I own it? News to me. If I refuse to pay the BBC 'tax' then they will send me to prison. Doesn't sound like I own it at all!
Printable View
I own it? News to me. If I refuse to pay the BBC 'tax' then they will send me to prison. Doesn't sound like I own it at all!
...let's just ignore that I forgot the status of the BBC and get to the part where I point out that the BBC produces a lot of quality entertainment that makes the stereotype of shit public TV unfamiliar to me.
The best overseas documentaries are the ones that remind me of the BBC. I'm not an atheist only because I worship at the church of David Attenborough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Where I read thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
and thatQuote:
The BBC is a corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen by the BBC Trust (formerly the Board of Governors).
The Trust sets the strategy for the corporation, assesses the performance of the BBC Executive Board in delivering the BBC's services, and appoints the Director-General.
Whoever might own it, the government has a say in determining its politics and appointing its management.Quote:
The Royal Charter establishes that the Trust should have twelve trustees, including a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and a member for each of the Home Nations of the United Kingdom. Appointments to the BBC Trust are made by Queen in Council, on the recommendation of UK government ministers.
What if you don't pay the tax for your car? Does that mean you don't own your car or your house either?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You own it because you pay for it, you could even say that the state guarantees your ownership BECAUSE you pay your taxes.
If the state does not get sufficient taxes, it cannot guarantee any ownership and guaranteeing ownership is one of the major functions of a working government as it allows business to happen. So unless you do not want to be a British citizen anymore because you do not like the common policies you and the other citizens and the ancestors you are probably proud of voted for, there is no reason to complain. ~;)
That was my point somewhere, that I think it is just a stereotype. Yes, public TV in Germany does not produce great TV in general, but I find they do produce at least higher quality news. The private channels may have the higher quality TV series but their news often seem more sensational and in between they also show a lot of low quality reality TV. PBS in the US also seems to produce high quality documentaries etc. while the same can apparently not be said about national geographic or the history channel anymore unless you count men getting eaten by snakes and pulled out again or samurai vs. pirate analyses as high quality documentaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
That's not to say that there aren't some good private shows, but apparently there is also a lot of money in cheap sensational shows, especially when it comes to "infotainment".
Point - in Colonial America slaves paid for their food and lodging - they never got any wages at the end of the month.
So, while you point may not be entirely wrong you example is invalid.
-1o Internets.
¿Qué?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
¿What do slaves have to do with people voting for politicians?
Corbyn is attacked for not going to the rugby world cup opening ceremony along with a host of tory freeloaders as he had a prior engagement.
And his prior engagement was....? Meeting constituents and helping to sort out problems..ie his job.
What, he couldn't meet his constituents at the rugby match? And he calls himself an ENGLISHMAN?
Corbyn also is much less likely to have ****** a *** than Cameron.
Now we know why Milliband struggled with his bacon butty........eeewwwww
Simply payinf for something doesn't mean you own it - even in a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Greased a pig?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Milked a cow?
Partook a fig?
Owned a pit?
Watered a Yew?
Eaten a rib?
Pleased a fan?
The suspense is killing me.
Well, do we have to?Quote:
Simply payinf for something doesn't mean you own it - even in a democracy.
It's another conceptual or even metaphysical question - what sort of ownership is he referring to, and what is the nature of ownership in general?
:hide:
Pleased a cow it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
So close!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Will Corbyn encourage you to vote in the next election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I probably would vote for Corbyn. He has talked about greater democratisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Oh Good! More Power To The People!
When has that concept ever failed...? Let's hope we are not the next Greece or Venezuela which such great ideas as raising everyone's wage, purchasing loads of land and then building houses on them and then loosing money on the whole project
I would like to see greater democratisation at a local level where what people want is frankly less dangerous and more relevant - removing party affiliation from all local councils so there is more chance they are chosen on what they do not which party they are from.
~:smoking:
I am not saying that Corbyn couldn't make catastrophic mistakes. Of course he could. But I think randomly making up what those mistakes could be is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I am very much in favour of local democracy and the removal of formal party structure at that level.
I'm not choosing things at random. These are areas that he has already indicated he'd like to change. Of course he might well "clarify" what he meant as time passes - especially if his MPs are not prepared to remain the party of opposition for ever as he might in fact not mind in the least. He might be an idealistic humble individual who puts being right above power - but I imagine that the vast majority of MPs are there for the power and all the trappings that go along with it.
He's talked of nationalising the trains. That either directly or indirectly costs a lot
He has talked about nationalising the other "key" services such as water / electricity / gas. Doing this is probably impossible so we might get more oversight.
He has already frequently talked about the inadequacy of housing and especially social housing (apparently poor people need to live in London - although better off people such as myself couldn't afford to do so). So this again would require some sort of public works programme. Assuming the at the workers want to be paid this too would cost.
I would like local politicians to be focused on local issues ,with the lower house linked to a degree to them since of course they bridge the local issues with National issues. I would rather the upper house was more of a grouping of specialist technocrats drawn from the best in all the fields with prior membership of the lower house or significant donation to a political party being almost an absolute exclusion criteria.
I would also like to win the Euro millions and to have a hareem of perpetually beautiful women.
Frankly the second wish list has more chance of happening.
~:smoking:
Nationalising the railways is a good idea. The privatisation experiment hasn't worked. I was speaking to a railtrack middle manager last weekend. The train companies get payments when their services can't be run due to track and schedule issues. Sounds fair yes? Ok, can you guess what the rail companies do? They calculate parts of the schedule where it would be impossible to run a train so they can schedule one one and claim the money. They are called ghost trains and all the train companies schedule them. Consequently there is a lively (and naturally lucrative) trade for lawyers. Market efficiency!
Nope.Quote:
They calculate parts of the schedule where it would be impossible to run a train so they can schedule one one and claim the money. They are called ghost trains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train
An act of Parliament from the 19th century.
I think that is a separate phenomenon with the same name.
I don't care who owns things - private or state - I just want them to work British Rail was not a fantastic system either.
The main issue is that unlike the companies that formed in the first place before nationalisation were geographic entities that owned everything. Splitting into different ones that own different bits is madness.
Private companies are bad as they have to make profits. Public companies are bad since they don't (and hence stagnation, lack of innovation and cronyism is often the problems) and how for example a private hospital can make money from doing an operation whereas a NHS hospital can not.
~:smoking:
Strange how Cameron the student pot head is resolutely in favour of locking up young people caught with cannabis, yet Corbyn, who has never done any drugs, is against ruining the lives of the same young people.
Sorry Rory, I got to cut in here what you just said is a misnomer. The reason the NHS cannot make 'a profit' is not because the private is better, it frankly isn't, as the NHS does it for significantly cheaper, but because money for NHS is paid upfront from taxes, and is providing a service, whilst the private will charge an individual for a service at above the cost of service. The profit in this regard 'cannot make a profit' but we as members of society do get our 'profit' in terms of having good quality healthcare which is essentially 'free' at use and don't need to worry about getting slapped with £50000 bill for a couple of days in A&E after an accident like in the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
What stops one from rewarding innovation in a non-profit system? The reward for the doctor is just another expense and not a profit. Research costs are not profit. The only thing that won't happen is that the system needs to cater to investors (sometimes perhaps even the pension funds of the patients...) who have their own ROI in mind instead of what's best for the patients.