Alan H wrote:Nick. I'm not trying to fucking say anything! I posted the original link to the review FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT. Why is that not clear to you?
For a couple of reasons, Alan. First, that you continue to post links critical of the Tories, almost whatever the subject, rather than being from a humanist perspective. (As an aside, if humanism is to mean much we must keep a broad approach. Thus, we should be critical of faith schools, but not just label it a Tory policy. We need the Tories on board too. Gratuitous criticism doesn't help.) On this occasion, maybe you just provided a link to oil the wheels of debate, but I misjudged that because of your posts elsewhere, as being critical. Secondly, whereas you could have initially replied with something like "No condemnation or criticism implied, Nick, just for info.", you responded with vague emoticons, which led me to conclude that you did have something to say, but were, sadly, not sharing it with the rest of us!
Do expect me to provide my thoughts on everything when I post a link?
You can post what you like, but some words of your own would make it much more interesting. ISTM that where text is linked without any comment, then it doesn't really lead anywhere. It is the personal thoughts and comments of posters which leads to discussion. If I just posted links to the Adam Smith Institute (say) I don't think that would add much to the forum, as a forum for humanist ides and friendships..
Do I need to have a fully thought-out position of the subject before pointing it out to the folks here? Why are we - again - having these facile meta conversations instead of discussing the actual topic?
One reason might be that you have so far declined to do so. I asked 2 questions
, which could have been answered as part of the discussion of the actual topic, but received back a couple of emoticons...
Now, can we actually discuss the BBC and the Government review???
Certainly! Let's begin! (Another aside: Why describe it as a "Government" review....? But let's press on.)
Some things which I would like the review to consider.
Does the BBC have to try to be so comprehensive? For example, do they need to be seen to broadcast imported programmes which could be available on other networks? How many channels should it actually have? BBC5, anyone? And why is half the output of BBC3 and BBC4 broadcast when most of the country are asleep?
Access to the BBC should be controlled technologically, rather than by threats of imprisonment, and should extend to internet access too.
Subscription to BBC programmes should be available world-wide. This could potentially double the numbers viewing, cutting the costs for UK residents.
I regard the BBC as a good influence in the world, especially its news coverage, so some world-wide freebies should be available.
The BBC run commercials for themselves on their networks. Personally, I would not object to limited advertising on the BBC (so long as they don't come in the middle of programmes). "Escape to the Country
is sponsored by RightMove...."
And given the power of the BBC to create stars (Jamie Oliver, say...) where every one of his shows in an advertisement for his books, would paid-for promotions be so polluting to the BBC? And they do acknowledge sponsors names in sporting contests.
Rugby internationals should be a protected event, like the boat race and FA Cup final.