Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

BBC demands obscene inflation-busting tax hike

135

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Matadore wrote:
    Why should we read that Chomsky rubbish?

    So instead of reading it and constructing a critique, you just dismiss it as rubbish. How clever of you.
    The Matadore wrote:
    Id rather get stuck into some Milton Friedman - there was a true capitalist!

    Your level appears to be the Beano.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You would never dismiss other peoples ideas as rubbish would you Blagsta?

    Wait............
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    You would never dismiss other peoples ideas as rubbish would you Blagsta?

    Wait............

    Not without reading and considering them first, no.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Quote me an example of the BBC broadcasting "Government-controlled propaganda".
    Just look back at the death of Dr David Kelly, the Hutton Report, etc
    However, you seem confused as you also accused it of "broadcasting left-wing drivel and propaganda". Which is it? A mouth piece of the government or a bed of raving commies?
    No confusion here old chum. Its a mouth-piece for the government and all its New Labour rubbish.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    Just look back at the death of Dr David Kelly, the Hutton Report, etc

    I'm confused. This is evidence for the exact opposite of what you're saying.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This demonstrates clearly how the BBC squanders our money and has no conception of financial budgets or control.

    Last year it spent £11.8 million on taxi fares, with staff swanning round London and other parts of the country in the back of cabs - have they ever heard of public transport (buses/trains), cycling, or even walking????

    The BBC sent 188 staff to cover the US Election at a cost of £850,000!!!.
    10 times more than ITV, who spent less than £80,000.

    The BBC is an organisation out of control, its a bloated bureauracy that devours our money and would cease to be if it operated in the same way in the private sector.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    Just look back at the death of Dr David Kelly, the Hutton Report, etc
    Eh?

    Edit: NQA beat me to it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    Just look back at the death of Dr David Kelly, the Hutton Report, etc

    No confusion here old chum. Its a mouth-piece for the government and all its New Labour rubbish.


    you are confused aren't you!

    The Government will be the downfall of the BBC - they have it in for the corporation, and the Hutton report proved that!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    This demonstrates clearly how the BBC squanders our money and has no conception of financial budgets or control.

    Last year it spent £11.8 million on taxi fares, with staff swanning round London and other parts of the country in the back of cabs - have they ever heard of public transport (buses/trains), cycling, or even walking????

    The BBC sent 188 staff to cover the US Election at a cost of £850,000!!!.
    10 times more than ITV, who spent less than £80,000.

    The BBC is an organisation out of control, its a bloated bureauracy that devours our money and would cease to be if it operated in the same way in the private sector.
    And if the BBC had sent a similar team to the US as ITV, you'd be here right now moaning about 'anti-American' BBC not even bothering to send appropriate resources to cover the biggest and most important election in the free world, and what an embarrassment it was for the so-called best broadcasting corporation in the world, and blah blah blah...

    :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    This demonstrates clearly how the BBC squanders our money and has no conception of financial budgets or control.

    Last year it spent £11.8 million on taxi fares, with staff swanning round London and other parts of the country in the back of cabs - have they ever heard of public transport (buses/trains), cycling, or even walking????

    The BBC sent 188 staff to cover the US Election at a cost of £850,000!!!.
    10 times more than ITV, who spent less than £80,000.

    The BBC is an organisation out of control, its a bloated bureauracy that devours our money and would cease to be if it operated in the same way in the private sector.


    most BBC Staff don't actually get these perks, unfortunately the small amount of people who do are probably not even 'on staff' but are actually 'talent' who are paid extra for being stars. And these people are not the ones who support the BBC from the bottom, nor are they the people who will be facing the loss of their jobs!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    This demonstrates clearly how the BBC squanders our money and has no conception of financial budgets or control.

    Last year it spent £11.8 million on taxi fares, with staff swanning round London and other parts of the country in the back of cabs - have they ever heard of public transport (buses/trains), cycling, or even walking????

    The BBC sent 188 staff to cover the US Election at a cost of £850,000!!!.
    10 times more than ITV, who spent less than £80,000.

    The BBC is an organisation out of control, its a bloated bureauracy that devours our money and would cease to be if it operated in the same way in the private sector.


    You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of how large organisations operate. Given that people's time has a cost it makes sense to get them between places as quickly as possible, so that they're not wasting time on the tube. Its also possible to have discussions in taxis and much more difficult to do it on the underground.

    And the US election you can tell the difference in the quality. BBC was much superior to ITN (which seems to have more or less given up any ambitions about being a serious international news provider).

    Now I don't disagree that the BBC could be slimmed down and that it has way too many peripheral activities, but I think the UK would be a poorer place if we got rid of it
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    Just look back at the death of Dr David Kelly, the Hutton Report, etc

    Errmmm...this actually proves my point, not yours.
    True Blue wrote:
    No confusion here old chum. Its a mouth-piece for the government and all its New Labour rubbish.

    So New Labour are left wing are they? How exactly?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    This demonstrates clearly how the BBC squanders our money and has no conception of financial budgets or control.

    Last year it spent £11.8 million on taxi fares, with staff swanning round London and other parts of the country in the back of cabs - have they ever heard of public transport (buses/trains), cycling, or even walking????

    The BBC sent 188 staff to cover the US Election at a cost of £850,000!!!.
    10 times more than ITV, who spent less than £80,000.

    The BBC is an organisation out of control, its a bloated bureauracy that devours our money and would cease to be if it operated in the same way in the private sector.

    Sources?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No of course the BBC is not biased!

    http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It may be worth mentioning that their current political correspondent was a Tory activist. And the Tory MP (who's name I've forgotten, but died with an orange in his mouth after some weird sex play went wrong) was their ex-economics editor.

    The BBC isn't one entity, but a collection of tribes. The today programme may well be left wing, but the Radio 5 breakfast show is more right wing. Overall it at least tries not to be biased.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LOL... haven't we seen this website before? :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    LOL... haven't we seen this website before? :D
    If you had you would have seen this disturbing report,

    http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/2005_05.html#001204
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Not without reading and considering them first, no.

    :chin:
    Toadborg wrote:

    Another plausible theory is that profits are a reward for entrepreneurship, what do you think of that?
    Blagsta wrote:
    I think its nonsense as it is impossible to separate people's contributions to making something. People should be renumerated for their labour - profit is money that is appropriated from other people's labour. Think about it.

    Sounds very considered to me, shall I make the stndard "go and do some reading" comment?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    If you had you would have seen this disturbing report,

    http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/2005_05.html#001204
    So you post links to a rabidly biased website called 'Labour Watch' followed by an article by the Daily Mail's very own Melanie Phillips.

    You're doing well.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    No of course the BBC is not biased!

    http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

    PML! :D You tool.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    So you post links to a rabidly biased website called 'Labour Watch' followed by an article by the Daily Mail's very own Melanie Phillips.
    You're doing well.
    Good to see you're open-minded and not prejudiced Aladdin!

    What about this, especially the section headed "BBC Extravagance"

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmcumeds/82/4091406.htm
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So the BBC could cut on expenses. Who couldn't?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    :chin:





    Sounds very considered to me, shall I make the stndard "go and do some reading" comment?

    Yep, its very considered. Its a view based on reading Marxist and anarchist texts, experience of working and experience of running a business.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you admit that there is only one perspective on trhese issues that you will consider then?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    No of course the BBC is not biased!

    http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

    http://ganching.typepad.com/ganching/2005/03/confessions_of_.html
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    So the BBC could cut on expenses. Who couldn't?
    Its more than a cut in expenses thats needed, we need to get rid of this bloated bureauracy that is out of financial control.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    Its more than a cut in expenses thats needed, we need to get rid of this bloated bureauracy that is out of financial control.

    which the BBC introduced to make things more cost effective under the last leadership
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True Blue wrote:
    Its more than a cut in expenses thats needed, we need to get rid of this bloated bureauracy that is out of financial control.
    Out of financial control? Do you have any evidence to support that?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Out of financial control? Do you have any evidence to support that?
    Name me another foreign media comapny who sent 188 people to cover the US Elections at a cost of £850,000!!!! The word "jollies" comes to mind!!
    ITV provided better coverage for a fraction of the cost!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The best news channel in the world need good coverage.

    And as I said before, if the BBC had sent a team the size (and quality) of ITV news, I'm willing to bet you would have been here now complaining at such poor effort by the BBC due to their rabid anti-americanism and blah blah.
Sign In or Register to comment.