FREEDOM!!!! [4]

Pettytyrant101 wrote: Get on it- it sounds like your being royally shafted to me. Dont put up with it! Get yer crabbit on!

Naw, it's OK. The good thing is I can walk into the Halls of Power in Olympia in my muddy farm boots and say, "Dammit, if you guys aren't gonna fix it, stand back and let us fix it ourselves", and they usually do.

Or they might reply "Fix it? You must be joking you couldn't even fix it when those soft bottomed city dwellers were puling a fast one on you."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:"Fix it? You must be joking you couldn't even fix it when those soft bottomed city dwellers were puling a fast one on you."

That's only 'cause the deputies got to 'em first

Obama seems to be silent about Tunisia.

I dont know if there were any US victims, sadly there were a lot of British ones though.

I like when the Scottish Parliament is not sitting they use the Chamber for this sort of thing, there is a charge for a ticket but its never more than 8 quid a seat, and usually only 4 or 6-

Eloquent and passionate, the SNP's 20 year old Mhairi Black, Parliaments youngest MP in 300 years makes her debut speech-

Been impressive watching Sturgeon pulling the strings in the House of Commons, even though she is not even an MP there!
Its been a master plan so far from the SNP- that two for two, first English votes for English laws, now fox hunting.
They have played it well and in response today the Sottish Secretary has had to come to the House and promise the Scotland Act will be significantly beefed up.
But I cant believe Cameron walked into this one.
He has made a total arse of English laws by trying to bring it in the back door as a standing order- it let the devolved MP's say it was creating massive constitutional change without a proper debate.
Then they joined together and forced that debate.
And the genius of the SNP position is that its not- we oppose english votes on only English matters- but 'do it right' have an English Parliament, a federal style set up, devo max all round.
Which sounds good to a lot of English ears- but its completely not what the Conservative and Unionst Party want or stand for.
That is why he pulled it for further debate and consideration- the smarter heads in the Irish Unionist parties, and some of the older heads on his own backbenches could see the trap and were not going to vote for it.
A Parliament in each country and youre most of the way to independence.
If Cameron gives concessions he is playing into that, and if he refuses them he looks like he is ignoring the democratically elected voice of the Scottish people and the SNP win.

And proving she will even go back on her word, like on fox hunting, and saying she is going back on it as a deliberate pointed message to Cameron that with his slim majority the SNP can inflict serious wounds on the government, 'he is not master of all he surveys'.

All Cameron can do is what he is doing, giving concessions by beefing up the powers, and by forcing the English votes out of a standing order and into full debate it will inevitability end up more a devolved English parliament than Cameron wants.

Dunno if anyone watched Mhari Blacks speech I posted above, but the important thing to note here is that it made a splash online here, it was trending on twitter, getting tons of reposts on facebook, write ups in newpapers ect ect

Not saying the BBC are a bit biased in their reporting of Scottish matters (you can judge that for yourself), but here is how BBC Scotland covered this superb début speech by the youngest member of Parliament-

The Beeb's coverage before and during the referendum (along with the Savile stuff) really soured me on them.  A couple years ago I would've been up in arms at the suggestion that it be done away with, but now I just sorta shrug.  It'd be a shame to see such a blow to the concept of public broadcasting but I wouldn't shed many tears for the service itself.

Oddly enough for a tight, miserable, crabbit old bastard I am a supporter of the BBC and the licence fee- always have been and still am.

I think it needs reform in places, especially pay packets. And I don't think anyone in receipt of minimum benefits should have to pay for it (not that you have to so long as you just don't watch live TV as broadcast) but I have no objections to paying for it when I am in work and can afford too.
I am in favour of the principle of a public broadcaster with a wide remit but it does need limits.

Things I think need to change- the regions need to get programming equal to what they put it. In Scotland for example the percent of the BBC budget spent on programming here is lower than the percent of funding they raise here. And I suspect this is equally true for the Welsh and Northern Irish.
But more there is a lack of respect inbuilt that became evident during the referendum when they swapped out in the last weeks Scottish reporters and journalists who had been covering the politics for years with London based journalist who didnt know what they were talking about and came with an agenda to sell.
I also dont think they should buy in TV formats- that's just a waste of money- the usual example given is between Strictly and the Voice- Strictly was a BBC concept that was hugely popular and then made them a mint when they sold the format overseas making the public shareholders money for more programming- the Voice cost millions to buy in and has no resale- so just cost programming money. Strictly only the BBC could do, the Voice any UK commercial channel could have bought and made. It didn't need tax payer money.
Pay and bonuses seems to have been addressed after recent scandals they just need to keep an eye on it- as to the Saville thing, not sure how much you can hold the current BBC to blame for the ethos of the establishment in the 1970's- especially in 70's Britain where it appears many public institutions like the BBC, Churches, NHS and the Houses of Parliament were routinely being used as cover for paedophile groups.
But its hard to imagine its still got that culture now.

But these are reform issues and there is no doubt some reform is needed- what the Government seems to be proposing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in revenge for a perceived left wing biased at the BBC.

Humans are fundamentally the same generation after generation. 1 camp protesting to the best things in life ( mainly for themselves ) & the other camp being decent & wishing the best for a declining world. The only difference is the costume or, fashion of the day. Long has these arguments been bandied about between one sector against another. Each side only seeing what they want to see. I dont think at any time in human evolution have we, as a species, EVER found calm, peace, agreement & I dont think if we lived another million years we ever will. To alter living standards, root out conspiracy, clamp down on greed then you have to alter Human DNA, because I dont believe it will change naturally. Even from tiny issues to Earth shattering ones, humans will be at war, any war, emotional, mental, physical war. humans thrive on it. From simple gossiping about that " tart with the black hair with skirts up her arse" to Nuclear Arms warfare, life without controversy would be dull, unimaginative, & probably stem motivation & creation, who knows ?? Blathering again

Pettytyrant101 wrote:as to the Saville thing, not sure how much you can hold the current BBC to blame for the ethos of the establishment in the 1970's- especially in 70's Britain where it appears many public institutions like the BBC, Churches, NHS and the Houses of Parliament were routinely being used as cover for paedophile groups.
But its hard to imagine its still got that culture now.

I haven't followed the Savile issue as closely as you or I'm sure many other Brits have, but I was thinking less of the '70s BBC's culture and more of the continuing looking-the-other-way and even airing tribute to Savile after whistles had been blown and until it became impossible to do because other sources had broken the story.

But these are reform issues and there is no doubt some reform is needed- what the Government seems to be proposing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in revenge for a perceived left wing biased at the BBC.

You raise some really good points about reforms and I defer to you on most of those issues.  But looking at the BBC's record on the referendum -- or for that matter their coverage of Maggie Thatcher's death, which I had forgotten about earlier -- and I wouldn't really call their bias left-wing. Though I suppose it's possible that said bias creeps through in other ways that I haven't noticed because I agree with it.

'more of the continuing looking-the-other-way'

Problem is you cant un-entwine the government and the BBC at this level- most of the Board are either appointed by various governments over the years, are chums of ministers, ex-ministers, ex-civil servants, industry friends of ministers ect- so covering up at the BBC was in part to do with covering up Westminster too.
There has always been a view, particularly in the civil service, that when it comes to the great symbols of the country- Parliament, the Monarchy, the BBC, the NHS- that cover up is in the national interest, rather than undermining those pillars of establishment.
The cover up is not a fault solely of the BBC, though they have to take their share of blame, its institutional in our national symbols.


'looking at the BBC's record on the referendum -- or for that matter their coverage of Maggie Thatcher's death, which I had forgotten about earlier -- and I wouldn't really call their bias left-wing. '

The problem for the BBC is that most of the time they are not politically biased, they can be sycophantic, pandering, misguided, ill-informed and at their worst during the referendum genuinely biased towards a cause (but that is more the exception than the rule in my experience of BBC reporting).
When Labour were in power they went to war with the BBC over the Iraq stuff, David Kelley ect now its the Tories and they see a bias. A lot of Tories also blame the BBC in part for the popularity of UKIP, claiming that the BBC gave far too much air time to them.

Then there is the final reason- which is just a good old fashioned conservative position- the BBC is publicly funded and its reach and dominance in UK broadcasting therefore stifles competition and the free market.
Of course its not actually true- in practise the BBC provides a platform for the vast majority of young creative talent in the UK, its a hothouse for new talent and always has been. You only have to look back through the ranks of actors, directors of photography, directors, producers, writers, carpenters who began in humble means at the BBC and rose to the very top of their professions.
That platform of funding for new works just cannot be borne by the private sector which must minimise risks.

All fair points, and I suppose I shouldn't let my distaste for some things the BBC has done lead me to throw it entirely under the bus.

Mhairi Blacks debut speech has now been viewed more than 10 million times in the UK- not bad for a 20 year old's politic speech. Any one here watched it yet?

I watched it cos you mentioned it. I dont watch TV these days, I used to keep so up to date with world news & UK politics but now, I live a naive country yokel lifestyle & I enjoy being ignorant for the 1st time in YEARS ! Im a reactionary, I get too gee'd up & dont let anything go, bit like a Jack Russel who's found a bone, IL get het up to the point of giving myself migraines. Tho, I liked Miss Blacks opening speech. I liked what she said. I almost wished ( thanks to her ) that I didnt live in the UK ! how about that then ! Me, happy in my little abode in a green & leafy town by the sea, now wishing I wasnt here.

Watched it this morning since I've been really busy this week.  Very impressive speech.  I'm glad that it's seeing such success online. Some of the criticism from Labour about how they can't ally with nationalists makes sense though given the success Cameron saw in the election just by claiming that a Labour-SNP alliance would happen.

Eldorion wrote:All fair points, and I suppose I shouldn't let my distaste for some things the BBC has done lead me to throw it entirely under the bus.

Given the incomparably rich history of what the BBC has produced, despite some of the distasteful revelations about how it has operated at times, I could never reject it. It remains a gem (albeit tarnished) of the modern age.

given the success Cameron saw in the election just by claiming that a Labour-SNP alliance would happen- Eldo

It may have won him his election but it made a lot of folk uncomfortable, including the older wiser heads on his own backbenches. It was cynical and opportunistic. And it had weakened and damaged the Union he professes to love (and that's before we get to the mess that is EVEL).
As Mhairi Black says so perfectly in her speech (and I have been trying to make clear in this very thread for a long time now) the SNP win in the general election had nothing to do with Nationalism, and the belief among Westminster politicians it did shows how little they understand Scotland and its current political landscape.
The English left had nothing to fear from a Labour government supported on policies they share by SNP votes, but Cameron convinced them they did.
This was aided however by the fact even the English in the debates could not fail to see that Nicola Sturgeon was several times the politician and leader that Miliband was. I honestly don't think the English would have been so easy to scare had Labour had a strong leader the English felt confident would still represent them as strongly as the SNP.


'It remains a gem (albeit tarnished) of the modern age.'- Halfy

That can in fact be said about all our National Institutions- the Monarchy have more than their fair share of tarnish but they remain a stable idea which the country still rallies round in moments of crisis in a way no politician can achieve, Westminster is steeped in scandals and cover ups but its still the Mother of Parliaments and has changed the world in terms of spreading ideas from Magna Carta onwards, the NHS has likewise seen its share of scandals, but it remains an excellent overall provider of care and saves thousands of lives every week. Its the same with the police, its the same with the armed forces and its the same with the BBC.
And because the Establishment view these things are so intrinsic to the good civil order cover-up has been the default response of serious misdeeds in any of them for decades.

As the civil servants in Yes Minister say, everyone secretly knows government are up to dodgy things, that's not what upsets people. It finding out about it that upsets people.

Only in Scotland-

'A chip shop has been ordered to remove a banner which hails it as the birthplace of the deep fried Mars bar.
The Carron Fish Bar in Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire, attracts tourists from around the world who want to try the recipe.
It proudly displays a banner on the side of the building claiming staff there invented the snack.
But Aberdeenshire Council has now said it must come down "for the good of the wider community".
Carron Fish Bar owner Lorraine Watson said the proposed ban was "ridiculous" and she would "definitely not" be taking the banner down.
Mrs Watson said: "Thousands and thousands of tourists come from all over the world to purchase the deep fried Mars bar from the birthplace. They stand outside under the banner with their Mars bar, smiling from ear to ear, then go home and let all their friends and family see it.
We have no idea why the council would want this banner taken down, bearing in mind it takes thousands of visitors to the town.
Isn't that what we are trying to do? Aren't we trying to boost tourism in Scotland?"- BBC

does seem odd. Are the crowds so large they are a nuisance?

No, the local council has decides to 'improve' the look of the area and its image, and have been driving about seeing what they think doesn't fit with their new image- and a big banner above a chippie reading 'Home of the Deep Fried Mars Bar' apparently doesn't fit that image.

I'll bet you anything it goes like this- shop refuses, someone starts a facebook petition backing them- its gets a silly amount of signatures, council backs down.
One of the good things about the rise of the SNP is so many people are members and the grass roots is so strong that any unpopular decisions, or ones people think are just stupid or not a governments business, they soon know about it.

Pretty clear cut case of (local) government overreach.