Andrew Neil like many other is entitled to work for whoever he likes. He is contracted by many companies to do specific work for them. He is not a BBC employee. His ability to do that is no different to babeshow girls who contract to do shows but also completely seperately do photoshoots with whoever they choose.
Softball interviews do no good whatsoever as the politicians are trained to say nothing. They avoid long interviews like the plague in case they are found out for the frauds and liars they are. Neil puts them on the spot and in my view has no current equal as his preparation is forensically done.
I don't agree that - if working, and receiving a guaranteed income from a compulsory fee - anyone should be allowed to be effectively self employed, and work elsewhere . that is my view!!
I accept that politicians can be adept at avoiding answering questions - although I often find that not to be as prevalent as some would have us believe! I think there are numerous occasions where politicians give perfectly reasonable responses, but the journos don't accept the answers, purely because they had an agenda behind the particular line of questioning (interrogation) to begin with, and the answers given - while accurate and full - have not followed the 'line' set for them. Too damn bad!! There is also the trend of asking questions that cannot be answered in simplistic terms, but that isn't good enough for said journos (deliberately nuanced questioning for which there is no straight forward yes/no answer), but that is what the interviewer demands. The reasoning is obvious : to play it back as if the interviewee was 'avoiding' answering 'you are refusing to answer'....or 'you are not answering the question' etc,,,,, when they were not refusing, or were indeed answering! I do not care if the A. Neills, A Boultons, T. Bradbys of this world, or those two on the BBC breakfast sofa are satisfied or not!!
I have seen it so many times until - (as I say) - I have had to turn over from what becomes an argumentative mess!!
I might be in a minority (and a bit of a cynic - not to the medias extent) but give me more politicians - we can get rid if they underperform their duties - and a few less self serving clowns in the media!
How can - in the main - Interviews on CNN ( we need a UK news version) - for example - be conducted in a pleasant environment (while still soliciting answers), but at the BBC (which I have to pay for) they appear as self appointed judge and Jury??
We’ll have to disagree on most of your points but as someone who has had his own company in which I sold my expertise to companies successfully and on many occasions had concurrent clients who for example wanted me for 2 days a week to help with something so I worked for other clients on the other days then I won’t accept any idea that you have any right to limit my earnings or who I work for.
(31-08-2019 11:45 )hornball Wrote: [ -> ]I don't agree that - if working, and receiving a guaranteed income from a compulsory fee - anyone should be allowed to be effectively self employed, and work elsewhere . that is my view!!
If the BBC want someone to sign an
exclusive contract, I think you'll find the price would be a shitload more than the current arrangement.
And, as per your previous post, an agreed fee for doing a job is not a subsidy. Even if you think he's paid too much, it's still not a subsidy.
(31-08-2019 12:09 )SecretAgent Wrote: [ -> ]We’ll have to disagree on most of your points but as someone who has had his own company in which I sold my expertise to companies successfully and on many occasions had concurrent clients who for example wanted me for 2 days a week to help with something so I worked for other clients on the other days then I won’t accept any idea that you have any right to limit my earnings or who I work for.
It isn't the same thing!! Comparing free market economy companies, and a subsidised psb - apples and oranges. However we agree to disagree!
I wonder how big the hit would be in terms of job losses in retail in the event of a no deal? We all have seen stories of prices in retail rising in the event of a no deal
(31-08-2019 15:31 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how big the hit would be in terms of job losses in retail in the event of a no deal? We all have seen stories of prices in retail rising in the event of a no deal
The answer to that question is considerable!! With stockpiles stranded at Dover, there will be turmoil (We have already touched upon supply chains)
I am aghast at bo didley (sorry Jo) stating - in effect - that the EU had to move on the remaining issue - the backstop!! How many times have they said ' we are done'??
I don't know - maybe some do - of any circumstance, where a member of an organisation has decided to leave, but expected those remaining to solve a problem created by that members decision. In effect seeking to be in as advantageous a position as a former member, as they were as a fully signed up one - or as those remaining in the 'club'!! The Backstop is necessary, it is the UK's decision that makes it so, therefore it is the UK's problem to solve!! Johnson's calculation is simple....he wants to push us towards no deal (do not believe the spin) and then blame the EU for that No Deal outcome!!
The proroguing of parliament attempt is simply to stop MP's thwarting him in his No Deal plans!
^ Spot on. In addition Boris has claimed many times that technology can resolve the Irish border issues yet when challenged by the EU to show them he can’t because no such solution exists anywhere in the world.
I heard one customs expert recently despair at this repeated claim. Seems the government had a consultancy in to come up with ideas some time ago and they came up with the theory but it is just that - a theory
this backstop thing is a red herring the EU will not want it to come into effect because means that NI would become a haven for british banks and other businesses that could use it to get access to the single market and the UK would have to pay fuck all for access
(31-08-2019 18:28 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]this backstop thing is a red herring the EU will not want it to come into effect because means that NI would become a haven for british banks and other businesses that could use it to get access to the single market and the UK would have to pay fuck all for access
I can assure you - from close quarters - it is not!!