I know same old repetitive subjects, new debates needed lbc like why the hell is the district line, closed every weekend Arghhh so annoying.Bloody engineering works 2018 they should finish yer more like 2053 they finish them.
The reluctance to pay tax comes from a wilful or genuine ignorance of what it's used for, as well as a general feeling that one should keep all of what one earns. This is impossible.
Running a country requires a certain amount to pay public services, defence, education, maintenance, etc. If everybody were to pay for absolutely everything themselves then very few people would be able to live, they'd not be able to perform all the jobs necessary for the country to function and the entire thing would collapse very quickly.
So low earners get to pay less tax because it's a matter of ability to pay. Higher earners pay more because they have to; again, there is a certain amount of money required to keep it all going. But since everyone pays a percentage of what they earn, this means that no matter how much more tax you pay than someone else, you are guaranteed to be pocketing more than them as well.
So higher earners not only pay more tax, they also keep more money for themselves. The distress they feel at paying tax is an irrational feeling not based on the realities of how countries operate. And the more you have the more you want to keep, the more you feel you have to lose.
I'm perfectly happy to pay tax, and here I am in a country that has a flat rate for everybody. I earn very little so 21% income tax feels pretty harsh, but then if I earned more then the 21% would be more (more tax) and the remaining 79% I keep would also be more. Simple arithmetic. So I would always end up having more by earning more.
The rich people who complain should try living without using any public services AT ALL. I'd like to see them try. We are all part of a national infrastructure so "making your own way" is completely impossible. We are all making it together.
The reluctance to pay tax comes from a wilful or genuine ignorance of what it's used for, as well as a general feeling that one should keep all of what one earns. This is impossible.
Running a country requires a certain amount to pay public services, defence, education, maintenance, etc. If everybody were to pay for absolutely everything themselves then very few people would be able to live, they'd not be able to perform all the jobs necessary for the country to function and the entire thing would collapse very quickly.
So low earners get to pay less tax because it's a matter of ability to pay. Higher earners pay more because they have to; again, there is a certain amount of money required to keep it all going. But since everyone pays a percentage of what they earn, this means that no matter how much more tax you pay than someone else, you are guaranteed to be pocketing more than them as well.
So higher earners not only pay more tax, they also keep more money for themselves. The distress they feel at paying tax is an irrational feeling not based on the realities of how countries operate. And the more you have the more you want to keep, the more you feel you have to lose.
I'm perfectly happy to pay tax, and here I am in a country that has a flat rate for everybody. I earn very little so 21% income tax feels pretty harsh, but then if I earned more then the 21% would be more (more tax) and the remaining 79% I keep would also be more. Simple arithmetic. So I would always end up having more by earning more.
The rich people who complain should try living without using any public services AT ALL. I'd like to see them try. We are all part of a national infrastructure so "making your own way" is completely impossible. We are all making it together.
LBC gets a lot of pro-UKIP callers - which seem to be the 'preferred' form of Coalition criticism for LBC - and a fair few of them might get a shock if they were aware of UKIP's manifesto includes a flat rate of tax at 31%.
I don't mind Nick's banker-bashing as it's often funny (as well as being right).
I'd like to see Nick co-host a slot occasionally with James Max - similar to Ken and David's show. I can't imagine it would be the kind of gentle ribbing that Ken and Dave tend to give each other.
My theory is that LBC management are not interested in having their presenting staff reflecting the diversity of the London. The fact that only about 20-30% of their presenters are women is futher evidence of this. If they are not getting applications from people of colour when they make up 30% of the local population why are they not asking the question why that is?
Having worked as a manager in both public and private sector and involved in recruiting hundreds of members of staff, we used to record the ethnic and gender make up of all candidates at every step of the recruitment process (applications, interview short lists, first stage interviews, second stage interviews and successful candidate) so we could identify if there was something we were doing, or not doing, in our recruitment process that was a potential obstacle for certain people getting jobs. So for example, if about 20% of candidates being shortlisted for interviews were Asian but only 5% of people being recruited were Asian, we would be asking the question what is it about our interview process that is hindering the recruitment of Asians because statistically you would expect a similar percentage to be successful at each stage. If we were not getting many Asians applying we would be asking ourselves why are our processes not attracting sufficient Asians.
There was no good reason why the workforce of a company shouldn't reflect the diversity of our local population and frankly I would have thought LBC management would be asking themselves the question why do they not have more women or any black/Asian/mixed presenters and what they could be doing to improve that situation. This is not about filling quotas or being politically correct, it's about good management and being responsible and caring about the community in which they operate.
There is no applications process for presenters, they just approach the few people they really want, and who knows whether they have been turned down?
but she knew where to stick the apostrophe
but her melons were rarely on display
but she knew how to stack her peaches
but she was no stranger to peeling bananas
but she knew how to blow a monkey
but she knew how to take a leek
but she really knew her onions
but she rose to high office and destroyed British society.
Maybe the last one needs a bit of work
Did she? I thought the pseudo socialist policies of Blair, who was a Thatcherite too, did that.
I don't mind Nick's banker-bashing as it's often funny (as well as being right).
I'd like to see Nick co-host a slot occasionally with James Max - similar to Ken and David's show. I can't imagine it would be the kind of gentle ribbing that Ken and Dave tend to give each other.
I have a feeling that Nick feels the same contempt for JM as do many of us - I doubt that meeting could ever take place.
Hi g-s, no, it literally is a gut feeling.
Nick can do without stress and JM would certainly give him that. Furthermore I don't think JM would give him a chance to speak as he can be really vicious.
Hi g-s, no, it literally is a gut feeling.
Nick can do without stress and JM would certainly give him that. Furthermore I don't think JM would give him a chance to speak as he can be really vicious.
Who's vicious - NA or JM? They can both be quite caustic.
I have a feeling that Nick feels the same contempt for JM as do many of us - I doubt that meeting could ever take place.
Talk of JM, did anyone hear Steve's view on the apprentice girl who is trying to sue Alan Sugar ? He said "Most people on the apprentice are just on there for publicity trying to launch media careers but it's not as easy as that and most of them are rubbish"
He didn't mention anything about Max being good or bad but wondered if that was maybe a small dig at him.
Who's vicious - NA or JM? They can both be quite caustic.
Certainly they are both caustic but having heard JM lay into listeners just because they disagree with him has, to me, sounded vicious.
Nick manages to keep things on the lighter side but JM can sound very nasty at times.
Talk of JM, did anyone hear Steve's view on the apprentice girl who is trying to sue Alan Sugar ? He said "Most people on the apprentice are just on there for publicity trying to launch media careers but it's not as easy as that and most of them are rubbish"
He didn't mention anything about Max being good or bad but wondered if that was maybe a small dig at him.
Well, it could have been - JM WAS on the Apprentice and was parachuted in to LBC seemingly because of that!
Hi g-s, no, it literally is a gut feeling. Nick can do without stress and JM would certainly give him that. Furthermore I don't think JM would give him a chance to speak as he can be really vicious.
What's Nick's problem with stress? I don't see him as a nervous type!
Interesting the bad feeling that James Max generates on here. I certainly share the view and can't stand him as a broadcaster. His myopic, patronising viewpoint and inability to listen or think new thoughts is pathetic. Having said that, I really liked him on the Apprentice. Which is the real James?
Yes, I have lately thought that the term ethnic was rather meaningless, even when it's used in a racial context. In effect, we all are ethnic in some way or other, so you'll have to qualify it in some way. Whose or which ethnicity do you refer to, for instance? Even then, qualifying one's comments to "white", "black", "Asian" etc ethnicities is erroneous because even within these there is no common consensus among these groups. Many Polish people would regard themselves as "white" and yet the phone-in shows suggest that "white" Britons consider them as different from themselves. In addition, using the term "ethnic minority", there is an underlying tone in racial debates that suggests that no matter you were born and grew up in the UK, you'll still be a minority and an ethnic one first and foremost before you'll be considered British.
Tbh, I thought that "ethnic vibe" comment was really rather crass, and mitigating its crassness with a or a:D smilie just makes it worse IMO. It wasn't clever or funny. But like a lot of things to do with anything with the racial debate (and its associations), I couldn't be bothered to comment at the time it was posted. It's like smashing your head against a brick wall most of the time, not to say it's extremely boring having to say anything at all.
Even now, I'm thinking twice about posting this. (I have to wrap certain words round quotes, for goodness sake *sighs*). But in any event, I thought I should if only to prevent you feeling like "smashing your head against the wall" or feeling bored and tired with having to say anything in the first place!
THANK YOU
I'm very glad you posted that.
Sadly, and depressingly, our posts attracted almost no other responses. Still, better to keep on bashing that head than to give up entirely.
There is no applications process for presenters, they just approach the few people they really want, and who knows whether they have been turned down?
I believe you are correct but I was responding to a post that asked the question what if LBC "haven't had an application from anybody from that demography who meets their requirements". By the law of averages, if you go out to find 20 presenters in a city in which 30% of the population are black/Asian/mixed/Arab that at least a few of those that you give jobs to would not be white, so it's curious that there is no racial diversity in LBC presenter line up.
Steve's big announcement, which he was trailering on Twitter yesterday, is that from next Monday he's going back to doing something on the show that he hasn't done for ages. It would be nice if he had guests but I fear it will be taking phone calls. :eek: It's too much to hope that he's going back to being original and entertaining.
Talk of JM, did anyone hear Steve's view on the apprentice girl who is trying to sue Alan Sugar ? He said "Most people on the apprentice are just on there for publicity trying to launch media careers but it's not as easy as that and most of them are rubbish"
He didn't mention anything about Max being good or bad but wondered if that was maybe a small dig at him.
Funnily enough EXACTLY the same opinion was voiced by no less a personage than Duncan Ballantine himself on Channel four Friday night .He was a guest on The Last Leg .
One other thing running on the thread that Im just catching up on ..the diversity and people of colour issue..always a tricky one .It seems that there is no one up and coming in the media ..in London or elsewhere Sir Trevor and Moira Stewart the two who always spring to mind having all but retired
Are there any (and I hate the term) "people of colour "doing mainline jobs in that field on ANY BBC or Commercial station in the UK excluding djs?
Could it be that there is no one rising up in the ranks and its NOT a race thing at all?
I can well remember at least two ILR radio stations who employed news readers from ...gasp of ALL places Australia and New Zealand on a regular basis instead of ENGLISH ones and nobody commented on that nor should they have done .
For what its worth as has been mentioned any radio group will have a list of people they are interested in using .Ian was I believe head hunted by LBC at the time and he wasnt the only one seemingly
Funnily enough EXACTLY the same opinion was voiced by no less a personage than Duncan Ballantine himself on Channel four Friday night .He was a guest on The Last Leg .
It's not an original theory. The Max himself has been quite open about his ambitions and Sugar said in his autobiography that he would have won had he not been so open about wanting a career in the media.
Steve's big announcement, which he was trailering on Twitter yesterday, is that from next Monday he's going back to doing something on the show that he hasn't done for ages. It would be nice if he had guests but I fear it will be taking phone calls. :eek: It's too much to hope that he's going back to being original and entertaining.
Morning all.
Yes, I think its probably taking phone calls again. TBH you would think he would be glad to take calls and let others talk too, give his voice a rest with all that coughing etc. Suspect that he might have to be forced into it though.
Yes, I think its probably taking phone calls again. TBH you would think he would be glad to take calls and let others talk too, give his voice a rest with all that coughing etc. Suspect that he might have to be forced into it though.
So hope hes not taking calls "Treacle" back on air every day would force listeners away in droves At the Magic Circle show the other week Steve did say he had been asked to do calls but that management soon realised it wasn't working but he had given it a go..:)
I would like to think its his regular guests back ..either as a one off or a regular basis..maybe a sort of non cash bonus for his listening figures !.
I think it would go a long way to Mr Rea winning back the good will of listeners who were quick to tell him he was wrong to drop them in the first place and show that he does ACTUALLY listen to them as he always try to make out in his press releases
So hope hes not taking calls "Treacle" back on air every day would force listeners away in droves At the Magic Circle show the other week Steve did say he had been asked to do calls but that management soon realised it wasn't working but he had given it a go..:) I would like to think its his regular guests back ..either as a one off or a regular basis..maybe a sort of non cash bonus for his listening figures !.
I think it would go a long way to Mr Rea winning back the good will of listeners who were quick to tell him he was wrong to drop them in the first place and show that he does ACTUALLY listen to them as he always try to make out in his press releases
Steve said it would be a daily thing. I can't see LBC paying five guests the decent fee they'd expect for getting up in the middle of the night! Perhaps they've had their own listener figures for when he was off sick, discovered that it made no difference who was presenting and gave him an ultimatum!
Yes, I think its probably taking phone calls again. TBH you would think he would be glad to take calls and let others talk too, give his voice a rest with all that coughing etc. Suspect that he might have to be forced into it though.
Vallen's quality radio musings this morning concerning a piece of 'classical' music that turned out to be Finlandia and connected with Iceland - Doh!
The answer's in the title, isn't it? However someone bright spark texted him to tell him the composer was Grieg but soon someone corrected this with the correct answer which was, of course, Sibelius.
They're all bright enough to apply to be in Dale Winton's In It To Win It, where lack of brains seem to be qualifying conditions.
Comments
Running a country requires a certain amount to pay public services, defence, education, maintenance, etc. If everybody were to pay for absolutely everything themselves then very few people would be able to live, they'd not be able to perform all the jobs necessary for the country to function and the entire thing would collapse very quickly.
So low earners get to pay less tax because it's a matter of ability to pay. Higher earners pay more because they have to; again, there is a certain amount of money required to keep it all going. But since everyone pays a percentage of what they earn, this means that no matter how much more tax you pay than someone else, you are guaranteed to be pocketing more than them as well.
So higher earners not only pay more tax, they also keep more money for themselves. The distress they feel at paying tax is an irrational feeling not based on the realities of how countries operate. And the more you have the more you want to keep, the more you feel you have to lose.
I'm perfectly happy to pay tax, and here I am in a country that has a flat rate for everybody. I earn very little so 21% income tax feels pretty harsh, but then if I earned more then the 21% would be more (more tax) and the remaining 79% I keep would also be more. Simple arithmetic. So I would always end up having more by earning more.
The rich people who complain should try living without using any public services AT ALL. I'd like to see them try. We are all part of a national infrastructure so "making your own way" is completely impossible. We are all making it together.
LBC gets a lot of pro-UKIP callers - which seem to be the 'preferred' form of Coalition criticism for LBC - and a fair few of them might get a shock if they were aware of UKIP's manifesto includes a flat rate of tax at 31%.
Great idea
Complete mismatch of personalities. Complete mismatch of views on finance and banking. Complete mismatch of broadcasting styles.
Car crash radio. I can imagine it being great for a one-off.
There is no applications process for presenters, they just approach the few people they really want, and who knows whether they have been turned down?
I believe several years ago Ian Collins was approached by LBC and he turned them down, as he was about to sign a new contract with talkSPORT.
Did she? I thought the pseudo socialist policies of Blair, who was a Thatcherite too, did that.
I have a feeling that Nick feels the same contempt for JM as do many of us - I doubt that meeting could ever take place.
Does Nick ever mention him?
Hi g-s, no, it literally is a gut feeling.
Nick can do without stress and JM would certainly give him that. Furthermore I don't think JM would give him a chance to speak as he can be really vicious.
Who's vicious - NA or JM? They can both be quite caustic.
Talk of JM, did anyone hear Steve's view on the apprentice girl who is trying to sue Alan Sugar ? He said "Most people on the apprentice are just on there for publicity trying to launch media careers but it's not as easy as that and most of them are rubbish"
He didn't mention anything about Max being good or bad but wondered if that was maybe a small dig at him.
Certainly they are both caustic but having heard JM lay into listeners just because they disagree with him has, to me, sounded vicious.
Nick manages to keep things on the lighter side but JM can sound very nasty at times.
Well, it could have been - JM WAS on the Apprentice and was parachuted in to LBC seemingly because of that!
What's Nick's problem with stress? I don't see him as a nervous type!
Interesting the bad feeling that James Max generates on here. I certainly share the view and can't stand him as a broadcaster. His myopic, patronising viewpoint and inability to listen or think new thoughts is pathetic. Having said that, I really liked him on the Apprentice. Which is the real James?
THANK YOU
I'm very glad you posted that.
Sadly, and depressingly, our posts attracted almost no other responses. Still, better to keep on bashing that head than to give up entirely.
I believe you are correct but I was responding to a post that asked the question what if LBC "haven't had an application from anybody from that demography who meets their requirements". By the law of averages, if you go out to find 20 presenters in a city in which 30% of the population are black/Asian/mixed/Arab that at least a few of those that you give jobs to would not be white, so it's curious that there is no racial diversity in LBC presenter line up.
Morning all.
Funnily enough EXACTLY the same opinion was voiced by no less a personage than Duncan Ballantine himself on Channel four Friday night .He was a guest on The Last Leg .
One other thing running on the thread that Im just catching up on ..the diversity and people of colour issue..always a tricky one .It seems that there is no one up and coming in the media ..in London or elsewhere Sir Trevor and Moira Stewart the two who always spring to mind having all but retired
Are there any (and I hate the term) "people of colour "doing mainline jobs in that field on ANY BBC or Commercial station in the UK excluding djs?
Could it be that there is no one rising up in the ranks and its NOT a race thing at all?
I can well remember at least two ILR radio stations who employed news readers from ...gasp of ALL places Australia and New Zealand on a regular basis instead of ENGLISH ones and nobody commented on that nor should they have done .
For what its worth as has been mentioned any radio group will have a list of people they are interested in using .Ian was I believe head hunted by LBC at the time and he wasnt the only one seemingly
It's not an original theory. The Max himself has been quite open about his ambitions and Sugar said in his autobiography that he would have won had he not been so open about wanting a career in the media.
Yes, I think its probably taking phone calls again. TBH you would think he would be glad to take calls and let others talk too, give his voice a rest with all that coughing etc. Suspect that he might have to be forced into it though.
I would like to think its his regular guests back ..either as a one off or a regular basis..maybe a sort of non cash bonus for his listening figures !.
I think it would go a long way to Mr Rea winning back the good will of listeners who were quick to tell him he was wrong to drop them in the first place and show that he does ACTUALLY listen to them as he always try to make out in his press releases
Steve said it would be a daily thing. I can't see LBC paying five guests the decent fee they'd expect for getting up in the middle of the night! Perhaps they've had their own listener figures for when he was off sick, discovered that it made no difference who was presenting and gave him an ultimatum!
Vallen's quality radio musings this morning concerning a piece of 'classical' music that turned out to be Finlandia and connected with Iceland - Doh!
The answer's in the title, isn't it? However someone bright spark texted him to tell him the composer was Grieg but soon someone corrected this with the correct answer which was, of course, Sibelius.
They're all bright enough to apply to be in Dale Winton's In It To Win It, where lack of brains seem to be qualifying conditions.