UKC

Well ok, not really, in fact not even nearly. But what a great conspiracy theory by the luvvies. Gottaluv a great drama.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Enough of your conspiracy theory about people inventing conspiracy theories, where are your facts?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You're probably gonnaluv it when the BBC is eventually destroyed. I still think Whittingdale is an extremely dangerous zealot who appears to have some grudge against the BBC that only the most extreme right-wing ideologues can understand, and many Tory MPs find deeply disturbing. Whittingdale is to the BBC (one of the UK's proudest achievements) as Jeremy Hunt is to the NHS (another of our greatest achievements.). Dangerous nutters on expensive, time-wasting, profession-damaging crusades that few rational pragmatists can fathom.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Do you mind if pinch some of that, when required? Your spot on.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Gordon, in case you missed it, the report is out and despite the luvvie hysteria it changes next to nothing except formalising the requirement for innovative programming. Next up: minor ineffective tinkering with the NHS accompanied by hysterical and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about its destruction followed by the non existent privatisation of education.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What does the white paper suggest that so upsets you?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm shocked and horrified by your spelling of eviscerated.

In reply to EddInaBox:


Well the facts were on show at the BAFTA luvvie luvfest.

In reply to aln:


Me too. AAGGHH. No SATS in my day.

In reply to aln:


Yeah?! Where's your evidence?! .... . Oh yeah. I see it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Lucky for us that Cameron saw a split within his own party on this and didn't fancy opening up another rift. The sound of furious back-pedalling is audible from here.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh god, my facebook feed has been full of my lefty mates complaining about exactly that, "the BBC is going to be eviscerated!!!"

These are the same people who were recently complaining that the BBC is a "Tory party mouthpiece."

No pleasing some people.

In reply to Big Ger:




Deep down inside they can't wait for a good old fashioned privatisation....

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Yup, until the BAFTAs the plan was to close it down.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well the BBC governors are being replaced by a so-called 'Unitary board' which has not been clearly defined yet. It is not yet clear how much government interference there will be. Otherwise, why on earth change the present system of governance?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Looks like the external board members will be chosen by some sort of independent commission. Either way, the main thrust seems to be to stop the BBC overpaying slebs in third rate nonsense and to focus on innovative quality. What;'s not to like?

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Good work.

In reply to Postmanpat:

We don't know how independent this commission will be. I suspect there'll be a lot of government placements. Mind you, this has been happening for a long time. A book could be written (if it hasn't been already) about the political shenanigans surrounding the BBC board of governors from Mrs. Thatcher onwards. So we ended up with this extremely moderate cautious thing, that daren't ever stick it's neck out, and broadly has to toe the party line. For a long time it has been criticised for not being popular enough ('why should people pay a licence fee when there are better [=more popular] shows on independent TV that don't cost them anything?') So the Beeb tried to become ever more popular, with a huge amount of success. Now, tricksy, devious Whittingdale is suddenly today pretending to be some kind of grotesque reincarnation of Lord Reith. He's not to be trusted one micrometer.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I mean you can *pretend* that Whittingdale hasn't made his feelings toward the BBC pretty clear in the past, and you can *pretend* that the newspapers and other media haven't been pushing the angle that the bill was going to hobble the BBC, and you can carry on to *pretend* that it's just a paranoid bunch of loony-leftie-luvvies making it all up, but I think you're in danger of winning a BAFTA yourself at that rate.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Yes, that's the exact truth of what happened. What Whittingdale 'unveiled' today (ghastly term to suggest some beautiful, admiral work of art) was a very much watered down version of what he wanted. Cameron, with pressure from a surprisingly large number of Tory MPs, pulled hm back.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Clearly illustrating your complete lack of understanding of the reorganisation of health commissioning and provision.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Whilst I'm no fan of Whittingdale (apart from his uproarious tabloid sex life life) that sounds like good government by his colleagues. Will JW still be Culture Secretary in 11 years when the licence is up for renewal again?

In reply to abr1966:

Was referring to the infamous seven day week but how much "privatisation" has actually result from the previous reorganisation?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Exactly, so the truth is that the hysterical focus on the views of the largely sidelined free market wing of the party eg.Redwood is just paranioa.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Plenty....it started under Blair!

In reply to Postmanpat:



<chuckle>
Some folk do actually believe that - and, I suppose necessarily, that you can kock out a completely new white paper in under a week.
BAFTAs was a worse cringe-fest than usual.

In reply to abr1966:


3.3 % points in 8 years. Aaggh, theyre destroying our NHS.

In reply to abr1966:

As, it seems, do you.

There's been very little reorganisation of provision.

The provider-commissioner split goes back to 2001 - thank you Mr Blair.

CCGs are very similar to PCTs and will be virtually identical once primary care and specialist commissioning transfer back.

Splitting out commissioning support is a poor choice, but has precious little to do with actual services.

The material changes in provision that have happened - clinical networks, the London stroke model, A&E tiering, upscaling GPs (fewer single handed GPs), etc. - are well founded clinically.

The BIG issue is public behaviour - irresponsible use of both emergency services (including ambulances) and GPs; and unrealistic expectations of the service within the funding provided by the taxation that we're prepared to bear.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
>
And you can pretend that any of the more extreme ideas were ever going happen and pretend that newspapers are in the business of truth and beauty and you can pretend that the luvvies actually knew anything as opposed to dramatising rumour and gossip to protect their own nterests.

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/david-cameron-intervention-bbc...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/12/tories-bbc-haters-halt...

In reply to Postmanpat:

As a man who loves detail you must know some aspects of all the luvvies concerns are still there (or possible) in the new structure (according to some independant media experts on R4). They overlooked the bit I would have liked to see (and that I've never seen any serious opposition to... ): full exposure of the ridiculous salaries of those in the management structure and preferably some thinning out. Whittingdale has done us all a favour by accident.. he has reminded us how precious our public service broadcasting is in a time when we need it, given the well discussed demographic issues (lots of younger people are opting out of licenced TV).

In reply to r0b:

>

Great, so no doubt the luvvies will now all be voting for Cameron, the "champion of the BBC"!

In reply to r0b:

What's your problem with the BBC disclosing how much it pays its (our) employees? Is that what is twisting your knickers?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It would seem that making TV programmes pays rather better than representing the public and making laws in parliament - MP's salary £75,000, prime ministers salary £143,000 - Head of BBC north £160,000, BBC Director General £450,000

No wonder our politicians are below average - we pay them peanuts and surprise surprise we've got Monkeys!

In reply to cander:


I'm not sure many politicians do it for the money. And I'm not sure that paying them more and encouraging them to do so would result in better politicians.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

I'm thinking the expenses scandal might suggest otherwise!

In reply to cander:

The expenses claims are over and above their salary though. The problem with paying MPs very high salaries is they join the ranks of people who protect the high-salaried and start to fall out of touch with how most people live and what their needs are. This already happens to an extent. The establishment protects itself, as we repeatedly see under the current administration.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Eh?

I was just supplying links to two pieces that supported the assertion that Whittingdale really did want to hammer the BBC until pressure from other interested parties (including Number 10) stopped him.

And for full disclosure I work for the BBC, but don't have anything to fear about my salary ever being disclosed! You can already see how much the upper echelons of management are paid here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographie...

Personally I don't have string feelings either way of publishing how much the talent is paid.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


Aren't most of the current cabinet multi-millionaires, they don't seem to be doing too well!

In reply to Alyson:

But that means the more capable individuals head for the better paid jobs - and there are loads of jobs that pay better than an MP and without the grief of media interest, so we end up with a parliament full of rich boys because their families are wealthy and the B team (because the A team go where the money is).

In reply to r0b:

How would disclosing salaries above 150k a year rather than 450k have "hammered" the BBC? The second link is a meaningless opinion piece.

In reply to Alyson:


It depends on what you mean by high-salary. Generalizing crudely, people are paid according to their abilities. If we want capable MPs we need to pay at a level gets us people with the abilities we want in those representing us. I don't think many would regard doctors or barristers or architects as not being able to represent clients on low incomes, yet they all earn more than MPs from the middle of their professions upwards.

In reply to cander:


A consultant surgeon is paid between £75k and £101k, less than the Head of BBC North. You'd be hard pushed to argue surgeons are less capable individuals though, so not everyone follows the money and people have different motivations for pursuing different careers. What sets apart the most financially successful people is often a degree of psychopathy, see eg

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-bet...

I'd rather not have a parliament of psychopaths but that might be wishful thinking! I'd rather people went into politics with a passion for something other than money though

In reply to Alyson:


Of course but that's possible while still wanting to paid comparably to those at the top of various professions. As you highlight surgeons do better than MPs currently. No surgeon is going to give up to become an MP in that situation, and it will be factor for 20 year olds deciding which direction to take.

In reply to MG:


I'm not at all sure that really holds true. We have a generation of university graduates doing shelf-stacking or bar work, and I know many people sticking it out in the public sector despite being able to earn more elsewhere because they believe in making a difference. I'd say it's more true that people are paid according to what they will fight for and who fights for it hardest (probably why the psychopaths do well). Highly talented people might choose to put their families first, or care for a relative, or pursue a low-paid but intellectually/emotionally rewarding job, or be born into a background lacking in any opportunity.

The idea that financial success happens to the most deserving people is a narrative we are all being fed.

In reply to Alyson:

What an odd statement - earning £100,000 plus doesn't take psychopathic tendencies, just as earning less than that doesn't make you sensible!

In reply to cander:


That's not what she, or her link, said.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The implications for editorial independence of introducing government appointed board members to what should be an impartial source of news and information is deeply worrying. If you care about democracy. A step towards self censorship at best and state control at worst. As is the use of £8m of licence fees to subsidise three large media groups, who will now benefit from state subsidised journalists. Despite the fact that those companies have reduced their investment in journalism to prop up shareholder profits. Equally concerning is the pre conditioning about the predatory privatisation of at least part of C4. A state owned success story, both in terms of commercial contribution and high quality and distinctive programming. Whittingdale and his Tory colleagues are in thrall to Murdoch / Rothermere and driven by a destructive right wing ideology that won't be satisfied until every last commonly owned asset we have has been sold off to the highest bidder.

In reply to Alyson:


Hmm. As basic minimum band - yes.
And that's for 10 sessions; lots get paid 11 or 12 sessions.
And then you've got between £3k and £76k of additional clinical excellence awards (almost all are some way up the scale).

Oh, and almost all do additional private work; for most this is of significant value.

Not many cardiac consultants drive Polos.

In reply to Alyson:


I think its more success happens to the most deserving people and often this is accompanied by a degree of wealth because many people want, as well as other things perhaps.

In reply to Alyson:
I'd say it's more true that people are paid according to what they will fight for and who fights for it hardest (probably why the psychopaths do well).

There's some of that of course - some people just aren't bothered enough to succeed. But do you really think the most senior doctors, teacher, lawyers are disproportionally psychopaths? Listen to any senior barrister argue, for example, and it becomes clear very very quickly why they hold the position they do.

In reply to Alyson:

>[...]


With the corollary that the poor are always wastrels deserving only our contempt.

In reply to MG:

Listen to some £100K + management consultants e.g. from Crapita speak and you would doubt their fitness to get a job shelf stacking.

Dealing quite a bit with the NHS at the moment it's a total effing mystery.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think they've decided there's only so many national institutions they can destroy at one time. They've got another 4 years to ruin the NHS, BBC, local government and education.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I do like listening to the younger generation calling the BBC right wing and stooges for the Conservative government, and those over 50 calling the BBC left wing loonies. I assume at that point the it must be fairly balanced?

In reply to Postmanpat:


The older I become the more it becomes obvious to me that the BBC needs to get *****slapped. Whittingdale bottled it

In reply to JJL:



Actually as a Head of Directorate within an NHS Trust I'm pretty confident that I know a fair amount about reorganisation of provision....

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Hmm. I did say generally, I hope.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Whittingdale made jokes that were totally inappropriate for a minster at a recent meeting of conservative students. He makes no secret of his dislike and disapproval of the BBC, or that his preferred option - if he could get away with it - would be to abolish it entirely. I don't know what conversations went on behind closed doors, but I suspect the fact that the government has quite a few fights on its hands right now - from the stupid EU referendum to the equally stupid JD doctors contract - have more to do with the shelving this particular row than any misreporting of Whittingdale's preferences.

Also: like the NHS, the BBC is an effing beacon of light, and it is IMPORTANT. I personally don't watch Topgear, Eastenders or Strictly, but I suspect the ability to create and broadcast programs like that which, are popular, is an important factor in maintaining the visibility and impact of the boring stuff - providing, as far as possible, a professional and independent mirror on national and international affairs.

There never has been a government in the history of the world that hasn't wanted more control over media, and the BBC is one pretty successful example of how that can be resisted.

In reply to Big Ger:



And I travel with a hard line ( Scottish Brexiter) Tory who thinks it is anti Tory and full of leftys.

Maybe they have got the balance right !

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

What utter crap. Maybe in your smug middle class world the BBC is a becaon of light but what about the 400,000 people a year mostly women and the poor who are prosecuted for being unable to pay for your middle class beacon of light? You mention Strictly which along with other generic mindless TV that the BBC outputs head to head with commercial stations programmes which has a direct impact on there revenue streams. The BBC of course can count on Billions of £'s regardless.

Numerous media organisations have complained about the BBC steamroller of unfair competition. Why pay for a newspaper when you can get all your news free from the BBC?

If you want your beacon of light then fair enough YOU pay for it and make the BBC a subscription service open to competition like Sky or Netflixs . The BBC are fighting tooth an nail against it despite claiming how loved the they are because they's lose a £3.5 billion a year jacuzzi of cash if people had a choice... and they know it.

Don't even start me on the nazi's at Crapita.

In reply to abr1966:


OK. Do tell where all this major reorganisation of frontline provision is in the past 7 years? Other than the ones I cited already that are clinically founded.

Also, your original post was directed more at commissioning/provider - which, as I say, was Mr Blair's big thing.

As for "Head of", well, I've found plenty of those who understood very little ... and fired them.

In reply to Indy:
400,000? Where did you get that from? Google it - you're out by 200%. And how does that compare with the number of people prosecuted for benefit fraud, tax evasion, and any other legally constituted revenue collection scheme?

If you think the BBC is responsible for the demise of printed newspapers then you have maybe overlooked that little thing called t'internet.

'Numerous media organisations have complained about the BBC steamroller of unfair competition' Er yes, well in fact one in particular, Sky, prop Mr R Murdoch. The bloke who was happy to accept any amount of censorship across all his media outlets in order to establish a revenue stream from China. Is that the future you want?

I have no idea why you threw crapita into your rant, are you mixing up posts?

In reply to JJL:



Big shot hey!
I'll presume your job is something akin to a post like my manager then as a Director of Operations.... if you're such a big deal and can 'fire' anyone in a Head of Directorate post.
My suspicion is that you are full of bull. If you are as senior in the health service as you are portraying you will be fully aware of the changes in clinical provision as a result of this govt's administration.
Interesting also that you are so able to 'fire' people in these posts....again if you knew your stuff I suspect that you wouldn't be using such language....

In reply to abr1966:





Zzzzzzzzzzzz

And your examples of negative changes to front line clinical provision are?

And yes, I was calling you out on your earlier wall-pissing.

In reply to cander:



That's far more to do with senior figures the BBC being overpaid. MPs are, if anything overpaid for what they actually do. The PM looks underpaid until you factor in all the extras and the doors it opens up once you've finished. Cabinet Ministers etc I'm not sure about.

The expenses scandal told us nothing more than how greedy, entitled and self-serving they are. The millionaire Hunt claims for paper clips and then tells doctors the new contract will give them a sense of vocation.

In reply to JJL:

Not wall pissing.

If you genuinely believe there haven't been significant changes to front line services you are very ignorant of the facts.

My guess is, that's because you haven't much idea of clinical provision in the real world.

I also guess there's a big difference here....I work in clinical service provision not armchair punditry.

In reply to Indy:

Making the BBC a subscription based service would be a terrible idea, the BBC does things that no other broadcaster would do, esp if they were commercially based, such as a lot of community work, keeping various orchestras alive and also representing smaller interest groups esp on radio, such things as "The Organist Entertains" would never get a look in on a subscription based service. Not my cup of tea but there must be an audience for it. If the BBC went over to a subscription based service then it would more than likely become another ITV and produce much more of the "generic mindless TV" that you seem to despise.

Not everything is about money or making a profit, the BBC is generally trusted by a great percentage of the population of this country and the world, it's one of the truly great things that this country has produced. It seems odd that the organisations such at the Daily Mail and the Tory Party, who generally seem to promote the idea of being proud to be British would love to see a great thing that we can be proud of reduced to another Sky or similar.

In reply to abr1966:

Sigh.

Well; you know nothing about me and you'd be wrong. I've run both acute provider and commissioner organisations.

And no, as an ops manager, you are not in "clinical service provision"; doctors and nurses do that.

Anyway, still happy to discuss your examples rather than your misplaced chest-beating.

In reply to philhilo:


Well put! Agreed.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I do not think representing the people of the UK and forming the laws that govern the people of the UK needs individuals who are satisfied with a salary equivalent to an estate agent. We need to pay them properly and alongside that hold them fully to account for their actions whilst in office (and to an extent once they leave office). The PM is vastly underpaid and if you're happy having a PM who on his retirement schleps around the world being a paid consultant for whichever dictator is prepared to pay him thats fine but I'm not.


IMO The expenses scandal was created because MP's were scared to award themselves a proper salary and they were allowed to pad their expenses to make up for this deficiency, once they got into the swing of things the expenses spiralled out of control.

In reply to cander:


So they need to be motivated by greed then?

We need to pay them properly and alongside that hold them fully to account for their actions whilst in office (and to an extent once they leave office).

Agreed.

The PM is vastly underpaid and if you're happy having a PM who on his retirement schleps around the world being a paid consultant for whichever dictator is prepared to pay him thats fine but I'm not.

One does not have to lead to another.


Because they were greedy and lacking morals.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

If you rely on people who don't need a proper salary to exist i.e pay the mortgage, bring up the kids, afford a car ... you know the usual stuff - then it's "Call me Dave", "Boy George" and those of that ilk who will be the MP's because they're the only ones who can afford to do it. "If you think paying a professional is expensive just wait until you employ an amateur".

Earning a good wage for doing an important job isn't greedy or lacking morals - I sometime think there's strong wiff of jealousy by people when they look at others pay.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Most of them, like everyone else, will be motivated by various things. One will be money, yes.

In reply to cander:

If £70k a year isn't a proper salary, they need to have a serious look at the minimum wage.

In reply to jasonC abroad:



O.K lets keep the TV License but make it say £20 a year to cover all the BBC's public service commitments then the rest of it would be a subscription service that you'd add-on. So for a £200 a year BBC subscription you could watch Strictly Come Dancing and The Great British Bake Off to your hearts content. Maybe 50 years ago you'd have a point about a Licence fee but in the 21st century it's an anachronism.

Also could you point out what the BBC has done that commercial broadcasters haven't/won't/can't? Its a stick that the BBC and its apologist seem to get out every time anyone questions the License Fee.

In reply to Indy:
Radios 2, 3 and 4 don't have commercial rivals.

In reply to Indy:


Strictly and Bake Off for a start...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I wondered when somebody would wheel out Rupert Murdoch but for the sake of variety lets say chuck in ITV to this...

"ITV has LONG COMPLAINED that the BBC chooses to schedule Strictly Come Dancing at a similar time to The X Factor. In a submission to ministers, ITV says that the BBC DELIBERATELY scheduled Silent Witness, the long-running crime drama, against the second series of Broadchurch. ITV says that the corporation’s “COMMERCIALLY DAMAGING” tactics have led to viewers increasingly choosing to “timeshift” ITV dramas – recording them and then fast-forwarding through the adverts – in a move that THREATENS THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY of the genre."

In reply to MG:


If thats true don't you find it kinda scary?

In reply to r0b:


Eh?

In reply to Indy:
Scary?

No, I do appreciate all the TV owners paying for them for me though! More seriously, I think the BBC does some great stuff and I would be happy to pay for it. It is perhaps too big but I doubt it could do the good stuff if it were shrunk to the point where that was all it did, if that makes any sense! The flab is needed to make the good stuff happen.

In reply to Indy:

That is just the sort of comment that makes me proud of the BBC - loved and hated in equal measure - a fine example of democracy.

In reply to Indy:



ITV has ITV +1, so everyone can the same shit all over again.
So that f*cks that scheduling argument.

In reply to MG:


I want to have plurality, the thought of one behemoth controlling and dictating what output and narrative I'm able to watch/read/listen to IS scary. Would the BBC be interested in reporting that its paid £10's of millions of Licence Payers money to gag its own employees? We've seen undercover expose of Amazon and various high street retailers far eastern sweatshops but whats the likelihood of the BBC doing the same sort of expose at TV Licensing?

You, like the BBC love the current system as you're getting way way more for your money by forcing people that don't want or need or use the service to pay for it. The BBC gets a whole jacuzzi of cash which makes it big fat and lazy and helps crush any commercial competition.

The BBC "does some great stuff" Do you think that the BBC being given £4000 Million every year has anything to do with it?

In reply to Indy:


Well you have that, thanks to the BBC, without which those radio stations wouldn't exist



Err, yes, obviously.

In reply to r0b:


Do you REALLY think commercial stations could not offer those?

In reply to Big Ger:

I guess it depends on how they commission programs, both of those programs would seem to me to be pretty unlikely candidates for a successful franchise. I'd reckon the commercial networks would be much more likely to go for programmes like the X Factor and BGT. Even now the Beeb is experimenting with different competition formats - I'm thinking the pottery show and the like - I can't see ITV being able to commission these.

In reply to MG:

You seem to be one of those people that like the BBC solely because you get much more out of it than you put in. O.K lets change tack a bit and look at it another way.....

I'm going to assume you have children or you know people that do. I'll also assume that those children go to a state comprehensive school. The thing is my children go to fee paying private schools. The thing is these private schools are set up as charities and so get a number of Tax breaks. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it works out I'm saving around £600/year in school fees due these charitable Tax breaks. Looking at it very simplistically the Govt. won't get my £600 so can't spend it on your children in there state Comprehensive school.

Now, I'm not only getting a great education for my children but your kids are subsidising me to the tune of a nice case of wine each year and getting a worse education because of it.

So, is it fair?

Is it fair that your getting more out of the BBC because others who don't want/can't afford it are forced to pay for it and subsidise you?

In reply to Indy:
You seem to have missed the bit where I said I would be happy to pay.for the BBC. And no one is forced to pay for it.

I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post -other than a boast about how wealthy you are. As I understand it, to retain charitable status schools have to do charitable stuff, and not just take fees.

In reply to MG:


Yes, I KNOW that your happy to pay for the BBC TV licence because you're getting far more out of it than your having to pay in because huge numbers of people like for instance, single mothers on benefits, poor pensioners etc who don't want the BBC, don't use it but are still being forced under the penalty of criminal law to pay for it.

In the above Licence fee example your a 'winner'

So now I'll put in the position of being one of those single mothers on benefits who gets no benefit from the BBC and doesn't want it but is forced to pay for it. You don't send your children to Public school so get no benefit from it BUT your forced to subsidise my children who do go to public school to the tune of £600/year?

The above 2 examples are directly comparable.

So, I'll ask you again is it fair your subsidising my children's public school education and with that in mind is it fair that the single mother on benefits are subsidising your usage of the BBC?

In reply to Indy:


No. Pensionors get it free and no one is forced to have one.



It's just as fair as any other tax. For example, as it happens I don't have children but I am quite happy to pay for the education system as I see it's overall benefit,, as I do with the BBC.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


A vernier caliper is a better tool for eviscerating. A micrometer might excoriate, I suppose.