Printable View
Last one next week
But what cracking tele (and true to life the woman got off, although I think most folk would try and see if the guy with the blue shorts and black dog was the right person before giving him a kicking)
iPlayer them if you've not already
Auntie Beeb at its best
Enjoy it while it lasts, your beloved Conservatives are sowing the seeds of its demise. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Are they really?
Making it more efficient I'd have said was a good thing not a bad thing, be nice to be funded that way.
The monopoly they have has like most of the public sector allowed it to get over paid, over manned, under worked, arrogant and complacent - time for a wake up call.
It's got a smaller turnover than BSkyB and tends to pay under the market rate (eg the Director General gets £834K [source] compared to £1.48 million to Andy Duncan at the far smaller Channel 4 [2009;source] or a £775K basic plus potential £2.3 million bonus plus £2.9 million "golden hello" for Adam Crozier at ITV [source].Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
But don't let facts get in the way, hey.
Managing with less isn't a bad thing. The BBC has had years of being able to claim a bigger and bigger licence fee, seemingly without end. It's time to freeze that for a few years and have them manage their resources more carefully and make do with what they have.
The last thing we should do is abolish or privitise the BBC, but they cannot keep being granted more and more money from licence fee payers.
Ironically the freeze on the LF - along with raiding it for things like the World Service or rural broadband - is likely to have a detrimental effect on the poorest in society.
It's estimated there are just under a million licence fee evaders, who tend to be those with little disposable income, and the BBC has traditionally not been anywhere near as stong as it should be on chasing them up. They've already stated that faced with a net loss in funding they'll be far more active in persuing and prosecuting these.
Yet another regressive coalition policy. :\
LOL. Those people shouldn't have been 'getting away with it' in the first place, so that's hardly a reason not to go after them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Of course, what will likely happen is they'll keep harassing people who genuinely don't have a TV set, as you can only pursue some so much before it becomes uneconomical.
The likes of students living in university flats aren't likely to get a TV licence no mater how many advert campaigns there are to say they should!
In fairness I'd imagine that most students watch catchup services via computer/mobile quite legally without a licence, a loophole which no doubt will be closed as viewing habits change.
We didn't have a telly for about 15 years and used to regularly get hassle for not having a TV license, it's funny how you can get onto these lists but never off them. My Dad's mate signed him up to Saga as a bit of a joke and it took about 7 or 8 years to convince them that he wasn't over 50 and could stop sending him junk. In the end he actually had to post off a copy of his birth certificate before they would believe him :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Indeed. Most students at York have internet supplied to them in their rooms and I've heard that in the evenings the network starts to struggle purely down to the number of students using video on demand services.
Isn't the licence fee for web and radio and not just TV?
Only worth hounding non payers if it makes money, unlike benefit cheat chasing which costs more than it recovers but I'd expect as much from the inept public sector.
Well worth chasing all those offshore accounts set up by business owners to avoid paying £billions in UK tax then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
It funds the BBC's radio and online services, but one is not legally required to have a licence to use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
That's the anomaly which makes it perfectly legal to watch hour upon hour of iPlayer while listening to 6Music and reading the BBC News website; but illegal to watch 10 seconds of live news without a licence.
Yes, it funds Television (incl. digital services), Radio (incl. digital radio) and Web. But of course the charge is only made if you are using a television.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Exactly. You aren't going to spend £1,000 recovering a £100 debt unless you want to make an example of someone.Quote:
Only worth hounding non payers if it makes money, unlike benefit cheat chasing which costs more than it recovers but I'd expect as much from the inept public sector.
Ah yes, but if the fear of being caught makes 9 other people cough up then you've broken even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
One of the problems with BBC channels being on free-to-air satellites, is that people in countrys such as the Republic of Ireland and other European countrys, can easily get a big dish and view them without any license fee.
Tax avoidance is fine and dandy, you'd be daft to pay more than you have to, esp as so much of it is wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Anybody watch Panorama last night, what a bunch of useless ****ahs
True, but the only other alternative is to encrypt them which would mean each and every UK television being fitted with (or paired to an existing) card reader. The cost would be prohibitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronRooster92
Not personally, but a glimpse at the website would indicate it was about the death of Baby "P". What's that got to do with tax avoidance or the BBC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
And that affects you how exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by IronRooster92
It was to do with tax being wasted, those ineffectual wastes of air were funded out of my taxes - all of them from the chocolate fire-guard social workers and their bosses down to Baby P's fat slob of a mum and her sick boyfriend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
The Baby P case was a bloody shambles, there's no doubt about that. But that's to ignore the hundreds or thousands of cases which go right but don't make good headlines. Isolated incidents don't mean that the entire system is broken, or that tax shouldn't be used to fund social workers. Tell you what, as social workers are so useless and shouldn't be state-funded, what are your proposals for reducing or preventing child abuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
They need to pick the right sort of candidates - reading the Guardian for example should immediately bar you from being involved with a child's safety. Climbe case was the same social services, it seems that Haringey Council would be best to sack everyone and start again. Like most councils they have ineptitude running right through them.
Well duhhhhhh. I don't suppose they're sitting there thinking "let's pick any old duffer off the street". Councils' recruitment for social workers should be top-notch and in the majority of cases which never make the news the employees do do a good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
The Baby P case represented one specific failing. A catastrophic one, granted, but one isolated incident nonetheless. Climbié was a decade previous, so you can hardly call it endemic.
Nobody's suggesting that improvements aren't possible, but you seemed to be suggesting that the problem was that your taxes have to fund child protection, no?
PS, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with The Guardian. I understood that most council recruitment was done at a local level with the exception of major strategic posts. Maybe your anger should be directed at The Willesden and Brent Times. :s
They pick the wrong sort of person, there are cases galore where they have got it wrong, the Lincolnshire chap who was raping his daughters, they visited him time and time again but proved to be absolutely useless. Ex coppers would be a better type of person to recruit or ex military rather than this type of bozo
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/viz1.jpg
AFAIK nobody was dismissed after Climbe, shame because if they had then Baby P may still well be alive today. And to add insult to injury these useless feckers have the brass neck to winge when they are suspended on full pay when it was their incompetence that led to the death of a child under their care.
No I don't mind paying for decent services carried out by capable people, which just isn't the case at present.
You could sack 2m public sector bods and nobody would notice; they are that useless.
Are you suggesting that social services be privatised? Get real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Again, your simplistic attitude seems to know no bounds. It's become the traditional cry of those on the right who lack ideas — 'get ex-policemen or ex-servicemen in, they'll do a good job'. Rubbish. There are many fine individuals in the police and the armed forces, but to suggest that somehow they all represent paragons of excellence from which we could all learn is complete nonsense. Ever heard of institutionalised racism or Deepcut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I read the Guardian. Given that we have never, thank goodness, met, please inform me why I am automatically a danger to children. I find this insinuation deeply offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Unlike all the other questions posed to you in recent days, such as what the nature is of the health business you claim to run (while blowing stale cigarette smoke over its clients) and which top public school you claim to have been taught at (without apparently taking much in), I expect an answer.
Could it be that "cases galore" is an overstatement. Nobody's disagreeing that every failing by child services is awful, but you appear to be willfully ignoring the thousands of routine and unremarkable cases which go unreported, where these people do make a positive difference, in favour of a tiny minority of high-profile failings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
There's scope for improvement, I totally and utterly appreciate that, but the wholesale root and branch sacking of all involved is not the answer.
If you put a garden gnome in the airing cupboard of every child on the 'at risk' register most would survive, so does that mean that garden gnomes in airing cupboards are just as effective as social workers, no of course not it's just that they don't really make much difference. My step sister was one, she spent most of her time typing up notes and covering her arse.
It really isn't rocket science to see who are the scumbag parents who are likely to harm their kids. They need to go into any interview assuming that the parent is lying, whereas they are such woolly liberals they believe the lies because they want to think they are making a difference.
I can't believe I'm even debating this, but in for a penny, in for a pound....
How? What signs should we be looking for? How should social services decide where to target their recources? How does one decide whether a parent - once identified as a scumbag - is "likely" to harm their kids? You're into real Minority Report territory here :sQuote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I'm confused. Should the kids of these obvious scumbags be taken into care without due process? What charges would you bring against these parents - keeping in mind you've got no evidence against them apart from assuming they're lying?Quote:
They need to go into any interview assuming that the parent is lying, whereas they are such woolly liberals they believe the lies because they want to think they are making a difference.
You really haven't thought any of this through, have you? It's like reading Richard Littlejohn, although you'll probably take that as a compliment.
He may be put off by the number of syllables in said journalist's surname and not get to the rest of the column, I fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
They pick the right families already but just do sod all with the info, I can't remember a child death that wasn't on frequent visits from social services, they are just blind, and that means kids die, now to me that is not good enough.
Once they have a child on their radar with frequent unexplained injuries they should assume the worst and wait to be convinced otherwise, whereas they are doing it the wrong way round - giving the scumbags the benefit of the doubt where ever possible until the child is killed due to their prolonged torture.
I attended a seminar and SS were basically saying I should be doing their job for them, demanding that a child clean its face if it is covered in chocolate nd maybe covering injuries (as in the Baby P case). Climbe for example was taken to hospital by a nosey taxi driver, yet SS at this seminar were blaming some women at the local housing office who made a comment about her aunt being well turned out and the child being grotty.
SS are experts at trying to pass the buck and covering their useless arses.
Forget this sort of rancid spew, and answer the question I put to you a while back about why I, as a Guardian reader, pose a danger to children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I too read The Guardian, along with The Telegraph, The Independent and The Daily Mail; as well as taking a feed of headlines from the other major papers which occasionally pique my interest. I'd be most interested to know if I'm suitable to work with children. :p
Judging by the name of your twitter account? No! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
This thread is an example of some beautiful interneting, chaps. Love how we've moved from TV programme to TV license to benefit cheats to tax dodgers and finally got to child abuse. Loving your work.
Nazis! Nazis!
There; the circle is complete.
All we need to do now is slag off Alonso / Hamilton / Schumacher (delete as appropriate) and we're good to go :D
It's political correctness gone mad.
End of
FACT