Dear Schools: let the parents decide what's best

"I was educated during the holidays at Eton."

Osbert Sitwell

When the National Union of Teachers appointed themselves moral guardians - as well as judges, jury and perhaps executioners - last year by objecting to ‘British Values’ being taught in British schools, I suggested the state was engaged in thought-control. With the insane decision to declare Jon Platt and any other parent who takes their children on holiday in term time a criminal, I’m proven right.

The single line of justification for the state robbing families of their money for daring not to attend school for two weeks is that it affects students' exam performance. Newsflash: it doesn’t. The only data that supports the “grades affected” argument comes from the government itself and was conveniently released shortly before Platt was defeated in court.

As a teacher myself, all my experience and instinct tells me the following are the significant factors affecting student performance:

1) The natural intelligence and aptitude of a child.
Smarter students will catch up on any work they’ve missed. “Middle” students will endevour to do so. There may be a small case here for not taking “middle” students out of class for too long shortly before a major exam, but more on that later.

2) The stability of the student’s home life.
And guess what? The annual family holiday is usually symptomatic of a happy, stable family which will have far greater influence on a child’s academic performance in the long run. It’s also proven that a change of scenery and a break in routine can aid long-term memory-retention.

3) The attitude of the pupil’s parents.
This is where it becomes crucial that all parents are not tarnished with the same brush. I’ve dealt with lazy, despicable parents. I have vivid memories of one parent in particular whose children used to miss at least one day of school each week. When I attempted to speak with their mother about it, she laughed. Everything about this parent sent out a message: she was lazy, she wanted to do what she wanted, when she wanted and her children were baggage. Her two daughters would regularly finish bottom in any test.

These are the kind of parents who deserve fines. These are the children that teachers should be indignant over. To suggest that families who want to spend two weeks’ quality time together, perhaps learning a little of a foreign language or visiting a famous landmark - isn’t that educational in itself? Aren’t British schools drooling over ‘diversity’? - deserve the same punishment and labeling as negligent parents isn’t just incorrect, it’s insulting.

From the limited amount of time I’ve researched this it seems most teachers are falling down on the side of the state. This is no surprise, not only do they not want to bite the hand that feeds, some have also happily wandered down the path the British educational system seems happy to follow: the path that places the schools as moral jury, deciding carefully what is right or wrong, moral and immoral, important or unimportant. I still believe parents get first call on that.

There is of course one caveat in the fining system: there are several exemptions in place such as vacations of "religious importance" among other things. In this I see a wonderful opportunity for teachers supporting the fines system to show their dedication and compassion: colleagues, why not give up half of your Easter holidays holding extra classes for those who missed out during term? It would be the perfect chance to back up all the wonderful talk of dedication and concern you espouse so often, and the students go unpunished for missing previous classes. Everybody wins!

What time can we expect you in?

John Platt has a Facebook Page for people who support his fight against school fines.

A letter to the Dearly Defeated: Seven ways to improve your chances of winning next time

thesun.co.uk

If there’s one thing this year has taught all of us, it’s how we can place exactly no faith in opinion polls. I explained part of the reason for this the day before the election but in the spirit of cooperation, I want to offer sincere and effective ideas for anyone who disagrees with me and voted Remain or rooted for Clinton in this election. The ideas may sound snarky, but they are heartfelt.

1) Don’t literally insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you.

If you think someone on the opposite side of the fence is dreadfully wrong, ask them why they believe what they do. Explain your view. Inspire them. Teach them. Show them you understand.

I’ve found that those who vocally praise or assert their own intelligence the most are usually insecure about it.  There is very, very tenuous evidence that traditional ideologies may represent slightly lower IQ scores. Even if this is true, however, it doesn’t make any ideology right or wrong.

Think about it: would you feel inclined to switch sides to any group that continually lambasted your academic prowess? Or would you feel mentally entrenched and more determined to take revenge?  And even the not-so-bright can see the hypocrisy in preaching the intellectual high ground and then rampaging across the city when you don’t get your way.

Also understand it works both ways - if you offend others, they have a right to express a view that you may find offensive. This is how the world works. Pretending or behaving otherwise will only make life harder.


2) Don’t insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you (metaphorically)

In other words, don’t assume that because you’ve adopted some moral slogan or bumper-sticker gospel, everybody will accept it without question. Yes of course that’s a sin committed eternally by all politicians across the board but let’s look at one example:

In the US, Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton referred to Trump’s vulgar “pussy” remark with professed shock and disgust, Michelle claimed to be “shaken to the core”.  This was long after Michelle attended a concert by rapper Jay-Z featuring his song”pussy”.  On that occasion she managed to suppress her shaken core long enough to invite him to the White House.

The point isn’t that politicians can be hypocrites - we all know that already-  it’s that they see such things as political gains, safe in the surety that the little people will take it in hook, line and sinker. It backfired in the UK and it backfired in the US yesterday. The era of gullible voters may not be dead, but it’s gasping.


3) Don’t assume people will vote for you based on their ethnicity, colour, income bracket or any label you place on them.

Back when this thing started - doesn't it seem like a lifetime ago? - The GOP candidates included an African-American who grew up in poverty, a Latino whose father spoke no English, a female, and the son of a mailman. The Democrats lined up with two white males and one white female. Which party preached the most about "diversity" and which one got on with discussing the issues of the day?

Two of the most inspiring commentaries I saw in the build up to yesterday came from African-Americans.

It’s true  that any demographic will usually vote in its own interests. It’s also true that the Labour wing of Vote Leave and the Democrat party lost touch with some of its key voters.

In the UK, Sunderland and other Labour strongholds voted Leave because they realised that Labour is long, long gone from its working class roots and  has decayed into  a party of elitist, career politicians (possibly excepting Corbyn).

In the USA, Trump took about 5% of the black vote from Hilary. The Democrats brought little to the table for African-Americans except raising the minimum wage, thus mentally consigning them to the lowest income bracket for their lives.

Perhaps African-American, Latino and other “unexpected" Trump voters felt that statistics show their conditions have not improved under a two term Democrat-president. Perhaps they felt that branding someone by race or sexuality is shallow and insulting to their depth of character. Perhaps they aspire to greater things.

Or maybe they just felt taken for granted.


4) I repeat: don’t rely on opinion polls.

Even if you do think someone is a bigot, racist, misogynistic moron, you can hardly expect people to pipe up and offer their honest voting intentions after venting your dislike of them.


5) Don’t get complacent.

Yeh, I know this is a summary of 1-4 but here’s an extra caveat: Remain and Clinton both massively outspent their rivals in campaign funding. Regardless of your support, doesn’t it feel at least a little good to see that money doesn’t completely guarantee success?

6) Accept that democracy is neither perfect nor the Apocalypse

There are many faults with the systems we use (I highly recommend this read) and we’ve seen events of seismic proportions this year. But as I mentioned last time: the sun still comes up. World War 3 will not break out today, Fallout 4 will not become reality and your favourite politician will be promising you the Earth, Sun and stars next time around. Politics has been around since the dawn of mankind and will only die with it. Keeping that in mind, it’s a better look.

7) Don't respond to defeat with more insults 
In the immediate aftermath of a huge disappointment, we can all behave in ways we're not proud of. To continue down a road of slurs, abuse and rioting is never going to help, however. For one thing, it is akin to a spoilt child throwing a tantrum and pours shame on everyone involved. Secondly, it's not the answer. Face the reality that millions of people disagree with you and no, not all of them did it based on colour, gender or anything else. Pretending otherwise is an insult to true victims of prejudice.

Never Wrong: How Clinton Voters and Remainers Deal with Reality

Whatever happens at the polls this year, the sky is not going to fall in on your heads. A lot of the remain voters shared that fear when - against all odds  - the British people overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union last June. The grief hit hard for the massive majority of politicians, elites and media, all of whom remained utterly smug right up to voting day. After all, we’d received increasingly ridiculous threats and warnings ranging from economic collapse to World War 3. The councils reminded the little people which box to tick while big businesses and merchant bankers benevolently funded the Remain campaign. The message was so simple that all of us plebeians should have understood it: Remain is good, Leave is racist, isolationist and bad.

When the huddled masses rebelled at the voting booths, smugness immediately transformed to angry, scapegoating vitriol: Brexiters didn’t really understand what they were voting for, old people voted to punish young people and, of course, it was a victory for “hate”, with completely fabricated statistics to back it up. Furious remainers marched throughout London to denounce hate (and democracy), shouting insults all the way without a hint of irony.

Now across the pond in the run up to voting day, the Americans are looking strikingly similar in their end game. Overrated and minor celebrities have made the ultimate threat and suggested they’ll deprive America of their residence should the public vote for Trump. The left wing media are on full throttle and “groups” are denouncing hate by physically breaking up rallies. Minor media figures are lining up to denounce the bad guy. Whoever’s speaking out against Donald, his alleged crimes are always the same: he’s guilty of being rich, sexist and - the greatest sin of all - “racist”.

But it’s not just the demagogy that rings familiar to Brexit. The sense of unease in everyone’s  suggest that confidence is lacking  It’s not inconceivable that while Hilary Clinton probably will be the next POTUS, the victory margin won’t be as large as many expect.

Now, let’s imagine an even more fanciful scenario where Donald Trump wins. What would the rationale behind it be and how could the polls and media be so wrong, just as they were with Brexit? The answer is actually quite simple: while all politicos are guilty of hyperbole, dishonesty and arrogance, the way at which we arrive at our opinions and policies in the first place can be very different.

Put with crude briefness and with many notable exceptions, my school of thought is like this:  modern liberals and left-wingers begin with a clear cut vision of good and bad. They then place all policies in these baskets without ever taking account of human nature, experience or pragmatism. I call this the ‘Tolkien’ method - everything is clear cut and simple. This is often accompanied by a strong current of intellectual snobbery and pretentiousness.

Conservatives, classic liberals and libertarians are more weary. They incorporate human nature, tradition, cynicism and experience along with a sense of right and wrong. They accept that nobody is all good or all bad, and we have to find the best balance of reality and ideology to benefit the masses. If left-wingers are a Tolkien movie, conservatives are more “Game of Thrones”.

This is important because it explains how and why both sides deal with the flaws and scandals around the people they support and how conflicting views and information are processed.  Liberals have already decided what is “good”, ergo, anything that goes against that view is naturally “bad”,  how could it possibly be anything else? If it’s “bad”, it must be stopped, censored or punished, period. This type of thought is currently dominant in most schools, universities and mainstream media in the west.

By contrast, conservatives tend to be slightly more flexible. They realise politicians will have major flaws, They understand the world has more shades of grey than black or white. If there’s a mistake,  they (people, not politicians) are more likely to acknowledge it. (I should mention other factors such as the belief confirmation theory mean we are all flawed, too.)

The former ideology is over-represented in our media. From the BBC - which is duty bound to be impartial but proven biased - and The Guardian to CNN and the NY Post, our media elites - who earn enough to live in protective bubbles of society, free of the consequences of their ideology - tout the policies of Clinton and Labor to the point of shaming those who speak out against them. Even when dissenting views are expressed, they are treated far more harshly, as impartial tests prove.  Again, this is done with so much complicity and arrogance that it doesn’t seem to occur to pollsters and pundits that it might explain why all those voter surveys are inaccurate. Is it truly surprising that a voter who’s told frequently that voting to leave the EU makes her a bigoted isolationist wants to keep her voting intentions private?

With this in mind, we can seek clarity in the dirty battle between the two US presidential candidates. Hilary voters - including Michelle Obama - claimed to be  “physically sickened” by Trump’s vulgar “pussy” remark. They scream this in the media, yet compartmentalise and ignore Hilary laughing about getting a rapist of a twelve year old girl through a lie detector test.

(Incidentally, Michelle Obama invited rapper Jay-Z to the White House and attended a concert where he sang a song called....”Pussy”. Salon presented this observation in a headline proclaiming "Neo-Nazis" )

Understanding this mindset explains so much more. It explains the motivation between mocking Trump for his repeated comments about ISIS - who are slaughtering innocent people as you read this - while demonising Russia for the endless (and true) Wikileaks revelations without a shred of evidence Putin was behind them. (Wikileaks have never been proven false). It explains why it’s ‘racist” to screen Muslim immigrants but not to hate Russia. It explains why it’s misogynistic to say “pussy” but it’s admirable to vote in Hilary because she’d be the first female president. It explains why it’s “hateful” and “divisive” to build a wall but just and noble to  drop fire on women and children in Syria. (Hilary voted in favour of attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria)

If all these political smears make us dizzy (just be grateful I didn’t mention any of the endless “Nazi” slurs) let’s return to things we know for sure. It’s beyond reasonable doubt that Hilary Clinton destroyed evidence under subpoena by the FBI via a close aide, repeatedly lied about various issues from being under sniper fire in Libya to supporting gay marriage and showed gross negligence for classified information and national security. Her husband raped many women, whom Hilary dismissed as "bimbos". And all this is over and above the more mundane but equally murky and dishonest insider trading scandals. These are all matters of record, they could be concluded  beyond reasonable doubt by a person with no political views.

Compare this to the rhetoric against Trump, which mostly amounts to slurs such as “racist” , “hate”,  “misogynist” etc.  This is the type of vitriol heard most frequently when debating or discussing the personalities involved.  This is not to say none of it is true or reasonable, but it’s not impartial, it can’t be tried in court or proven a danger to national security.

None of this is coincidence. It’s the logical outcome of a thought process that starts by asserting what is, without question, right and, ergo, what goes against it must be bad.  The true danger is when we become so entrenched in this way of thinking that we throw out any evidence suggesting we could just possibly be wrong by dismissing it in Pavolian fashion with any of a range of insults “fascist” , etc) that permits us to sidestep consideration or logic.

It’s nothing new, but in an age of increasingly polarised politics, massive but untrustworthy media sources and higher stakes, it’s a bigger problem than it’s ever been.

Shortly after the shockwaves of Brexit calmed, the British economy started to pick up. In fact, employment levels and markets have seen record highs. This good news has been impossible to process for Remainers still trying to validate apocalyptic consequences they promised everyone beforehand. I can’t help but wonder if, somehow, Donald Trump defies the odds and becomes the next most powerful person in the world, how would the celebrities, Hollywood residents and newscasters explain an American revival to us in six months’ time?

Rebutting Remain: the 7 biggest attacks on democracy (and why they're wrong)

The political earthquake that was Brexit has since turned into Biblical Apocalypse in the minds of the losers. The same people who backed David Cameron and his warning that the outcome must be respected have had a distinct change of heart since it transpired the bookies, exit polls and general consensus were wrong yet again.

The reasons for the shocking outcome have been scrutinised in several sources, with Peter Hitchens perhaps proving the most insightful. But as Britain tries to move forward and let the outcome sink in, the disgruntled minority have returned to form by spreading several myths, half-truths, emotional blackmail and - in at least some cases - downright lies in a desperate bid to find any excuse any excuse to ignore democracy and get what they want. Let's review the propaganda:

• 1) "Many" , "Some", "Reports suggest" (choose which weasel words you prefer) have admitted they did not know what Brexit was and now regret voting for it. 
  
  
• (Sometimes this nonsense is accompanied by a google analysis showing that searches for "What is the EU?" hit a high after the outcome.)

This is the biased sample fallacy. Seventeen million people voted for Brexit. The media has managed to pull up a single-digit number of confused voters on the Brexit side, without checking the opposition vote.  The sources have used this 1/17,000,000 fraction to represent the entire Brexit vote. These are probably the same sources who would be first to rightly scream "racist" at anyone who suggested one Muslim terrorist represented all Muslims. The google searches show us nothing except that a lot of people - we have no idea of their age, gender, nationality, political preference or favourite underwear colour - searched for information about the EU after the poll.

• 2)  Old people voted for something younger people have to live with ( circumstantial ad hominem )

This is probably the most unintentionally revealing complaint, as it exposes contempt for older voters. The professed shock at the revelation that pensioners and millenials have different views is either phony or born of ignorance. Did anyone expect seventysomethings and twentysomethings to see the world similarly? Did the same outcry occur when the Conservatives - the traditional party of old folk - won the last election, breaking the hearts of the Labour youth?

Yes, younger voters will have to live with the decision because more elders voted Leave than youngsters voted Remain, it's called "Democracy". What's the objection? Are younger voters wiser? More knowledgeable? Do they deserve to have more say in world affairs than people who have experienced real life for longer than they have? When considered carefully, this complaint is nothing but an ad-hominem attack against a demographic of society. Again the same sources would be screaming from the rooftops if the same type of argument focused on a religious or non-white ethnic group.

• 3) We should have a second referendum because the result was so close (special pleading)

And if Remain won the second referendum, would there be a third?
The online petition reached three million signatures, which is less than a quarter of the Leave vote, and was also found to have at least 17,000 fake signatures which renders it highly dubious.

And by the way, the vote wasn't close, there was a majority of one million.

• 4) This is a victory for racism , Fascism, hate, isolation (choose any other slur that fits) (ad-hominem)

Sometimes accompanied by a set of apocryphal reports on Twitter of someone saying "I heard someone says Romanians go home" etc. ( guilt by association )

The reason the viral reports of people saying unpleasant, discriminatory things is so popular is because it makes the losers feel vindicated - they are the superior intellect and better human being. What's interesting from these rumours is that none of them I've seen has anyone actually confirmed a police report has been made, and making racially-hostile comments is a criminal offence in the UK. Of course, making a false police report is a criminal offence in itself. Have a few people made nasty comments? Probably. In any large city in the world you're likely to find at least a tiny number of xenophobic people. When Leave campaigner Boris Johnson arrived at his office after the result was announced, he was booed, abused and a tiny number of people threw things at him. Pretty sure that we could compile a Twitter wall of these things, too.

• 5) "What about the foreign people working here or Brits living abroad"

Leave said before, during and after the poll that any changes in laws would not be retroactive. End of.

• 6) "Vote Leave lied/spread fear" (ad hominem again )

The 5 million slogan was a little risqué, it didn't account for the rebate. It's true.
Meanwhile, Remain discussed World War 3, economic Armageddon, used the American President to deliver a possibly scripted threat, shamelessly and deliberately exploited the brutal murder of a good person and a colleague, exploited celebrities, sent out based leaflets, and allowed stereotypes of Brexiters as skinhead thugs.

• 7) This has caused the economic crash (appeal to belief )

The economic crash that wasn't and was never reported as such by any media source that had any knowledge of economics. It was rightly reported as a very sharp drop. The kind of sharp drop that occurs in any nation when there's a serious, unexpected event. Speculators cash in, they always have done and always will, it's the founding principle of stock markets.

The richest few were the biggest losers, the pound was not. The FTSE is recovering. Will there be some blips? Probably.

Then again, perhaps our market will drop and never pick up. Perhaps we'll suddenly become a nation of Fascists, pick up guns and attack every nation in Europe, while signing songs about Hitler and expressing hatred of all the foreigners that we see. On the other hand, perhaps things will carry on very much as normal, with the only difference being that we have a stronger level of soveignty, a court that has legal supremacy, greater freedom to spend our own income, more leverage with FTAs and the chance to employ skilled and qualified workers from across the commonwealth and knowledge that we know who are leaders are and, if necessary, how to get rid of them.

If you're so sure it's the former, go to the bookies and place your bets. Maybe they'll call it right this time.

Jo Cox aftermath: How about 'honest' instead of 'kinder' politics?

 

One thing all Thailand guidebooks draw attention to is the idea of the “little good lie”, the simple idea that sometimes feelings will be spared by an untruth. I have received many 'good lies' in my time overseas, but the only one that sticks in mind is early in my career when I covered a very popular senior teacher in a grade five math class. After two weeks, my boss came to me and told me he was so grateful for my help that they would "reward me" by freeing up some time on my schedule and removing me from my cover classes. It transpired that some parents had requested the previous teacher return to class.

In the west however, where lies and especially lying politicians are treated with contempt, the old adage  “The bigger the lie, the more it's believed” rings true. Political lies tend to fit one of three types: either they are rushed through in the hope that nobody bothers or knows how to verify them (think: numerous claims made in the Brexit debate), they are promised to be proven or justified by some future report or other event that is continuously and deliberately postponed (Iraq War report, for example) or they bypass logic and verification altogether via emotional blackmail and appeal to our populist, more defensive instincts. The tragic death of MP Jo Cox and the despicable pile of lies and emotional blackmail heaped on it by some of her so-called friends and allies is an example of that latter type and represents possibly the lowest our own politicians have sunk in quite some time.

Jo Cox, rest in peace

Fact: Jo Cox was killed by a violent man who believed himself mentally ill and linked to a US-based Nazi group. It's a hard truth that extreme people like this have always existed in society. History books have rare but endless tales of senior figures assaulted by violent citizens. However the likelihood of it happening to any one of us is rare, which is why we quite rightly feel such a sense of shock, revulsion and sympathy when we see someone fall victim to such a senseless act. Such sentiments were probably exasperated in Jo's case as – despite being a politician – she lacked the aura of aloofness and occasional arrogance displayed by many of her colleagues. She was a likable, regular person.

All of which makes what happened next all the more despicable. Before Cox's body was even cold, some of the media and her political allies moved to fashion a huge lie from the public grief. Apparently sidestepping the natural stage of grief felt by rational people, the Daily Star was first to hit the press with the headline “Jo Cox killed by Brexit Gunman”. The single claim for the headline was based around a rumour the Cox's killer had yelled “Britain First” after shooting. The headline was wrong for two reasons. Firstly, “Britain First” is not a Brexit group but a fringe political, right-wing group. To suggest that supporting them makes someone a Brexit supporter is akin to saying being a KKK member makes someone a Republican. The second problem is that it never, ever happened. A witness to the event confirmed he never heard the gunman shout “Britain First” or anything remotely similar.

But by the truth had its boots on, the lie was halfway around the world.  Sure enough, Guardian writer Polly Toynbee - formerly a BBC employee – produced an article on Cox's death warning of a sentiment  of“hate and isolation" built up from Brexit support. Still less than 48 hours after the death and with the Labour MP's family no doubt still in shock, Toynbee reveled in her moral pedantry. I personally found it difficult to decipher the psyche behind her column: was she really so confused as to believe her drivel? Was she simply so arrogant and callous that she didn't care? Or did she believe the end game was so important that all lies and exploitation were justified?

From then on the myth snowballed. Remain leaflets warned “Jo Cox's murder may be the start” , with similar hyperbole spreading uncontrollably from some sections of the Remain camp. Others didn't even pretend: Remain campaign director Will Straw was exposed in a phone conversation and email ordering his team to exploit the death. Meanwhile, in a serious of mostly heartfelt and sincere tributes to Jo by politicians of all sides, Labour's Neil Kinnock couldn't resist linking the death to UKIP and Nigel Farage in a two-sentence "tribute" tweet.

Even apparently justified and reasonable acts became loaded. The recalling of parliament to allow tributes to Cox was probably a kind thing to do. The question, however is: would the same course have been followed if, say, Douglas Carswell had been murdered? Would David Cameron have been so keen to display grief and tributes if the undertone of anti-Brexit sentiment hadn't been established? If not, why not? The whole purpose of parliament is to display, encourage and follow the process of democracy. Democracy means accepting different views. If you bend or twist procedure according to the views of the person at the end, you're being the exact apposite of “kind” or democratic.


A charity was set up in the wake of Jo's passing. Three charities were named as beneficiaries. Two of them I know little of, but their cause sounds courageous and noble. The third, however, is “Hope Not Hate” , a group set-up with – despite any claims to the contrary– a single goal to stifle, disrupt and intimidate any groups that express enough disagreement with socialist politics. HNH have repeatedly disrupted various events such as UKIP meetings and Brexit events. Their modus operandi is not to engage, discuss, debate or engage in “kind” politics but to simply shut down the opposition.

But in this mountain of lies, “kind” may be the most abused word. “Kind” is being presented as the idea that we shouldn't disagree, that we shouldn't find fault or acknowledge that people, culture and societies can, do and always will differ in some way.

“Kindness” can have many meanings and examples but surely in the murky world of politics we can narrow the field to two useful examples: the first being tolerance if not approval or assistance to those with very different views. We don't need to be told that killing isn't the answer, no sane person believes otherwise. The second is that even in a field where deceit and dishonesty is the norm, we should still draw the line somewhere. When the still-warm body of a good person, a mother and a friend is being exploited and lied about without the slightest element of shame, I'd say that “kindness” isn't the only quality lacking, we could all benefit from a big dose of the human qualities of honesty and common respect for those in grief, too.

Dear teachers: stop being your own pets

Dear NUT (National Union of Teachers),
I used to have sympathy for you, my counterparts back home. Dealing with the levels of violence and threats you face with little support must be agonising. Now I can’t help wondering if you deserve it, or derive some weird sadistic pleasure in this kind of divisiveness.

No I don't mean the standing ovation you gave Jeremy Corbyn, I mean the NUT’s call to end teaching “British values”  in favour of teaching “international rights”, because the former is “cultural supremacy”. I can’t help but wonder how many of you even have a true knowledge and understanding of what those words mean but it’s hard to tell, since there were no further details. I wonder: who will decide what constitutes “international rights”? You? Or will you use the UN declaration? You know, the one that Saudi Arabia refused to sign because it violated Sharia Law.

The truth is that some cultures are superior to others. It’s simply impossible to logically argue otherwise. Saudi Arabia refuses to allow women to drive because they follow a hard-line take on Sharia Law. Other counties, like yours, allow women the same rights as men. Does the NUT believe that our children should be taught that females cannot drive? Do they admire the old Aztec culture of human sacrifice?  If all cultures are equal, it’s perfectly acceptable to support that belief.  The reality is that any teacher even remotely hinting at such an idea would be fired within a week and would never be employed again, because it's an abhorrent idea.   We know full well there are better and worse cultures, we’re just terrified of admitting it.

But while all of you were light on facts about "international rights", you were thick on rhetoric. The list of complaints emanating from the NUT conference read like a textbook (pun intended) example of how modern British teaching has become a parody of itself. Let’s read the grandiose ideas asserted by one of your own (via the Telegraph article):

“Christopher Denson, a teacher from Coventry, said he had reservations about using the term "fundamental British values" in schools because many of his students had ancestry in countries which had been at the mercy British colonialism. “

I don’t follow your reservations, Mister Denson. When we teach “British values” are we teaching that the UK is a perfect union, the only state in the world never to have committed immoral actions? Is that in the curriculum? I don’t see it. Surely we’re teaching that we have learnt from past mistakes and now promote freedom and tolerance? Are the students in question aware that they have been granted British citizenship?

But Mister Denson wasn’t done. He continued:

“ "The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable. And seen with the Prevent agenda, it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities."
He added: "It’s our duty to push a real anti-racist work in all schools. And that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views, but genuine, inclusive anti-racist work."

Simply reading this statement makes me think Mister Denson will soon be high-up in the government’s well-paid, pen-pushing education hierarchy if he isn’t already. Apparently, using the name of the country in which you live and work followed by the word “values” means you discriminate against others because of their race. A teacher openly declaring his intention not to tolerate other’s views and to redefine national values inside the context of race is shocking to me, but not to you folk at the NUT apparently.

Yet still this teacher - thank the Lord he’s not teaching my (mixed-race) kids - wasn’t done...

"We organised a politics day for Year 8s in the week before Easter. They had a day to form a political party in their tutor groups to come up with a manifesto, film a broadcast, and make banners and take part in a debate. (If this quote is verbatim, I hope Mister Denson isn’t an English teacher.)

"Apart from the quality of the work, the other thing that really made my proud was that every single tutor group had as a policy, 'refugees welcome, open the borders'."

Now I may be going out on a limb here, teacher, but given your earlier comments, is there just the most minute possibility that you guided these children to these conclusion? As any teacher should know, children are not yet fully developed in their capacity to make informed and fully-logical decisions, particularly their long-term consequences. If they were, there’d be no need for teachers and no need for any legal age limits on any civil contract. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that you denied them equal time to any views that opposed allowing “refugees” unlimited entry? I don’t wish to be presumptions but in your own words “that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views”. I bet I’m not the only person suspecting that when you praise the conclusions of your students, in your mind you’re smirking and patting yourself on the back.

Dear NUT, it’s no secret that exam standards are getting easier, schools are getting more crowded and as already noted, you guys are in more danger than ever. Heck, you usually harp on about that at your conferences. But now, when you actually have some way to find a common cause, a sense of unity and principles that will make your lives easier, you’ve spat on it. Why? Could it be that you’ve succumbed to the stereotypes: the teacher who can’t live in the real world so instead spends time at school pushing his or her views onto others?

Stop applauding yourselves. Stop believing that a teacher is also a parent. Stop believing in your own self-righteous superiority. Your role and moral responsibility is to gift students to the tools to think, research and decide for themselves, it is not to tell them what to think.

Remember that next year when you complain about working conditions once more.

5 Star Book Reviews

13 Hours: The explosive inside story of how six men fought off the Benghazi terror attack -





It's Your Time You're Wasting: A Teacher's Tales of Classroom Hell (Frank Chalk Book 1)

 

Wolf's Head (The Forest Lord Book 1)


 

Book reviews

ISIS: The State of Terror - review

Tommy Robinson: Enemy of the State - review

 

 

Friar Tuck and the Christmas Devil - review

Open letter to Stephen Nolan: can I have your job?

Dealing with different opinions - Nolan style

Hi Steve,


I was quite disappointed that you blocked me on Twitter, this week. Yes I was rather harsh in my criticisms but then I wasn’t abusive, and I surely can’t have said anything you haven’t heard before. After all, you are a talk show host on the BBC, no less. Truth be told, I envy you so much that I want your job.

You have it so much better than most of the world. Take the amount of people-juggling the rest of us have to do, for example. I’m a teacher in a private school, I have to walk a tightrope between expectant parents, management, students and the way that I actually think I should do my job. I swing too far in any direction, I have to answer to someone.  But you? You are not constrained by such petty, plebeian worries. You only have to answer to one party, and answer in the simplest terms possible. Nowhere was this more evident than those controversial couple of days on your radio show last week. Your behavior, your incessant pious judgments of your callers - you know, those people that actually pay the BBC licence fee - was utterly staggering. The was self-evident from the deluge of complainants that called you in response.

In almost any other industry or media company, you’d be hauled before management with a demand to explain how you managed to insult and anger so many customers in one arrogant swoop. Instead, you swatted away the indignant callers requesting you apologise to the elderly man you so righteously questioned on his moral right to have a view on migrants and flippantly told them to complain to the BBC instead of calling you, the person responsible. When you told one caller: “Complain to the BBC rather than calling me.”, the translation was clear to the world: “Go ***** yourself instead of calling me”.

Why take that approach? Simple, you know that as long as you are talking the right political line for the BBC, you will never, ever be punished or forced to apologise for your treatment of dissent. You’re as safe as Fort Knox in your job, and you know it. You degrade callers because you can.

Secondly, you don’t really need to do that much in your job. I know, people say teaching is not a real job either, but at the very least I need to have some idea of what I’m teaching and how I’m going to teach it each day, so there’s basic standards to follow. You on the other hand, apparently don’t actually need to explain your view or even to quiz the callers on theirs. All you need to do is talk about the headline of the day, let people call and then simply perform your own moral inquisition of their right to disagree with you.

On that “migrants” show, you asked one man: was he Christian? Did he consider himself a good Christian? Was he charitable in any way? Did he practise any form of charity? All that in response to the concerns  he voiced about the migrants inundating Europe, the topic he was actually invited to call in and share his feelings about. At one point you even claimed he said all migrants were paedophiles and terrorists when he actually said nothing of the sort. You didn’t actually address his or anyone’s concerns but then, why would you? You get paid anyhow. You’re Stephen Nolan, dammit! You’re big in Northern Ireland, I’m told.

Thirdly - and yeh, this is the no-brainer-  you’re on much more money than me. According to Jon Gaunt - who is in a position to have a good idea - you’re on the best part of three hundred grand a year, courtesy of the licence payers who call your show to be morally interrogated.  That’s the thought that crossed my mind when you asked another of those pesky: “I’m not sure we should let everyone in” type-callers the rather bizarre question: Are you sitting comfortably in your chair tonight?.

Well Stephen, I guess the same question isn’t necessary for you. Your chair is probably leather (or fake leather, I bet most BBC staff are PETA members) and replaced every year. But your odd line of debate was when I had my brainwave. Stephen, I have a halfway decent voice and face for radio myself, why don’t I take your job? No, seriously! Think about it: you could finally live that dream you put out on the airwaves last week. You could show the world how charitable you are by giving away your public-funded salary to anyone who shows up at our borders (no checks need, right?). You could show the fella from Swansea how Christian you are by letting the first lucky migrant into your home - I bet you have a bigger telly than me - at your own expense. And as for comfy chairs? I bet one of those fighting-age Syrians arriving on European shores is in need of a luxurious recliner right now.

Don’t worry Steve, I’ve got you covered. I’ll bring my own wooden stool and scrutinise the moral fibre of any cheeky Joe Public who “takes up the airwaves” while you’re out practising what you preach, and you know what? I’ll do it for half price. I’ll fleece licence-payers for the bargain sum of 150,000 per year.

Let me know what you think. You’ve gone a bit quiet lately. You blocked and ignored the Breitbart editor’s request for a debate with a neutral moderator and venue, and Gaunty says you went AWOL from your own show this week. Hey, maybe you beat me to that brainwave! But then you would, wouldn’t you? You always know best. That’s why you work for the BBC, where morality is checked at the door, and salaries on the way out.  Might there be room for one more in there?

That Boy in that Picture

goodreads.com

time.com

That image of the girl in Vietnam running from napalm still haunts the world today. It was one of the most cogent case of war’s horror being captured in a single frame. (Fewer people realise she has a book, however). As we ponder the newer generation of a snap that changed the world, can we consider if the father of the child that was tragically drowned could produce his own harrowing account of his life? Unlikely.

Abdullah Kurdi has suffered the greatest emotional pain a human can endure. It’s something I don’t know how or if I could cope with. Is there any way to discuss his loss without sounding hideously callous? We have to try, because the harrowing picture of the poor boy is transforming Europe and there is something not right.

Should anything happen to my own children, I think one of the first things I’d ask myself is: could I have stopped it? Kurdi could have. He was leaving Turkey, not Syria, where he’d lived for three years,  well away from war. He undertook a journey he surely knew was dangerous for reasons not entirely clear. At some point he claimed he wanted to go to England (not a nearer, safer country) to get his teeth fixed. This claim was later amplified to explain his teeth had been removed by torture. Why did he not mention this in the many interviews he sat? Surely something so terrible, so compelling a reason would be the first thing he tell the world? Instead it appeared later in an unsourced blog.


Why did his aunt lie? She claimed his appeal for asylum in Canada was rejected. In fact, it was never submitted, and she surely knew this. Again, this isn’t a small lapse of memory, it’s a deliberate attempt to mislead the world at a very crucial time over an incredibly emotive subject. Finally, was Abdullah Kurdi  a people smuggler as a reputable Australian newspaper has claimed?

These are exceptionally difficult queries to raise at a time when every European is competing with each other to show they have more compassion for young Aylan than the next person. As Brendon O'Neil says, it’s almost become a form of moral pornography. As such, it’s become the perfect political weapon for the left wing to push for more and more immigration. They were less (as in, non) vocal when Christian children were being beheaded in Iraq.

Are there genuine refugees, escaping from the mess that we created in Syria? Technically, no, not in England., A refugee seeks the nearest available safe haven. (Saudi Arabia have not taken migrants but have offered to build two hundred mosques in Germany).

Are there people who need and deserve our help? Yes , of course.  The true compassionate person would seek to help them, by avoiding the ISIS insurgents they have openly admitted to sending, by encouraging the separation of those who discard their passports, are taught to lie or who perhaps are men of a fighting age (57 percent), fleeing their country to enjoy the freedoms that our men of fighting age actually fought and died for.

Until we can reach some level of realism and pragmatism rather than seeking to indulge ourselves in cheap goodwill, we will only guarantee that further conflicts and a far wider spectrum of misery is guaranteed at some unspecified point in the future.

The image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc transformed the world, probably for the better. Twenty or thirty years from now, I’m not sure Abdullah Kurdi will view his own tragic loss, his circumstances or his (or his aunt’s) reactions as unavoidable. As a father, my heart goes out to him. As a rational person, I fear for the long term consequences of our despicable actions in Syria and the domino effect it has set in motion.

The BBC debate - round 4

This article was typed a few weeks ago, and then lost due to a computer problem. My apologies to Peter. Although written as an article, I feel it covers our debate points reasonably well.)

At this stage of my debate with Peter and his friends at saveourbbc.net , I want to go on record with a genuine expression of admiration. Firstly as Peter has been nothing but friendly and courteous to me during our communication and secondly as he and his group have stayed true to their beliefs at a difficult time.

Anyone can be amicable with someone who shares the same political vision. It's easy to rally to any cause which is the fashion of the day. To do either under adversarial circumstances, however, requires integrity and commitment.

It doesn't help when the cause you rally to seems intent on making life difficult, either. I know this from experience and I'm willing to bet that over the last fortnight or so, saveourbbc members have suffered those palm-against-forehead slapping moments of utter bafflement at the way the BBC has executed its political campaign to save itself.

It started - as so many moments of heartbreak do - with a letter. A group of BBC affiliates (actors, scriptwriters, etc.) allegedly took it upon themselves to pen a collective communique to the government, warning that "a diminished BBC is a diminished Britain”.

Does that seem like a remarkable spontaneous statement of admiration and value? It would, except that it was later revealed that several signatories had actually been approached by BBC Director Danny Cohen and asked to write. Not only does that put the “a diminished BBC is a diminished Britain" statement into its truly delusional, stunningly arrogant place, it also makes for a blatant breach of the BBC trust's code of conduct. The independent, impartial news body attempting to lobby government policy.

That may have been the biggest blow and certainly the greatest faux pas of Auntie's campaign, but it wasn't the most telling. That trophy was saved for an article in the Guardian (a very left wing paper with low circulation, the most subscribed to at licence-payer expense at the Beeb) by former comedian Lenny Henry. Henry - who has seen very low coverage for at least ten years and found little exposure outside BBC circles - actually pens his headline with a blasphemous comment before offered the warning: "No BBC, No me" without a hint of irony or comedy. In his missive, he reminisced on his BBC days before going on to argue: "No BBC, no Young Ones, No Blackadder" etc.

The article was telling not only for exposing yet another example of staggering self-importance but also for its logical flaws. Henry supposes that the late Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmonson (of classic comedy 'The Young Ones') would be unheard of but for Auntie, ditto for Blackadder, Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry and so on. In fact, all of said actors and shows have found fame through other channels, because their talent shines through. Henry on the other hand, has fared less well outside licence-fee funded exposure. His other argument in the article - that the BBC should encourage selection based on ethnic minority backgrounds - may be well intended, but I and perhaps others believe that talent and attitude should be a stronger basis of anyone's selection and licence-funding, rather than ethnicity.

What these two incidents really expose is a political body in its death throes. As a resident of South East Asia, I've followed the downfall of many a corrupt political body and I've noticed stages of the cycle. First comes flat denial of any wrongdoing, then self-promotion, then threats then self-pity.

Now whether the BBC is politically active or morally corrupt is something Peter and I may disagree on, but the similarity in Auntie's response is striking. With the news that the government will no longer subsidise free licence fees for pensioners now confirmed, Auntie is on the ropes with a 600 million hit, the responding jabs have at best failed to connect and at worst done further harm. It's not a good time to be in the BBC's corner but Peter and his friends clearly believe there is reason to fight on. For that, they deserve admiration and respect.

Hulk Hogan - pinned by PC

"Well let me tell you something racist, brother"

While many of us can relate the belief in Santa Claus as a benchmark of mental growth: from the unquestioning belief through to the doubt, to the epiphanic moment when it suddenly becomes clear, those of us who grew up in the eighties can relate to the showbusiness world of wrestling as a similar roadmap for coming of age. From admiration and wonder of the cartoon characters on stage (aka the ring), to the realisation of the script, to the knowledge of their real life personas and - in so many tragic cases - their early deaths brought around by the demands and temptations of their career.

Nowhere is the hazy mixture of show business, sleaze and star power more evident than the fate of wrestling's most famous figure: the world of "sports entertainment" (the new name for wrestling in some circles) reacted in shock last week when one of its most legendary figures, Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea, was banished from WWE  - wrestling's biggest business - for the shocking and disgusting attitude and slurs regarding black people he made on a leaked tape he tried hard to prevent being released to the public.

The shock in question however, was not due to the incredibly ignorant, arrogant and downright nasty attitude the 'Hulkster' displayed towards a certain skin colour, but due to the severity of his expulsion from WWE.

Let me explain why, and don’t worry, no enjoyment, respect or knowledge of wrestling is necessary here. WWE owner Vince McMahon and his family are legendary in their forgiveness for any wrestler that crosses them, provided their return boosts ticket sales for live shows. Performers who have crossed a McMahon and returned to the business include Bret Hart, who knocked Vince out in hotel room and declared he'd return "when Hell freezes over" , Matt Hardy, who wrote a blog criticising WWE's wellness (i.e. drug-checking) programme and Eric Bishoff, who was once creative director of rival wrestling firm WCW, and ordered to put WWE out of business.

Those are just three examples taken from numerous personnel who have been employed or re-employed by WWE after giving the ownership serious cause to despise them. Yet even before last month, Hulk Hogan may have given the greatest cause for banishment of all.

All the sourced, biographical evidence suggests that Hogan is not a philanthropist. In his early days as a in-ring character depicting a patriotic, honest and Christian American, the man behind the persona was - so numerous sources claimed any times - known for a very opposite approach to life. Colleagues have claimed Terry enjoyed "jerry juice" and a puff of a joint each day. His behavior became more erratic and monomaniacal over over the years. While the wrestling industry is known for politics and power plays, Hulkster's attitude approached egomanica at times. When he jumped ship to rival WCW, he became part of a clique known on and off stage as manipulative and cunning, designed to avoid giving younger, hungry performers a chance to shine. Eventually their actions helped put WCW - the business that awarded them multi-million dollar contracts - out of business. The contract payments were still honored.

It was then that - from an outsider's point of view - Hogan really began to change. Perhaps realising his best days were gone, Hulk began surviving on past glories and the immense nostalgia of wrestling fans. Sadly he choose to do that by putting himself over and above everyone else in the industry. Upstart federation TNA Impact awarded him a huge contract that Terry utilised to place himself at the centre of every storyline in the show, to the expense of all others. One storyline involved a biker gang "invading" the show every week, brutally injuring (in the scripted sense) all members of the roster, striking fear across the show. After several weeks of careful build up, the excitement ended with Hogan - a year shy of sixty at the time - walking the aisle and flooring each of the bikers - carefully depicted over the last months to appear vicious, dangerous and ruthless - one by one, with a single punch each.

If you're not a wrestling fan - I know many educated people hate the whole thing - I can only offer the analogy of a soap opera with a single, pointless, repeatedly ad-libbing character - appearing in every single story arc, denying other characters the chance to develop.

But again, if you're not keen on wrestling you could see this as part of the nonsense. Outside the business however, Terry's apparent outlook on life appeared little better. He appeared in a dull, pathetic sex tape with his friend’s wife in a clip so sad that one journalist described it as: "A reminder that celebrities can have boring, bad sex, too.". When not repeatedly taking rather strange pictures of his own daughter, Hogan may have been rushing to the defence of his son, who caused death by dangerous driving.

His pathological need to be the star, his frequent memory lapses and blasé attitude on stage, his private life and family misfortunes may never have completely caught up with him were it not for the final revelation: Hogan was disgustingly bigoted towards other races. That - and only that - caused the unthinkable. Arguably the most famous wrestler of all time was utterly outcast by the very federation where his legacy was crafted. Every mention of him was removed from the WWE web including his Hall of Fame refrence, his merchandise and his roster listing - a treatment last handed out to Chris Benoit, who murdered his own family.

While the offense police and the PC masses have joined forces to bring down good people in this world such as cancer-fighting doctors, benevolent programmers and bakers, they have finally managed to take down someone who - on the face of it all - probably deserved it.

Life is Strange - but not shallow

It would be easy to dismiss "Life is Strange" as a lazy, teenage-angst fueled piece of programming by creators Dotnod and an quick, inattentive session of play might even compound such a theory. But such a quick conclusion would be lazy in itself, for a longer play session will reveal a game with more to offer for players of any age group.

Yes, protagonist Max Caulfield is a cursing, confused student who (sort of) witnesses a potentially drug-related shooting in the washroom of her high-school. She then discovers she has some form of super-power which propels her on a journey, accompanied by a punk-rock rebel friend.

But this is not some "woe is me" session of putting the world to rights for Max. She is as thoughtful and insightful as she is confused. Her cursing isn't gratuitous, it's a manifestation of her own fears and stress. She displays empathy towards everyone, even her enemies and strictest teachers. She dwells on and ponders every experience and comment before arriving at her own conclusion, often expressing her ideas in photo-journalism or her paper diary that acts as a sort of "story so far" for the gamer. Max is switched on to her world and its people, not just a smartphone.

The well-made characters are not the only point of credit for the designers , however. Life is Strange has a deliberate ambiance of nostalgia, created by the visual and audio artistry that sit remarkably well with the underlying tones of tension, fear and lack of control over one's world. Supported by Max's own reminiscing (another factor that makes her different from the stereotype teen) the sentiment of deep calm and relaxation is thoughtfully crafted by a design crew that could have escaped with far less effort if they wanted.

There are other clues laid down for older players, Max's discovery of graffiti saying "Fire Walk with Me" is no mistake. The whole plot of LIS a missing teenage girl in a beautiful, secluded town full of different characters, each with their own dark secrets and a dashing of the supernatural will sound wholly familiar to David Lynch fans, this is almost a video game spin-off from Twin Peaks at times, and it's no bad thing.

Life is Strange may lack the emotional attachment or scope of Shenmue, it may lack the incredible visual power and cast of Mass Effect or the exquisite quality of voice acting found in Red Dead Redemption, yet it contains elements of all these classics and holds its own in each area. Given that this achievement was reached by a small studio who clearly strive for great things, it's no small feat. Life is Strange is well worth a try for gamers of any age and I look forward t seeing what Dotnod will throw at us next.

BBC debate, round one

Thanks to Peter from saveourbbc.net for agreeing to let me publish sections of our debate here. Here's round one.....
*****************************************************************
greg_sfc(2)

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) must have key personnel and layers of management removed and the licence fee system should be scrapped or, at the very least, greatly reduced. To understand why this solution is necessary, it’s important to understand why the BBC has become too removed from its roots, too arrogant, too immoral and too bloated for softer solutions to save it.

At thirtysomething years of age, I’m just about old enough to remember the last golden days of the BBC. It was a time of great comedy, such as “Only Fools & Horses” which has spawned eternal comical moments, a time of quality sports coverage and – perhaps most importantly of all - news coverage that was breaking, accurate and admired across the world. The BBC truly was admired by media agencies across the world.
Fast forward to 2014 and that reputation is in tatters. The BBC may still have the occasional show of exceptional quality (‘Sherlock’ and ‘Dr Who’, etc.) but what’s left of its prestige is based on nostalgia and outdated information. The modern BBC is a monolith of arrogance, bias and greed.

To list the problems of the BBC in full would take too long, so let’s take one example that summarises its faults then quickly list other serious faults.

Sir Jimmy Savile was a tremendously popular character to the point of being a national British treasure. The ‘Beeb’ (an epithet for the BBC) were not solely responsible for his rise, but they were utterly instrumental to it. Savile rose to fame and fortune through association with the BBC in radio and televised form. I will assume readers are familiar with his remarkable career.

After Savile passed, serious allegations of sexual misconduct with underage girls snowballed into a full-blown scandal. The executives at the Beeb were accused of having prior knowledge of the allegations and failing to act on them. Despite denials, the serious allegations were covered in full in what appeared to be a remarkable act of self-investigation by the BBC’s ‘Panorama’ documentary team, which in turn discussed a previous documentary exposing Savile on another BBC documentary called ‘Newsnight’, which BBC management had decided should not air.

The outcome? Key journalists in both documentary teams have been for daring to discuss Savile. One has been fired, two have been moved to inactive posts and others accused of shoddy journalism. This is the modern face of the BBC. Licence-payers are funding management decisions to axe or isolate journalists who have exposed child abuse.

Other problems are legion. The ‘Beeb’ is governed by a panel trustees at the BBC Trust, by which it is duty-bound to be impartial in its news reporting. Indeed, impartiality has been a huge part of the reason for the BBC’s worldwide. Yet the modern BBC has not only strayed from its moral and professional bounds of impartiality, it has dived headlong into a pool of politcal bias and arrogance that has become so transparent that it is accepted almost universally amongst observers. Its own investigations have confirmed political bias, yet no changes have been made. Independent studies have confirmed the same and this year’s general election coverage by the Beeb was so dismissive of right wing parties that it became in danger of violating instructions from the government’s independent media monitor. The BBC have become so arrogant and self-assured in their political bias that, like FIFA, it could become the black hole that eventually secured their downfall.

The last point I wish to make in this opening round is the licence fee and the manner in which it is “secured”. Licence fee collecting for the BBC is outsourced to a group that have become so infamous for their methods, manner and shoddiness that whole websites have been set up to film, observe and report on them. In short, their letters are aggressive, some (but by no means all) of their collectors are deeply unpleasant or at least uniformed and misleading and the whole licence fee system has decayed from a fee which British citizens took pride in paying for a s great value to something akin to a shoddy cartel, sending out vaguely threatening yet somehow comical and unhelpful letters, backed up by obnoxious commercials.

This is just my first round of complaints with the BBC but the question at hand is: what future do we want?
My answer to the opening question again leads me to make a comparison with the executives at FIFA. We want fairness, value for money, respect for consumers and integrity. We can achieve these aims via two methods, but we need both methods to be implemented. Firstly, we must remove unnecessary or untrustworthy layers of management, including the Trustees panel which, I believe, have failed in their role. Secondly, we must remove the licence fee and allow the BBC to perform like all quality broadcasters: surviving (or not) on their merits, quality and appeal.

SaveOurBBC(4) 2 points I’d like us to take this debate point by point so I’m starting by addressing the questions about removing ‘key personnel and layers of management’. In fact, the executive and senior management of the BBC has been successfully culled during the last ten years. People and their posts like Mark Byford, Deputy Director General, and Caroline Thomson, Chief Operating Officer, are gone and not replaced. Gerald Main recently retired; originally he was ‘just’ Editor of BBC Essex; by the time he retired he was Editor of a number of BBC Local Radio Stations. This is an example of increasing the roles and responsibilities of posts making them more cost effective. As a result of these and other increased efficiencies, the BBC has already made savings of £480m and is on track to reach its target for savings of £1.5bn by the end of 2016. Inevitably there has been a lot of comment about executive pay and pay offs. There is no doubt that the BBC is a curious organisation. On the one hand it is a public organisation governed by a Royal Charter and seen as part of the establishment. On the other, it is the market maker in the media industry, an industrial sector which is highly commercial. It is also a major driver of the creative industries. It tends to be judged as a public body and the nature of the markets in which it operates is overlooked. We may well look later at why it is that the BBC gets such unbalanced coverage by others. For the time being I will just point out that the salaries and benefits of BBC executives, senior managers and talent have to be compared with those in the media and creative industries because that is where the BBC has to compete for its staff and performers. The salaries, packages and pay offs of BBC executives and staff and of its talented performers compare very favourably with those of similar people working for instance in other terrestrial broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4 and Five, with those at Sky, BT, Virgin and Google and with those working in media groups including national newspapers and other operations. Generally BBC people receive 10%+ less than their peers working elsewhere because of the kudos of working for the BBC. So the BBC has already removed a lot of key executives and senior managers and has reduced layers of management. This is delivering huge savings and increased efficiencies whilst operating effectively in a highly competitive market. It also continues to provide good value by being able to undercut market remuneration packages. 10 days ago