BBC licence fee

SamBlue said:
#DefEndBBC in my opinion.....as a naturalized Brit, I am of opinion BBC is one of the things that makes this country civilized and worth living in. Unless you are some right-wing, alt-right, deep-state-to-get-me loony...
Click to expand...
At least the deep state right wing shite is self funding.

The leftie , tree hugging lovies of the BBC are tax payer funded and are a disgrace to this once proud nation.

The BBC is no longer respected throughout the world like it once was.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
I am neither an 'avowed socialist' nor do I approve of the expenditure on salaries that has ignited some fresh debate in this thread.

However, I am an admirer of John Rawls, and his ideas have some relevance here.

Rawls (1921-2002), was a quiet, American university professor who wrote a book that changed the way people thought about fairness. It was called A Theory Of Justice and was the result of nearly 20 years of hard thinking. Unlike most books of this kind, though, it became a bestseller, and has been read by many lawyers, politicians and, of course, philosophers. So what made this book so popular?

At the heart of Rawls’s theory was the idea that we need to think clearly about how we live together and the ways in which the government influences our lives. For our existence to be bearable, we need to co-operate. But how?

Rawls’s stroke of genius was to come up with a thought experiment – he called it The Original Position – that makes allowances for the tendency of human beings to be selfish. His central idea is very simple: design a better society, but do it without knowing in advance what position in society you will eventually occupy. You don’t know whether you will be rich, poor, have a disability, be good looking, male, female, intelligent, unintelligent, talented or unskilled, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or transgender. Rawls thought that you would collectively choose fairer rules in this situation because none of you would know what kind of person you might be and where you might end up.

Rawls controversially also believed that being a gifted athlete or a highly intelligent person did not automatically mean that you should get more money. This was because he thought that things like sporting ability and intelligence were a matter of luck. You don’t deserve more just because you are a fast runner or a great ball player, or if you are very bright. Being athletically talented or intelligent are gifts you mainly get from your genes.

Rawls also thought that wealth should be distributed more equally and more opportunities made available to the most disadvantaged. So if people receive different amounts of money, this is only allowed if it directly helps the worst off people in some way. A banker could only get 10,000 times more than the lowest-paid worker if the lowest-paid worker somehow benefited from this and received more money than they would have got if the banker was paid less. If Rawls was in charge, no one would earn huge bonuses unless the poorest also got more money as a result. Rawls thinks this is the kind of world reasonable people would choose if they didn’t know whether they would be rich or poor themselves.

I'll now leave it to the rest of you to ponder the implications of what you have just read.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. My immediate take is that I disagree on natural talent not leading to a person making more money, if that natural talent, say singing ability, is such that people will pay to hear you sing. Any ability that is marketable means the person with that ability should be allowed to benefit. I note the word ‘automatically’ but there is rarely anything ‘automatic’ involved. Having the talent is one thing, but making that talent benefit you or marketing that talent requires hard work.

I like the concept of balance. A benefit at the top end must be balanced by something at the bottom end.

I will have a look at some of Rawls writing.
 
BolinCell said:
If the BBC is so left wing how come at the end of this parliament we will have had 15 years of a right wing government ?. Genuine question.
Click to expand...
Because the people vote governments into power and somebody has just told you that the BBC is despised by the people due to their lefty nature, same with the Guardian newspaper.
 
There are lots of problems with Rawls’s thought experiment.

Firstly, how would we know when we had relieved ourselves of everything but pure reason and achieved a truly objective perspective?

Secondly, perhaps what Rawls called his ‘legislative council of equals’ could never reach agreement by using reason alone. For example, they might be forever divided about whether principles or outcomes should take priority when making their decisions.

Someone who is a risk taker might also be inclined to gamble with their fate when deciding the rules.

Lastly, as far as I know, neuroscience has demonstrated that what we believe to be decisions that we have made on the basis of logic and rationality alone are still very much influenced by those parts of the brain that are considered to be the seat of the emotions, whether we realise this or not.

What I like about Rawls is that his ideas about justice and fairness would tend to exclude the excessive economic and social inequalities that tend to be found in the most dysfunctional societies in the world today, alongside generally poor physical and mental health, as confirmed by the research of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their well-known, bestselling publications.
 
bluealf said:
Because the people vote governments into power and somebody has just told you that the BBC is despised by the people due to their lefty nature, same with the Guardian newspaper.
Click to expand...

When alleging ‘lefty’ bias against the BBC, the research of Vallone, Ross and Lepper (1985) becomes relevant. They found that when two groups of partisans watched a relatively unbiased account of an issue, each construed the segment as biased towards the other side.

Given that the BBC gets accused of bias by those on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I am not sure that they can be lumped together with the Guardian, whose political affiliations are much more transparent. So the study cited above does seem to be applicable in this instance.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
When alleging ‘lefty’ bias against the BBC, the research of Vallone, Ross and Lepper (1985) becomes relevant. They found that when two groups of partisans watched a relatively unbiased account of an issue, each construed the segment as biased towards the other side.

Given that the BBC gets accused of bias by those on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I am not sure that they can be lumped together with the Guardian, whose political affiliations are much more transparent. So the study cited above does seem to be applicable in this instance.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the lefty bollocks stuff is when they advertise for jobs, the boxes they tick and a quota to fulfil, be it an ethnic minority, disabled or sexual preference, just like the Guardian or the type of shows they commission which are all box-ticking but oddly not very funny.

I don't watch a lot of TV nowadays though it has to be said.
 
SamBlue said:
#DefEndBBC in my opinion.....as a naturalized Brit, I am of opinion BBC is one of the things that makes this country civilized and worth living in. Unless you are some right-wing, alt-right, deep-state-to-get-me loony...
Click to expand...
So believing that the BBC should be defunded makes you "some right wing, alt right, deep state to get me loony" does it?
My opinions for defunding the BBC are around its lack of impartiality and nothing to do with politics, not that I have to justify myself to you.
The BBC has an obligation to be impartial as it is funded by licence payers who have to pay for it if they watch ANY live TV and not just the BBC.
If you're happy with this, more the fool you.
What gives you the right to label me as a right wing loon?
 
Blueboy73 said:
So believing that the BBC should be defunded makes you "some right wing, alt right, deep state to get me loony" does it?
My opinions for defunding the BBC are around its lack of impartiality and nothing to do with politics, not that I have to justify myself to you.
The BBC has an obligation to be impartial as it is funded by licence payers who have to pay for it if they watch ANY live TV and not just the BBC.
If you're happy with this, more the fool you.
What gives you the right to label me as a right wing loon?
Click to expand...

Usually. Or a communist. Take your pick.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Don't think that will ever happen. Look at the furore when they try to close down a program or channel.... But you can stop paying them, and watching them, then the problem goes away.

Or do you guys want everyone else to stop watching it?
Click to expand...
If the licence covers just the BBC and i player I would stop watching and paying for it tomorrow however the law says I need a licence to watch ANY live TV and not just the BBC.
As I want to watch other live channels, I am legally obliged to pay for the BBC even if I never watch it.
If the licence fee covers just BBC and I player I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
bluealf said:
Because the people vote governments into power and somebody has just told you that the BBC is despised by the people due to their lefty nature, same with the Guardian newspaper.
Click to expand...
And the right must be really upset that they only have the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, The Sun, The Star and Rupert Murdoch's Sky to fall back on. Orrrr what a shame.
 
JULES said:
the bbc IS so left wing, (they dont even try to hide it ) . The bbc dont vote. the current tory party are hardly right wing, right of centre of course, but only just. The bbc is a great advert for the tory party without trying. The bbc is shyte.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of it's left wing bias please because I don't see it. Just 1 example will do.
 
BolinCell said:
And the right must be really upset that they only have the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, The Sun, The Star and Rupert Murdoch's Sky to fall back on. Orrrr what a shame.
Click to expand...
What are you wittering on about?
 
F
bluealf said:
www.express.co.uk

Outrage as BBC internship scheme only open to those who aren't WHITE

THE BBC has been accused of discrimination after an advert for a trainee position with the broadcaster’s World Service specified applications would only be considered from candidates who are not white.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

I think this sort of thing may be a leftie kind of thing.
Click to expand...
The BBC seems to be made up of the people it represents i.e the license payers. This means people of all ethnic backgrounds. That's the problem with the right in this country at the moment they cherry pick there arguments to suit the narrative they are trying to create. The Daily Express could probably point to similar situations at other broadcasters yet it singles out the BBC because it has an interest in it's demise.
 
BolinCell said:
F

The BBC seems to be made up of the people it represents i.e the license payers. This means people of all ethnic backgrounds. That's the problem with the right in this country at the moment they cherry pick there arguments to suit the narrative they are trying to create. The Daily Express could probably point to similar situations at other broadcasters yet it singles out the BBC because it has an interest in it's demise.
Click to expand...
Most normal folk would not want to see the demise of the BBC and rightly so, equally normal folk would want the choice in 2020 to decide if they want to pay for it by way of a tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top