All of the above make my point. And definitions vary ambiguously from source to source.

I think we can all agree that national socialism is not of the right but it might be of the left – or neither.

Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, all men of the left?

I think not.

Fascism, in its many manifestations, is about as far right as the right-wing gets.

That is the common misapprehension. National socialism is a complex ideology but might be characterised as socialism with an ugly face. Socialists believe in state control of the means of production, as do national socialists although national socialists oppose both capitalism, obviously and communism.

The diifficulty is that over years the labels of “left” and “right” have been misappropriated by a slovenly media so that opposing ideologies often end up with the same label.

Firstly the BBC shot itself in the foot by originally conceding the BNP’s right of airtime and then broadcasting a poorly chaired slanging attack on a member of the panel. It is naive to believe that Dimbleby, one of the most experienced and seasoned broadcasters on any channel, was overtaken by events.

Here as elsewhere, particularly on the BBC, the BNP is characterised as “right wing”, whereas of course national socialism in its many manifestations is “left wing”. Which is why it is a natural home for so many labour voters disaffected by the present government’s inability to tackle the immigration problem, which is at the heart of the BNP’s success.

Ren Frew – interesting reading. But questions of “trust” are not what I am debating here. And I probably fall into the approximate 33% who would prefer the BBC was funded by public subscription by those who wished to watch it.

In terms of sheer output of course it is good value for money. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the quality is good. But more in tune with my arguments here is the 50%-60% who think quality has been reduced.

And as in many polls the answers to two questions contradict each other. Broadcasters should be impartial – 80% yes. Broadcasters should hold political opinions – 60%-70% yes.

Naturally your bosses will put the best gloss on any poll but trying to be objective I would say the jury is still out and there is a large debate to be had when the key questions have to be set out in more detail.

I should say that, for me, the BBC could do no wrong up to about 15 years ago. It clearly still is “an institution” for many, particularly the older populace and they will often forgive its transgressions. But the BBC is torn between that image it would still like to project and the modern broadcaster it really wants to be.

I am not sure that it can be both.

Seeing my grandson’s face light up when I told him we were taking him to the D-Day museums in Normandy next week. He is 6!:D

Where are the “blindly doting BBC acolytes” here Sky High ?

I’d like to know how exactly you conclude the BBC is “hugely overstaffed” when we have been subject to consistent rounds of redundancies and ‘post closures’ for several years now. My own particular department has seen it’s number cut by 50% in the past five years, too the point we have to rely on the freelance market just to get by. I spoke to some of my London colleagues recently who could recall a time when they worked amongst camera operators in their hundreds, now down to less than twenty staff employees still on the books.

Researchers, producers, directors have been getting laid off in their droves for years too, make up and wardrobe departments privatised way back in the early 90’s, graphic designers forced to form a PLC in order to survive. BBC’s Pebble Mill studios closed, BBC North merged with Granada’s studios and staff made redundant. And yet somehow we are still expected to produce content over several television channels, umpteen radio stations and arguably one of the most informative websites in the world.

Recent research* concluded that most licence payers are very happy with the services the BBC offers and would NOT like to see it broken up. Whilst I would be the first to admit that any massive publically funded body should not be immune from criticism and debate. I do feel passionate enough (as a licence fee payer) about the BBC to stick my neck above the parapet and defend it from the naysayers, like yourself, News International and the Conservative party, who cannot see a good thing when they have it.

By all means join the campaign to bring down the BBC, and then enjoy watching “impartial” broadcasters like Murdoch’s Sky or Branson’s Virgin once it’s gone… Of course you could always tune in to declining ITV and it’s steady programme of late night phone in quizzes and repeats of Murder She Wrote…:rolleyes:;):(

* I’ll dig it out if you really don’t believe me… 😎

Just a few points in response, Renfrew.

By all means dig out the research – much depends on how the questions are framed and by whom.

Surely one of the reasons for the reduced staff levels you refer to is that the BBC, once a justifiably proud producer of programmes now buys in much of its output. Correct me if I am wrong but my sources suggest that, as with much of public funded activity these days, the BBC is weighted in favour of administrators rather than programme makers.

I firmly maintain that the BBC should be broken up to the extent that any production company can make populist programmes for large audiences, both television and radio. The BBC has become in areas of activity for which it was never intended and, in general, its raison d’etre has become ratings driven programmes. The point is that the BBC should be able to broadcast to 100,000 people at peak time.

I would happily pay a license fee for 2 TV channels, and 2 radio channels broadcasting for 12 hours a day, no more, a range of high quality drama, documentary, and current affairs.