On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:20:02 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:10:30 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , J G Miller
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:04:32 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article , J G Miller
wrote:

So it is now official -- anything which David Plowman does not
watch on the BBC is a waste of licence fee money.

Perfectly summed up.

You really ought to be appointed a member to the BBC Trust.

At the very least you should be a member of the BBC London Region
viewers and listeners advisory council or whatever it is called
nowadays.

That *is* the BBC Trust, isn't it?

I think JGM is referring to the London Regional Council which...

[Snip]

Sorry, I had thought adding a ":-)" would be superfluous. :-)

My real point was that the BBC Trust do seem sometimes to be somewhat
limited in their understanding of situations far from London and the 'Home
Counties" judging by some decisions.

Ah yes. And some of the individuals may be limited in their
understanding even if they personally are from places outside London and
the Home Counties.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:20:02 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

You really ought to be appointed a member to the BBC Trust.

At the very least you should be a member of the BBC London Region
viewers and listeners advisory council or whatever it is called
nowadays.

That *is* the BBC Trust, isn't it?

I think JGM is referring to the London Regional Council which...

[Snip]

Sorry, I had thought adding a ":-)" would be superfluous. :-)

My real point was that the BBC Trust do seem sometimes to be somewhat
limited in their understanding of situations far from London and the
'Home Counties" judging by some decisions.

Ah yes. And some of the individuals may be limited in their
understanding even if they personally are from places outside London and
the Home Counties.

Yes. This is a potential drawback of selecting people from a 'pool of the
Great and Good' as regarded by those doing the selection - who are
themselves from the same 'club'. Easy to get people well regarded in
concentric circles.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Yes. This is a potential drawback of selecting people from a 'pool of the
Great and Good' as regarded by those doing the selection - who are
themselves from the same 'club'. Easy to get people well regarded in
concentric circles.
It would be an interesting experiment to abolish the House of Lords and
replace it with a House of Randomly Selected People. The HORSP would
have the absolute right of veto on all legislation, and would be able to
initiate legislation of its own. Membership would last for four years,
with a new intake of a quarter of the members every year.
Selection would be completely random, except that
(a) there would be compensation for any disproportionate refusal of the
members of any particular social group to take part, due their own
circumstances.
(b) No lunatics
(c) No crims

Bill

On 10/01/2012 10:30, charles wrote:
In bit.myzen.co.uk,
Roderick wrote:
In , J G Miller wrote:
There are also channels dedicated to religion only on satellite.
Doesn't mean the BBC should waste our licence fee on them.

Please explain why it would be a waste of licence fee.

Because the BBC is obliged to "Inform, Educate and Entertain", and
religion does none of these things.

that's just an urban myth


Really? You sure? I thought it was in their charter somewhere, and it
seems I'm not alone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ins...on_and_values/

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/7vnq7br

says inter alia

"Our mission
To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform,
educate and entertain."

Which a little digging will show you is in the Royal Charter.

Andy

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Yes. This is a potential drawback of selecting people from a 'pool of the
Great and Good' as regarded by those doing the selection - who are
themselves from the same 'club'. Easy to get people well regarded in
concentric circles.
It would be an interesting experiment to abolish the House of Lords and
replace it with a House of Randomly Selected People. The HORSP would
have the absolute right of veto on all legislation, and would be able to
initiate legislation of its own. Membership would last for four years,
with a new intake of a quarter of the members every year.
Selection would be completely random, except that
(a) there would be compensation for any disproportionate refusal of the
members of any particular social group to take part, due their own
circumstances.
(b) No lunatics
(c) No crims

A bit like jury service on a national basis then...?

Excellent idea. They could use the lottery machines to select them. Much
cheaper than holding an election.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Andy Champ
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/ins...ion_and_values

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/7vnq7br

says inter alia

"Our mission
To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform,
educate and entertain."

Which a little digging will show you is in the Royal Charter.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's been amended to say "Our mission, should we
choose to accept it..."

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:


I wouldn't be surprised if it's been amended to say "Our mission, should
we choose to accept it..."

That would mean accepting John Redwood onto the Trust so they have
someone from the planet Vulcan.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Yes. This is a potential drawback of selecting people from a 'pool of the
Great and Good' as regarded by those doing the selection - who are
themselves from the same 'club'. Easy to get people well regarded in
concentric circles.
It would be an interesting experiment to abolish the House of Lords and
replace it with a House of Randomly Selected People. The HORSP would
have the absolute right of veto on all legislation, and would be able to
initiate legislation of its own. Membership would last for four years,
with a new intake of a quarter of the members every year.
Selection would be completely random, except that
(a) there would be compensation for any disproportionate refusal of the
members of any particular social group to take part, due their own
circumstances.
(b) No lunatics
(c) No crims

A bit like jury service on a national basis then...?

Excellent idea. They could use the lottery machines to select them. Much
cheaper than holding an election.

Rod.
My own feeling is that selection should favour WASP males aged 60 to 65,
living in the north of England, self-employed, grumpy.

Bill

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:41:55 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Yes. This is a potential drawback of selecting people from a 'pool of the
Great and Good' as regarded by those doing the selection - who are
themselves from the same 'club'. Easy to get people well regarded in
concentric circles.
It would be an interesting experiment to abolish the House of Lords and
replace it with a House of Randomly Selected People. The HORSP would
have the absolute right of veto on all legislation, and would be able to
initiate legislation of its own. Membership would last for four years,
with a new intake of a quarter of the members every year.
Selection would be completely random, except that
(a) there would be compensation for any disproportionate refusal of the
members of any particular social group to take part, due their own
circumstances.
(b) No lunatics
(c) No crims

A bit like jury service on a national basis then...?

Excellent idea. They could use the lottery machines to select them. Much
cheaper than holding an election.

Rod.
My own feeling is that selection should favour WASP males aged 60 to 65,
living in the north of England, self-employed, grumpy.

No. No! NO!

You are much too valuable doing your work as self-employed male.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Peter Duncanson wrote:

No. No! NO!

You are much too valuable doing your work as self-employed male.

Ah but I'd love the power! To be honest they'd only need one member! ME!
me me me me me me! Ha ha ha ha ha!

Nurse he's gone all meglo again! Fetch the straitjacket!

Bill