition.

Also I am happy my license fee goes to Radio 4, as long as you pick your programmes and don't end up with a play or some religion, it is the best thing to paint to.

As I said, to each his own. But why should I and people like me who watch maybe 1-2 hour of BBC tv channels per week. I listen to BBC radio sheffield for their local sports coverage.
My kids watch more disney junior and their tv sports coverage is sub standard compared to the likes of sky.

So for me and many thousands who do watch alternatives and listen to minimal radio have to pay an obscene ammount of money for a service that's barely used simply because I own a tv to watch their competition on?

Its a matter of choice... And the current system doesnt allow one.

They don't own patents on the tv, its not a tax from the government. On what reason do they have any right to demand money other than...

'Well were the BBC!' That in itself isn't a reason to automatically entitle them to anyones hard earned cash.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, it has a small few. Gemstone's in a beach of dogshite.

Dude, I've watched British television before. I'd take some of the rose tint out of those specs.

Yeah, I imagine there's quality stuff on both sides of the pond but I would imagine most of it's mediocre or worse (for both sides of the pond).

American TV is much, much worse. There hardly seems to be any educational content, and there are adverts every 3 minutes it seems. I did enjoy The Men Who Built America when I was over there, though I was severely hungover. You wouldn't get a channel like BBC4 over there on basic cable, no way.

 Albatross wrote:
American TV is much, much worse. There hardly seems to be any educational content, and there are adverts every 3 minutes it seems. I did enjoy The Men Who Built America when I was over there, though I was severely hungover. You wouldn't get a channel like BBC4 over there on basic cable, no way.

Sounds a lot like A&E, from a brief Wikipedia glance.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
American TV is much, much worse. There hardly seems to be any educational content, and there are adverts every 3 minutes it seems. I did enjoy The Men Who Built America when I was over there, though I was severely hungover. You wouldn't get a channel like BBC4 over there on basic cable, no way.

Sounds a lot like A&E, from a brief Wikipedia glance.

Duck Dynasty, a reality show following a bunch of millionaire rednecks who make duck lures around as they whoop and perform. = The Kardashians with beards.

Storage Wars, a reality show following a bunch of people bidding on the contents of unclaimed storage sheds...

American Hoggers, a reality show following a bunch of rednecks who own pigs...

And what needs explaining to the Brits is they repeat these shows through the day, you'll have entire day schedules of the three shows above repeated for the 24 hours, the same actual show.

Absolutely nothing like BBC2.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
American TV is much, much worse. There hardly seems to be any educational content, and there are adverts every 3 minutes it seems. I did enjoy The Men Who Built America when I was over there, though I was severely hungover. You wouldn't get a channel like BBC4 over there on basic cable, no way.

Sounds a lot like A&E, from a brief Wikipedia glance.

Duck Dynasty, a reality show following a bunch of millionaire rednecks who make duck lures around as they whoop and perform. = The Kardashians with beards.

Storage Wars, a reality show following a bunch of people bidding on the contents of unclaimed storage sheds...

American Hoggers, a reality show following a bunch of rednecks who own pigs...

And what needs explaining to the Brits is they repeat these shows through the day, you'll have entire day schedules of the three shows above repeated for the 24 hours, the same actual show.

Absolutely nothing like BBC2.

Yeah, I should point out that 'The Men Who Built America' was on for around 5 hours, followed by 4 hours of something called 'Pawn Stars'.

And this reality show fixation with tv execs over here (because it's insanely cheap tv to make) is everywhere.

Syfy, which used to be the Scifi channel, is now making more shows with donkey-caves in abandoned warehouses with a nightvision camera so everything's green and folks have spooky eyes, than can be labelled by top scientists.

Look at all this gak, just on that one channel:

Reality
Scare Tactics (2003–present)
Ghost Hunters (2004–present)
Destination Truth (2007–present)
Ghost Hunters International (2008–present)
Hollywood Treasure (2010–present)
Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files (2010–present)
Face Off (2011–present)
Haunted Collector (2011–present)
Paranormal Witness (2011–present)
Monster Man (2012–present)
Dream Machines (2012–present)
Insane or Inspired? (2012–present)
School Spirits (2012–present)
Haunted Highway (2012–present)
Collection Intervention (2012–present)
Hot Set (2012–present)
Viral Video Showdown (2012–present)
Deals From the Darkside (2012–present)
Stranded (February 27, 2013-present)
Notorious Hauntings (March 1, 2013-present)
Deep South Paranormal (premieres April 10, 2013)
Weird or What? (premieres April 30, 2013)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
[
Yeah, I should point out that 'The Mean Who Built America' was on for around 5 hours.

I did build it, in fairness...

The BBC does a great job. As far as news goes, it's relatively unbiased. It has excellent educational programming (IMO, the best wildlife documentaries come from the BBC, and are probably the main reason I am a Biologist).

We used to be able to pick it up, living on the east coast of Ireland, and it was miles better than our version (RTÉ) which is a fairly incestuous, talent starved organisation. RTÉ has advertisements and american re-runs instead of home made shows, and it charges a license fee. They even want to charge a license fee for people using computers since you might be using it to access RTÉ content.

The BBC is the only channel I watch when I'm at home (I don't watch TV, normally). They might not have the big budget of the US, but their focus on education and balance is admirable.

That said, I'm sure the US produces many fine documentaries, and I know it produces a lot of really great TV too. But there is a lot of dreck.

Edited to add: And if you don't want to pay the license fee, just don't buy a telly. They can't charge you if you're not picking up the signal. In fact, I didn't have my telly plugged in or set up when the license man came around when I lived in Essex, because I used it for playing x box mostly. He was going to let me off paying the fee but I said I'd pay it anyway- guilt at getting the programming for free over the republic for so long I guess!

And this is why people look to the internet for news and content (along with the proper context).

The drivel you see on TV is worse than ever before here in America. The fact I have to look at youtube for better educational content than TV is sad.

Oppa Decline of Civilization Style.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Reality
Face Off (2011–present)

While I've don't actually watched the show, this is actually quite a worthwhile programme. While yes, it is a 'reality show', it's quite a unique idea with a bit of an unsung heroes bent. - It's all about a group of people learning to become science fiction and fantasy costume and makeup artists, for aliens, creatures and the like.

Mind you, I still go by my stance of, "oh, it's on the syfy channel, isn't a Z movie, a ghost hunting programme or wrestling, it'll be cancelled in a year."

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
American TV is much, much worse. There hardly seems to be any educational content, and there are adverts every 3 minutes it seems. I did enjoy The Men Who Built America when I was over there, though I was severely hungover. You wouldn't get a channel like BBC4 over there on basic cable, no way.

Sounds a lot like A&E, from a brief Wikipedia glance.

Duck Dynasty, a reality show following a bunch of millionaire rednecks who make duck lures around as they whoop and perform. = The Kardashians with beards.

Storage Wars, a reality show following a bunch of people bidding on the contents of unclaimed storage sheds...

American Hoggers, a reality show following a bunch of rednecks who own pigs...

And what needs explaining to the Brits is they repeat these shows through the day, you'll have entire day schedules of the three shows above repeated for the 24 hours, the same actual show.

Absolutely nothing like BBC2.

Yeah, that was my fault. I was thinking of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. That's AMC, not A&E.

With regard the other British channels, I stopped watching ITV when Morse finished. I watched a few Harry Hill TV burps but that was it, nothing else. Five was utterly without merit. Did watch a fair bit of Channel four in fairness, but it's always been fringe viewing, it's news is also fairly good.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:


Yeah, that was my fault. I was thinking of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc. That's AMC, not A&E.

And you'd be right, those shows are good, along with Walking Dead, HBO also does some great TV, Game of Thrones for instance.

And like I said earlier, they are the rare, increasingly rare, jewels in a sea of utter, utter gak.

The rest of the channels have decided to go for the cheapest option, a two man camera crew, a sound guy and a pack of rednecks/weirdos/rich idiots.

Rest well Mr Rodgers, thy time has passed... Now is come the Honey Boo Boo and Housewives of Various Locations.

Have you noticed how the rebranding comes just before this devolution into gak? National Geographic becomes 'natgeo', the Learning Channel becomes 'TLC' and Scifi becomes 'syfy'...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:

Mind you, I still go by my stance of, "oh, it's on the syfy channel, isn't a Z movie, a ghost hunting programme or wrestling, it'll be cancelled in a year."

Yepper, I will NEVER forgive that pack of bastards for what they did to Farscape.

Now they are touting Defiance (cynically tying it into an mmo... ) and whilst I'm a bit interested, I will not invest my time in it. I know they will run a couple of series and then cancel it before it's time. Syfy can suck my Cornish salty balls.

As far as I'm considered the SciFi channel died when it's name changed, the imposter that replaced it is a mere shadow of it's former self.

As to the modern incarnation "History" channel... I miss the days of the "Hitler" channel. It's where my abiding love of the study of WW2 came from.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

As to the modern incarnation "History" channel... I miss the days of the "Hitler" channel. It's where my abiding love of the study of WW2 came from.

It became the Military Channel I believe. One of the few regrets I'll have when I can'x cable at the end of the month.

think we're done.