Options
LBC General Chit-Chat (Part 20)
Support
Posts: 71,279
Administrator
ha ha ... this is the [only] case where we all ALL have to take a number
0
This discussion has been closed.
ha ha ... this is the [only] case where we all ALL have to take a number
Comments
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West Sussex.
Services: LBC ad infinitum: 6.41 Express,destination Gateway to the South.
Posts: 1,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by clitheroe1 View Post
I know, I just wanted to give the other side to the chorus of disapproval directed at Jacqui Smith on LBC because I don't think she is all bad and there are others that like she shows.
IMO, Jacqui Smith epitomizes the sleazy greed of the expenses scandal.....How can we listen & respect her opinions ? Francis Maude is another example, a tory & still in government - but, he doesn't aspire to broadcast on my LBC.
On a lighter note, NF suggesting various ways how couples, sleeping separately, might, 'get together.'.......................By blowing a whistle
I hope you retrieved your errant pooch, Mutley.
Good morning to you All.
Morning CC. I agree. I don't think LBC should be employing sleazys! Look at Tre Azam! :rolleyes: Good luck with finding your dog Mutters!
You have yet another home g-s? :mad: I think you should give your heating allowance to the poor like me!
James has been discussing the government lowering the cold weather heating allowance whilst a few big celebrities are getting a lot of publicity for donating theirs to the needy. He quite rightly asks why people aren't criticising Cameron for reducing the heating allowance.
I agree that old people in particular shouldn't have to rely on charity but James seemed to feel that charity itself is wrong because it encourages governments not to pay out. But as a later caller pointed out, suppose they don't - does that mean recipients should go without rather than accept charity? So what if a few celebs get publicity out of it? Hopefully it will encourage others to follow their example. He sounded like Mr Scrooge confronted by the jolly gentlemen collecting for the poor and needy. 'Are there no workhouses? Is the tread mill still operating?' Yes, the State will provide the bare neccesities but it's up to the haves to share with the have-nots.
You'd have thought they'd have put up a bunch of holly and sprig of mistletoe!
What a very Christmassy message.
Well done, g-s.
Old people who have spent a large part of their lives contributing to the economy shouldn't have to rely on charity just so they can stay warm in the winter. It's the government that are acting as Scrooge, unwilling to give the winter fuel allowance to old people who have paid taxes all their lives while they turn a blind eye to corporations who are avoiding paying £26 billion in taxes.
"At this festive season of the year... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts". - Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.
David Cameron could do worse than take these words of Dickens to heart.
But until the system changes, isn't it best that anything and everything is done to help those who have problems? If celebs hand back their winter fuel allowance, whatever their motive, and save just one person from dying of hypothermia, that must be a good thing. Charity will always be needed because outside of some fictional Utopia, no system has ever found a way of meeting everybody's needs. And giving to those less fortunate makes people feel good; presumably that's wrong too.
As for large scale tax avoidance - it's been going on for years, under successive governments, not just the current one.
I'm not against charity but I think the elderly shouldn't have to rely on it in order to have "common necessities", to quote Dickens. James O'Brien is correct to point out that charity allows the government to shirk it's responsibility to those who have paid taxes during their working lives. However, that doesn't mean charity shouldn't exist to provide for additional services over and above which a decent society should provide. The argument that we can't afford it doesn't wash when we let off corporations from paying £25 billion in taxes. How many old people's homes could that amount of money heat?
You are right in saying that "no system has ever found a way of meeting everybody's needs", the issue is what are our priorities? The government priority is clearly to take the winter fuel allowance from the elderly over taking taxes from large corporations.
I do not want to listen to callers droning on and on, Steve seems a shadow of his former self it is a big shame.
I have put my finger on what for me is one of the major things now missing from this dreary news station.
I no longer learn anything!!!!, there is nothing informative at all. apart from hearing other peoples opinions on done to death topics.
For instance there was a programme on Radio London about Jimmy Hendrix and I learnt something I didnt know.
All I learn on LBC is approx 15 different (or not so different ) ways that the presenters can present the same topic over and over.
I cant even bear it to listen to drop off to sleep anymore,
It is shame
Interesting because I had to turn James off today. I didn't understand what he was talking about but assumed it was because I started listening when he was well into the topic. He was being argumentative with a chap about tax money (though I couldn't understand him either).
I really like JO'B but sometimes I feel his ideals are not quite in line with reality. He sounds like a young sociology student at times - firm in his principles of fairness for all and desperate for everyone to agree with him, yet irritable when they don't.
One thing is for sure - this is LBC's new direction (and it's just been cemented in place by the new JR), although I agree it's a real shame and I still don't understand why even Steve Allen's show, a ratings winner, needed to be changed. Is the need to keep true to the brand so overriding that they'll cut off their nose to spite their face?
For me, LBC's new format kills the sense of community that it used to have and which, I reckon, is the reason behind the existence of threads like this. People loved LBC because it was so different from anything else, I think, and with a passion that few other stations could lay claim to.
With the new branding and direction, I think that the core original audience is being alienated, but the management don't really care as the listening figures are up. I understand it, but I think it's a real shame - the almighty dollar trumps everything once again.
Will James & Barnaby be home alone on Xmas day ?...... His family have departed for the Carribean/Alps.
Why has it been cemented into place makeba? It's early days for the new JR and I would imagine anyone in his position would be trying to fine tune the station to everyone's satisfaction.
I get a bit puzzled with comments about SA because he was criticised for not taking calls on a talk radio station. OK maybe it's not working but I don't see how it's set in stone.
I agree that money is everything but that means pleasing as many listeners as possible. There's no room for making a select few happy on a commercial radio station.
Yes unfortunately as you say, it is all about the money, which is understandable. Most people do dip in and out of a radio station and even though we feel the topics are repetitive most listeners are just hearing it afresh in their 15 mins or so while driving.
Its almost as though its a rolling news station with callers, however if its going to compete on that market then it really needs to up its game with the actual quality of news reporting. Put it this way if there was a major news story breaking I would not out of choice tune into LBC to listen to it.
They did however do a good job reporting on the riots over and over and over and over again
Thank you makeba72 for replying to my post though:)
After all these many years of listening, I am now not going to sleep - nor waking up - with LBC. And hardly listening in-between either.
Same here, I always went to sleep and woke up with LBC. I used to podcast Steve Allen, in fact I used to record his show before the podcasting started.
I used to love Clive and Bob and listening to the food testing as I was nodding off. Bill Buckley was great if you couldn't sleep.
Now I dont listen anymore....can't say that there is any presenter that stands out with any originality anymore
Its almost as though they have all been replaced by corporate versions of their old selves........
a sort of The Stepford Presenters
In a nutshell....our presenters are hot-wired by TPTB, or Daily Mail input (!), to toe the line, and be media dumbstruck with the inability of being able to explore any individualism or personality of their own, when they are caught up hook, line and sinker to adhering to 'the rules'. This means being drip-fed the strict curriculum of keeping up with media garbage. Funnily enough, there is a whole new universe out there, other than the narrowed perspective of the Daily Mail, the likes of which proves all to consuming for LBC.
I thought this hard-news format was in operation before JR (mk2) arrived.
The only recent change has been SA taking calls, and I think that started to happen soon after JR started. However, I doubt he walked into the building and said SA must start taking calls.