Useless jobs still being recruited for in the civil service

ILW

ninky wrote: »

but it's not competing with the commercial stations for the same revenue. the broadcast world is still highly competitive and quite possibly would be even more so (not less) if it were not for the bbc.

are you saying there is no reality tosh on the commercial channels?

I would suggest that such things as Radio 1 are of little artistic merit and in outright competition with the commercial sector. As such are just a drain on public finances.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

He only pops up to attack its excesses when it applies to very specific non-jobs aimed at the minorities that he hates.

Check his other recent posts. Anti-immigation (but only if it's coloured immigration), anti-jewish and now, it seems, a homophobe too.

Utter balderdash. The truth is that you and your acolytes on this board are promoting a highly libertarian and, for want of a better term, 'neo-con' agenda that might well suit the well heeled 'Notting Hill' set, but has little sympathy within British society as a whole. My views are a lot closer to the ordinary man and woman in the street, and you obviously resent that. You resent the home truths that I am repeatedly hammering home on this board, hence your bitterness. One thing I always wonder is how you find the time to post here when you are supposedly a highly paid partner in a London law firm.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

One thing I always wonder is how you find the time to post here when you are supposedly a highly paid partner in a London law firm.

I work in management role in a city law firm. When have i ever said I am a highly paid partner in a London law firm?

As for me being bitter - how ironic coming from MSE's very own angry and resentful public sector IT middle manager.

Your nasty and bitter views may - in fact - represent the common view of the average UK person on the street. I don't know. I rather suspect they do. That doesn't make them anything to celebrate. In fact, such a finding would reinforce my sense of increasing despair and bewilderment at what has happened to the country I love, but no longer respect.

If you, marklv, represent the archetypal Little Englander, I don't think that's much for the country to be proud of.

ninky_2

marklv wrote: »

One thing I always wonder is how you find the time to post here when you are supposedly a highly paid partner in a London law firm.

he is not a partner. he is head of marketing.

delegation and bs don't take up too much time.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

he is not a partner. he is head of marketing.

delegation and bs don't take up too much time.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

Rather harsh, but . . . well . . . it's not a bad assessment.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

Rather harsh, but . . . well . . . it's not a bad assessment.

it takes one to know one as they say;)

Spartacus_Mills

ninky wrote: »

but it's not competing with the commercial stations for the same revenue. the broadcast world is still highly competitive and quite possibly would be even more so (not less) if it were not for the bbc.

are you saying there is no reality tosh on the commercial channels?

Typical Ninkyesque extrapolation there. Arguing a point no one has made.

The BBC may not compete for the same revenue but it does compete for the same audience which helps drive revenue. So it does compete with commercial stations, the revenue issue is neither here nor there. In the case of the Beeb their audience justifies the license fee as they need as wide a reach to do that.

Spartacus_Mills

ninky wrote: »

the bbc doesn't always get it right and some of their output is dross. but we would lose most of the very best programming being made in this country if the bbc goes. i also believe it would drive the quality of stuff being produced by other broadcasters down as they would no longer have to compete with the bbc.

you seriously hear some scary stuff in the independent and commercial sector ("black people don't rate"...one example) and we need the bbc to keep that in check.

Anecdotal claptrap.

ninky_2

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

The BBC may not compete for the same revenue but it does compete for the same audience which helps drive revenue.

this is true. however advertisers don't have the option of advertising on the bbc. in addition with advent of on demand / internet / sky + etc time specified audiences are decreasing in importance. there is so much competing for viewing time (including forums like this!) that it's not much of an argument to say the bbc drives down audiences. if something is worth seeing people will still watch it.

it seems to me that the bbc can't win in the eyes of psb bashers. either their viewing figures are low (in which case it is argued they aren't worth paying for) or their viewing figures are high (in which case they are accused of stealing viewers from the commercial channels).

i think the real fear the right have is of a voice that isn't solely driven by commercial concerns because this is more likely to voice criticism of the right.

tomterm8

I dunno. If jobs like the ones the OP said actually produced the results we want - that everyone has a fair crack of the whip, regardless of colour, race, religion, facial hair, age, or whether they actually like cracks of the whip - then I would be more in favour of them. But I don't see that happening. Instead, its a little like the war on drugs... a lot of expense, and not much result.

As for the BBC, most people seem to like it. If there was mileage getting rid of it, the political classes would do so.