Cycling UK Forum

mrjemm wrote:When a child is badly behaved at school, you don't close the school

You obviously don't work for Ofsted

mrjemm wrote:These arguments make me think of Superdrug being a suitable alternative to the NHS...
...
When a child is badly behaved at school, you don't close the school.

Maybe I'm being slow but I can't see the relevance of closing schools, etc. to forcing people who don't watch the BBC to subscribe to it.

mrjemm wrote:I think I'd rather pay the licence and enjoy the decent programming amongst the rubbish, than suffer pure crap for the want of protesting that which offends me or saving a bit of money.

Which is fine. You like it, you pay for it. I don't want to watch it so why should I subsidise your watching it ?

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

mrjemm wrote:I think I'd rather pay the licence and enjoy the decent programming amongst the rubbish, than suffer pure crap for the want of protesting that which offends me or saving a bit of money.

Which is fine. You like it, you pay for it. I don't want to watch it so why should I subsidise your watching it ?

The argument for the BBC is that it provides programming that would not be provided by a commercial broadcaster. It has a public service remit and a broader one which requires it to provide a diverse range of programming. Obviously there is a decision to be made about the sustainability of the licence fee in the future and many people would happily see it disappear and the BBC become a commercial channel. I don't think anybody disputes that would lead to a loss of those programmes and services which are not profitable: World Service, Radio 3, BBC Parliament, Welsh and Gaelic programming, BBC4, local radio stations, minority interest sports and music etc. etc. On the plus side there would be more wonderful profitable programmes that people love to watch and sell well internationally like Top Gear!

Edwards wrote:

mrjemm wrote:When a child is badly behaved at school, you don't close the school

You obviously don't work for Ofsted

But if they are all badly behaved, repeatedly, and ther is no obvious attempt to improve disdipline you would change the management....

[XAP]Bob wrote:

Edwards wrote:

mrjemm wrote:When a child is badly behaved at school, you don't close the school

You obviously don't work for Ofsted

But if they are all badly behaved, repeatedly, and ther is no obvious attempt to improve disdipline you would change the management....

I'd change the parents

Kids behaviour at school and home don't necessarily correlate.

If the school management is not capable of control then it needs replacing.

Top Gear used to be a decent chat show with cars as a (sorry) vehicle (I did say sorry) for the banter. It degraded a few years ago into toilet humour, which is a shame because the presenters can all do better than that.
It's also degraded into a rampant offence-fest. Again the presenters can do better, there is no need to cause offence and demonstrate contrived idiocy to entertain.

Or maybe:

Not Churchill wrote:The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter

And Auntee Beeb is appealing to that common denominator...

Si wrote:
I'd change the parents

Sometimes it is actually the parents that are the problem, like in kids' team sports these days.....an old chap I knew who used to teach Pony Club kids to ride used to say that Pony Club kids would be fine if they were all orphans.

Who brought up the parents?

I blame the grandparents.

Mick F wrote:Who brought up the parents?

I blame the grandparents.

Talking of blaming parents - and getting back on topic - I blame Mr and Mrs Clarkson senior, for what they did, presumably unprotected, some time around July 1959....

I see that the BBC news website is now reporting that the buffoon has been done for speeding (by a fixed camera on a road with which he is familiar and has apparently grumbled about the number of cameras there.)

The late Robert Robinson is quoted as saying "If this is news on what basis do we exclude anything?"

Perhaps the BBC feels obliged to publish JC's publicity releases.

Today's news: another good reason for having a re-think about paying the licence fee:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... l-election
Whether you support the Greens or not, it's a shameful decision.

661-Pete wrote:Today's news: another good reason for having a re-think about paying the licence fee:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... l-election
Whether you support the Greens or not, it's a shameful decision.

I agree (about their decision not to include the Greens in the election debates). To me their reasons seem very contrived; like they decided to exclude the Greens then had to work out reasons to justify that decision.

Ian

Mick F wrote:

Mick F wrote:A case in point:
Today, we were driving down towards Saltash to do a spot of shopping. A car went past heading in the opposite direction and the pair of us noticed the reg number.

L15 KRD

This probably means absolutely nothing to 99.99% of the forum readers.

No-one's sussed this one yet?

The owner of this car - Landrover Discovery? - obviously lives in a particular town in Cornwall and is proud of it.
My point is, unless you clock the abbreviation, it means nothing whatsoever to you.

It's JUST possible that TG and JC knew nothing about the significance of the reg number in Argentina.

Well, how funny is that?! That'll be me then

ferrit worrier wrote:I love these brain games L15KRD Liskeard

Me too. Misplacing it, or putting number plate mounting bolts in spoils the fun of working it out.

The best ones should be a bit like solving a crossword!