Oh BBC

Massive changes to the BBC set-up are pronounced and led by John Whittingdale, the culture secretary.

Working for BBC radio as production secretary was my first job in Britain. It was hugely under-paid, as women usually were in those days and I could not live on my earnings.

But, I worked at Bush House and Bush House hosted the World Service radio stations, which also included a German Service, now dissolved.

I read through this article citing reasons to curtail the BBC but if anything, I think the BBC indirectly helped the Conservatives win the election because they made so much negative propaganda about them, that the constant mentions attracted more people to vote for them than not.

Obviously the BBC broadcasts did not stop the Conservatives from winning the elections with a landslide. Programs like Daily Politics, a discussion forum at lunchtime invited two right-wing bloggers on a regular basis, people like Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes.

I do agree that the world service should be the main focus of the BBC, to broadcast about cultural matters and political freedom. That was always the main cause of the BBC.

The programs shown now are cheap productions, which are educational but for example the re-make of the Pale Horse in two instalments is unneccsary. Constant antique sales are on throughout the day.

We are now forced to subscribe to TV channels just to get a fairly balanced viewing experience. I could not manage on the BBC alone.

And its because the cost of TV viewing is pushed up by the subscription services, the BBC license fee seems more expensive now. We now have to pay for SKY, Amazon TV, Netflix, Disney and other channels. The BBC fee is just on top of that.

It’s just another expression of ridding the nation of government run services. Another privatisation.

But what free viewing will be made available for pensioners once the BBC license fee has been dismantled? So the whole discussion about the BBC being responsible for free licenses to pensioners was a waste of time?

What this dilemma also shows is that if a government has the power to dismantle services without an independent scrutiny available to object, we are forced into ‘say as you are told or close’ situation. It’s an assault on democratic principles.

Whilst Victoria Derbyshire is already closing and the BBC says, she will be deployed across other programs, how feasable is that when the whole license fee will be scrapped?

Will we be able to see any critial programs that deal with shoddy services, faulty legislation and general problems people have?

I’ve never earned much money from the BBC but found it really important that people gotten an outlet to voice their concerns and that the publishing power of the BBC actually made service providers scrutinise and force changes on care homes for example.

What’s also worrying is that changes to the BBC website will mean that probably many documentaries will no longer be life to view on the website.

BBC Actionline also provides an important social service though it could be argued that such a service could well be run via the NHS online services as it is a public health service.

 

 

Baftas celebrate the world

Only watched the replay of the Baftas this morning because last night I watched Vera, another non white male production with a very sensible and down to earth and not even slim woman in the lead role.

Baftas was great and the Parasite winner didn’t even speak English for the acceptance speech. Hopefully all those speak English racists who post notes in Tower Blocks learn from that.

I also loved it that Robert De Niro said: “There is no such thing as confidence, you feel good and hope for the best”. Doing well or not doing well is in the eyes of the beholder.

Victoria = Boris’s first victim

Is it incidential that the Victoria Derbyshire program gets shut as soon as the Conservatives have gained an enormous majority?

Victoria Derbyshire was the only program that gave detailed insights into grassroots problems.

It took a TV disclosure that Barnet council realised how bad housing conditions in one of their blocks was. Now they suddenly want to re-house residents in the block.

Victoria Derbyshire is important reality TV and compared to Call the Midwife, show cases actual events with poor people suffering from policies and managerial problems.

I have stopped watching ‘Call the Midwife’, which seems to show caring nuns. I never came across caring nuns in my lifetime. Perhaps that program is supposed to be attractive to foreign viewers who have no healthcare whatsoever.

Back to housing. I appreciate that in Tower Hamlets, the council and housing providers make much more efforts to keep residents in good stead. Of course Barnet, a Conservative led council shows less concern.

Find it though slightly concerning that the method of public housing admin has similar models in Barnet and in Tower Hamlets.

Barnet has Barnet Homes and Tower Hamlets has Tower Hamlets Homes. Councillors in Tower Hamlets opposed the elongation of the Tower Hamlets Homes housing contract, they wanted housing to get back in-house with the council.

 

At dawn with pistols

This morning’s interview conducted by Joanna Gosling on the Victoria Derbyshire program was a jewel.

Boris Johnson’s father was invited to talk about why Boris didn’t attend the Channel 4 leader’s debate, and avoids the Andrew Neil program.

Accusations were made that Boris is frightened and that he tries to avoid being interviewed.

Boris Johnson’s father said at one point, that it is no way to speak, people used to say: “See you in the morning with pistols”. Whereby Joanna Gosling replied it is 2019. Ha, ha, ha.

A viewer then asked which politicians these days ask their dad to get the coals out of the fire and speak for them.

I put a better transcript later.

But having watched a film about censorship in China yesterday, it seems quite disturbing that Boris Johnson’s father finds it amazing that people are allowed to call the Prime Minister a liar and that the Conservative Party threaten to withdraw the license of Channel 4, underlyingly.

surpressing creativity

I am an ardent follower of BBC programs. Perhaps it has been chiselled into my brain to stay tuned to BBC TV programs because it was my first place of work here in Britain.

Yet, watching BBC TV has become a bit of a chore. Has it to do with financial constraints or do they just not want to provide varied and interesting programs.

Whilst I think the presenters are all very nice people, to constantly show us the same antique programs has become boring. How to buy, sell, value antiques has gotten to the major TV sensation. We can even see those programs first thing in the morning.

Then there is endless cookery and not just once, those programs repeat constantly. Whilst Strictly come Dancing is very enjoyable, it seems that all the nicety ends there.

Yes, we have the hospital soaps, those along with East Enders are now used to help people diagnose and deal with common mental ailments. Sort of community grievance hubs.

I completely stopped watching the after-nine programs, which usually contain murder of one type or another, as they make me feel very uncomfortable.

So what is there to do? Winter will put restrictions on what we can do out-doors. But I do not want to have to spend on a lot of money on channel subscriptions. There are now a lot of them.

Perhaps volunteering is one way to get out and be useful. It is however hard to find voluntary roles, which also help with creativity.

I am just wondering whether the monotone repetitiveness of BBC TV programs is due to a lack of money or whether the main British channel, e.g. the BBC do not want to allow foreign viewers to get an insight into the minds of people. Anyhow why do they worry about the TV license, they won’t have a lot of viewers left at this rate.

Well we are putting on a jolly good show about the Brexit debate, minds have not been opened further ever before, but that is where it stops.

Mind you, for foreign intellegence services, having to transcribe and monitor all those debates will be very time-consuming, so I wonder whether there is a tactic behind the method on one hand to bore foreign viewers to death with constantly the same stuff or antiques or cooking and on the other hand keep them busy with our political discussion to disable them from being effective in their own right.

The British have long been brilliant tacticians, but lets hope it stays this way.

Women’s pensions

That is the state of how pensions changes affect women and men according to government statistics.

pension-peopleaffected-nc

It clearly shows that women are adversely affected during the early implementation period.

The court case will come to a conclusion today and I surely hope we’ll win because I was badly affected by the pension change. I did expect my pension age 60 and was totally baffled when I received that letter that I will not get my pension until I am 62 1/2 about 9 months prior to becoming 60. Then suddenly the Work and Pensions department madly pushed me into work quickly.

So watch this space, I shall continue this post later.

See source

So the court has decided against the women, one reason was, “Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men.”

Women historically were encouraged to be wife and mother and to equalise the assymetry between men and women is not to punish the women for doing what they were encouraged to do.

Against brothels

What I really hate is legalised prostitution. Having to sell your body is just about the one thing that people must not be forced to do. My biggest fear of Germany is that prostitution is legalised in that country and that is why I would never have had children in that country I suppose.

You just imagine, you send your kid to school and then, once they finished education, they get a letter from the Department of Employment telling them to go for an interview in a brothel and if they do not attend, they loose their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

How horrible is that!!!

Because if sex work is a legalised activity, then children will be groomed into the profession from a very young age, as it is already happening in India, where girls as young as 7 get prepared into sex work. Further up in Asia they sell girls from the age of 7 into marriage, a similar slave trait.

Personal freedom must be that the one bastion that is us, must be our body. Just as our home is our castle, so our bodies have to be our first priority to choose what we want to do with it or not.

We have some very good personal protection laws in Britain and we have to be careful not to overstep the mark and loose the right to protect our bodies from harm.

So being against Brexit doesn’t mean that I would want to accept German employment laws, I am only in it for the close proximity of land mass.

I have not heard much about that point in for or against Brexit discussions.

 

 

Keeping the poor in poverty

This government’s employment, education and housing strategy is mainly aimed at keeping the poor in a position of legal servitude. We have entered the age of modern slavery.

“The government had an opportunity to help support the most disadvantaged people in the UK but has instead wasted over half a million pounds,” said Lord Jay, chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee.

The government even refuses to spend £3.5 Million of Eurpoean Union Funding for the alleviation of child poverty and already had to hand back £580.000 of unspent cash, given by the EU as funding to the UK.

So all those Brexit arguments saying we could spend money we give to the EU on ourselves, is simply a lying trick to hype up the Brexit agenda. They have no intention of making things better for our poor families.  See source article. 

Boris makes a stand

I must say I rather admire Boris’ attitude towards opposition that does not use quality questions and arguments to dismantle his plans. That is what I would have expected in a quality argument and political debate. Boris called them scientific names, oooh.

Much more important for us all, is the fact that Boris came out with information that he is following advice from senior London Fire Brigade leaders that recommended cutting down on fire stations and reducing the number of fire fighters in London.

Now that is something interesting. I just wonder where this information is, who are the senior officers that gave the advice? That is a basis to have discussions but not fast moving amendments that are based on the lack of or late attendance of a County Hall board member to move a vote.

I am rather disappointed with the general press reporting from the BBC. I have not had any decent tables, statistics from them but the usual lukewarm reporting that stimulates political adventurous argument with little substance.

Since yesterday it was also more difficult to find the actual article on the BBC website that explains why the Mayor rejects the budget change move.Of course Boris is under a clear duty to follow the advice of senior Fire chiefs, who recommend cuts in services. I want to know the details of those recommendations Boris, who said what and when. Perhaps it is to find on the LFB website where the policy papers are displayed. I have not read them yet, as I only have so much time to read and browse, I am already kept busy with BBC articles, from which I expect a certain depth and content.

Boris argues quite correctly that if he has recommendation from Senior Fire chiefs to cut services, that it would be a fruitless exercise to ask rate payers to pay even a penny more to keep services that are not needed. It would have been much better to bring quality questions to the Mayor to publicly demand those services stay with quality statistical arguments rather than move a fast motion. That doesn’t raise my confidence in the opposition at all.

PS: I am a little confused about the original article I read this morning because now an article appears, saying that Boris’ plans had been pushed back and there is now consultation.

BBC correspondent Iain Watson calls benefit recipients scroungers

This how I have to interpret this article found on the BBC website. I quote the whole sentences as published together and it says: ”

The BBC’s political correspondent Iain Watson said: “Next week, Labour will vote against government proposals to cap the rise in most benefits to just 1%.

‘Tough and fair’

“So they’re keen not to be seen as ‘soft on scroungers’ and to show they have their own solution to bringing down the benefits bill.”

I think its rather strange that a BBC correspondent should call benefit recipients scroungers. After all it is the government’s policy to favour redundancies, which are made by companies to increase profit and reduce worker in their companies, the so-called efficiency sackings and redundancies. A company is always allowed to reduce a work force to satisfy shareholders and increase profits and the workers who lost their jobs are then called scroungers.

But, at 9:36 the BBC completely re-wrote the article and the parts quoted above are no longer on their site.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,457 hits