egafd.com

[quote]For example, I posed the question, Has this made Britain a better place to live?.

What I didn't do is define what I mean by "better". One person's "better can be entirely different from another person's "better".[/quote]

I agree. I was only giving you my definition of 'better', David, and giving you plenty of examples as to why I think that way. You've not really disagreed with any of my examples either.

[quote]Even if you then agree on a definition of "better" it can be hard to prove the case one way or another.[/quote]

I didn't see my posts as proving anything. I was just giving you reasons I have a certain opinion. If you disagree with any of my examples then point them out and we'll discuss them.

[quote]For example, as you referenced, if cancer detection increases, does that mean more people are getting cancer or that we are much better now at detecting it? This would be quite difficult to prove one way or another, given that there was a tendency to just put down "natural causes" as the reason for death amongst old people, decades ago.[/quote]

Exactly my point. Why bother linking to a site about modern life increasing the number of cancers when it actually tells us nothing about what we were debating?

The only example of things being better in the '60s, which I though was relevant and fair, was the one about community. I do think that religion plays a big part in bringing people together and giving people a sense of belonging. But it also divides.

How the fuck can it be funded by the taxpayer you wally just because we, or some of us, buy a TV licence?
That is tantamount to saying a car is funded by the taxpayer because we buy a road fund licence.
This whole thread is written by morons.
More fucking muslims here to show us some backbone? What a complete and utter twatt the writer is.

David, the revolutions you cite did NOT all turn out at all well. You quote
Czech Republic and Hungary . I seem to remember watching on TV years
ago as the Czechs tried to get a peaceful revolution under way with
Alexsander Dubchek and were brutally crushed....and what the heck are
you saying about Hungary - have you forgotten 1956 when some of my
friends here in Budapest fought tanks with their bare hands or saw the
Arvo (secret police) massacre 100s of peaceful protesters in Parliament
Square !! Those revolutions ended in more repression.
I appreciate you are saying that the fall of Communism 2 decades ago
had happy repercussions. But I would humbly suggest that volatile 3rd
World countries like Egypt, with poorly educated, easily led peoples and
mostly young (a quarter of all Egyptians are under 21) and unemployed
is a great recipe for a monumental fundamentalist brew ! You may be
right in your optismism. God, I hope so, because the other scenario is
truly scary !

"David, the revolutions you cite did NOT all turn out at all well.

I am not referring to 1956. I am referring to the collapse of the Russian Empire as you yourself clearly understood.

"I appreciate you are saying that the fall of Communism 2 decades ago
had happy repercussions.".

But I repeat, like any people's rising, it has the possibility of going pear-shaped.

Cheers
D

"How the fuck can it be funded by the taxpayer you wally just because we, or some of us, buy a TV licence?
That is tantamount to saying a car is funded by the taxpayer because we buy a road fund licence."

According to the BBC's 2008?2009 Annual Report, its income can be broken down, as follows:

?3,493.8 million in licence fees collected from householders;
?775.9 million from BBC Commercial Businesses;
?294.6 million from government grants;
?41.1 million from other income, such as providing content to overseas broadcasters and concert ticket sales;

So in summary, the vast majority of BBC funding is paid for by the taxpayer either directly through the TV licence fee (the largest percentage) or indirectly through government grants.

In short, the BBC is overwhelmingly funded by the taxpayer.

Cheers
D

?4,310.8M by licencees, commercial business and overseas sales.
So how can ?294.6M govt grant be overwhelming funding from the taxpayer?

Err.

"So in summary, the vast majority of BBC funding is paid for by the taxpayer either directly through the TV licence fee (the largest percentage) or indirectly through government grants.

TV licences are paid by people who are liable for tax. As I think you know from your own experience even people who have a pension are liable to pay tax on their income.

The number of households who have never ever paid any tax whatsoever in the UK but pay for a TV licence is very, very small. Some people get a free TV licence i.e. over eighties, I think, but that is funded by the government who get the money from the taxpayer.

It is therefore safe to assume that the government grants (294 million) and licence fees (3,493 million) which amount together to 3787 million out of a total of about 4,500 million, are either directly or indirectly paid by the taxpayer.

Cheers
D

Rarely do I feel the need to stick up for Rodders but he does have a point. When we usually say something is paid for 'by the taxpayer' we usually mean, and people usually assume, we are talking about something that's paid for through taxes.

If we're going to start saying the BBC is overwhelmingly paid for by the taxpayer we might as well say holidays, cars, chinese takaways, football season tickets and potato vodka are also paid for by the taxpayer.