The Future of the BBC

[ahinton]

I still happen to think Lenin was right in stating that a revolutionary situation arises when the ruling class are unable to rule, and the masses unprepared to be ruled, in the same ways, and imo trust must play a massive part in this question of legitimacy.

For this to work in practice, however, there has first to be something that could legitimately and dispassionately be described as a "ruling class" but, if by that term, you happen to mean "whoever happens, democratically or otherwise, to have ruling powers vested within them", then much would surely still depend upon how great those powers happen to be and how effectively they can be wielded over what proportion of the population. The existence of burgeoning black markets within both democratic and undemocratic régimes is an indicator of one kind of civil disobedience and, as long as they continue to function within any or all levels of a society, one could argue that the régime is in part subject to something not unakin to a perpetual state of revolution. On another level, the extent to which "subjects" can be "ruled" today in feudal societies, communist societies, monarchies and the rest remains perpetually open to ever greater question; I've lost count, for example, of the number of times that I've heard exclamations along the lines of "I loathe the onward march of Big Brother but I'm determined not to do what Big Brother orders me to do if I can help it in any case unless it suits me to do so". Lobbying is another phenomenon that can and often does undermine in part the powers of rulers; even Court decisions can sometimes do likewise.

Thatcher & co knew exactly what they were doing when they set about undermining means of solidarity whereby working people can combat exploitation - a process which continues to this day.

It is hard to be certain which spectacle is/was worse and more damaging - that of workers' organisations holding their employers to ransom unreasonably or that of "Thatcher & Co." trying to undermine good and legitimate trade union practice in the workplace; either way, however, the undeniable face that exploitation of employees remains rife the world over all too often blinds certain people to the fact that such exploitation is not therefore endemic everywhere as though there can be no such thing as employment without exploitation, the problem being that "exploitation" is almost always used in such arguments as a pejorative whereas, in reality, every employee who sells his/her skills to an employer is asking to - and indeed must - have those skills "exploited" (in a non-pejorative sense) by his/her employer otherwise there'd be little obvious point in the employee taking the job or the employer offering it in the first place.

[ahinton]

Spot on. They are still dismantling or privatising anything that can be seen as a home for solidarity, rights, opposition.
Collective pay agreements. The Post office. Anything free at the point of use, including roads, The NHS...., add your own.

Roads? Most British ones are currently free at (or perhaps along?) the point of use but that's not the case with all roads in France which was a more Socialist coutry even under Sarkozy than Britain was under Brown!

The Post Office does not have the same calls upon it as once it did; the use of emails, couriers, BACS transfers, online application and payment for such things as TV licences, road tax and the rest has undermined its past to the extent that it has had and will continue to have to reinvent itself if it is to survive in any form whatsoever whether under the ownership of the state, private enterprise or a mix of the two.

Why in any case would other large organisations that you do not name as examples and which have always or usually been in private hands be any different from state-owned ones in terms of being - or not being "a home for solidarity, rights, opposition"? - these are surely important issues that can and do befall both state owned and private organisations, which is just one reason why trade unions continue to have an important rôle to play in both the public and the private sector.

NHS is not always free at the point of use and rarely if ever has been completely so; that said, it is less so in France than it is in Britain.

"Collective pay agreements"? What use are they to those self-employed whose businesses are too small to have sufficient employees for whom they might otherwise be useful?

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat,
Nope, on world service. A presenter of a rival world service music broadcast told me !

Maybe it wasn't Charlie. Could it have been AK who was keeping an eye on any fluctuations?

I don't know. Time moved so fast then.

Even an average Saturday morning disappeared as soon as anyone could say "quack, quack, oops".

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

hear hear!

Happy Birthday Auntie

[Lateralthinking1]

hear hear!

Happy Birthday Auntie

Yes indeed. As usual, Matthew Norman is spot on.

Very best wishes to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20309289

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81cG10yNV5c

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008dk4b

[Sydney Grew]

. . . little obvious point in the employee taking the job or the employer offering it in the first place.

Indeed wherever one finds people using that dreadful word "job" one knows at once that something must be amiss. The word is a hideous vulgarism of obscure origin. Does it not to a man of quality simply serve as signal: keep well clear!?

[ahinton]

Indeed wherever one finds people using that dreadful word "job" one knows at once that something must be amiss. The word is a hideous vulgarism of obscure origin. Does it not to a man of quality simply serve as signal: keep well clear!?

Eh?

What on earth are you talking about?

Who has decided, when and on what grounds that the word "job" as a description of an employed position is "dreadful"?

Who has decided, when and on what grounds that its use in the context of an employer offering employment is an immediate indicator that "something must be amiss", especially given that it occupies almost four whole columns in my (admittedly not latest edition of) OED?

What exactly is it that "must be amiss" and why?

What makes the term (or at least that particular use of it) "a hideous vulgarism" and how does it do so?

Yes, it is indeed of "obscure origin" (as my edition of OED confirms), but how might that alone be an indicator of any kind of pejorativity (if there be such a word)?

What is "a man of quality" (and of what quality?)

How does the use of "job" in the above context "simply serve" as the signal that you claim that it does?

Would it not in any case stand an equal chance of doing so (or not doing so) to a woman of quality? - and, if not, why not?

Are you also seeking to suggest that the alleged "hideous vulgarity" and "dreadful" nature of the word "job" as used in the present context is such that these "men of quality" (and, by hopeful implication, also women of quality) must "keep well clear" of employed positions and be self-employed?

Does the very fact that I have never had a job in the sense of an employed position (because I've always been self-employed) alone mark me out as a "man of quality"? and, if so, why?

Finally, what has any of this to do with The Future of the BBC which, lest this intrusive digression might have caused any members temporarily to forget, happens to be the thread title?

[eighthobstruction]

>>>"man of quality"<<<<

....We can tell because you do not use emoticons....

[ahinton]

>>>"man of quality"<<<<

....We can tell because you do not use emoticons....

Well, yes to emotions, yes and no to emoticons, to be sure, but I think that this merely suggests that I am a human being rather than marks me out as a "man of quality"...

[vinteuil]

a man of quality

... ah, but what quality? Very poor quality? Indifferent quality? Unacceptable quality?

One expects greater clarity from M Grew...

[eighthobstruction]

One expects greater clarity from M Grew...

Indeed I was wondering if some fool had got hold of his password and was masquerading as SG....

[ahinton]

... ah, but what quality? Very poor quality? Indifferent quality? Unacceptable quality?

One expects greater clarity from M Grew...

Perhaps he might be trying to refer to some kind of imained opposite of Robert Musil's Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften (The Man Without Qualities), but since, even if so, your questions are in no wise undermined thereby, one might argue that his attempts here are as unsuccessful and questionable as Musil's work is unfinished...

[ahinton]

Indeed I was wondering if some fool had got hold of his password and was mascerading as SG....

Presuming you to mean "masquerading" rather than "macerating", I fear that I must take leave to doubt this possibility, since the style seems broadly to be commensurate with what we have come to expect from the real SG de temps en temps - not that it's of especial importance in itself, of course and, as I've already observed, it would appear in any case to have little or no relevance to the thread topic.

[eighthobstruction]

Indeed....thankyou....

I have this morning been trying to write a post about the inter-face between creative production staff and management/compliance staff....and the H&R nightmare it is going to be to root(or even show them the route out) a wedge of staff who have fallen short or are irrelevant....and getting the balance right (also ref salaries, seeing that the BBC has created a lot of staff on very very bloated salaries and hopefully will want to remedy this). I had three attempts to write such a post but I failed and I was thwarted by my dyslexia....and therefore SHPOOF posts commensurate with what this Mb might usually expect from [or of] me....sorry [OT again, to compound the situation](if indeed it can be described as a situation)....

....by the way , I hope you realise you have mispelled the non word 'mascerading', by your offer of "macerating"....

[ahinton]

....by the way , I hope you realise you have mispelled the non word 'mascerading', by your offer of "macerating"....

Of course I do! - it was merely the closest equivalent that came immediately, to mind, that's all...