Mutually assured gravy

The BBC has one law for the rich, one for the poor

Hard to comprehend.

Whilst undoubtedly talented (mostly), there are plenty more where they came from, and no one is, or should be, indispensable.

The BBC is unique, and that works in a variety of ways. One is giving all sorts of folk the opportunity to get in front of a national audience, which can launch big-money careers opening fetes, providing VOs, signing books, etc. Less profile... less moolah.

Hence a slot on the BBC should be seen for the opportunity and privilege it is.

Along with the lazy, useless, senior management on equally rewarding packages, who defend their atrocious negotiating abilities with their mates on such spurious grounds.

If they were not part of yet another option-free, voter-unaccountable (telling that one who might see fit to intervene, our PM, is protected from paying the licence fee... by us) drain on the taxpayer, along with most other index-salaried, golden pensioned public bodies such as HMG's civil service and countless quangos, one suspects they'd soon find out what their true value in the open market was.

Guardian - BBC talent report: are the stars worth it?

Guardian - Woss it all cost?

As there are no advertisers, the only purpose I can see for ratings to register at the Beeb is as a measure of how the top guys are doing to help with their salaries. Not, surely, what the licence fee is/was intended for.

Whilst undoubtedly talented (mostly), there are plenty more 'stars' where the current crop came from, and no one is, or should be, indispensable.

The BBC is unique, and that works in a variety of ways. One is giving all sorts of folk the opportunity to get in front of a national audience, which can launch big-money careers opening fetes, providing VOs, signing books, etc. Less profile... less moolah.

Hence a slot on the BBC should be seen for the opportunity and privilege it is.

Not a means for an unaccountable cultural elite to enrich themselves at the public trough.

Telegraph - The BBC can never admit it's wrong

It's good to talk.G

There's no such thing as a bad idea. Despite being a cliche, there is much truth in that.

Time to talk to al-Qaida, senior police chief urges

So, at first blush, I have to say that, in principle, 'jaw-jaw' is better than 'war-war'. Not one of Winnie's best, but it is still memorable.

Anyhoo, before going on, here are definitions (if by no means definitive) of nihilism, anarchy and religious fundamentalism.

I'm just a tad intrigued as to how one talks with folk pretty much operating on these bases. There is also the small matter of getting to talk with them at all to... um, negotiate, being that to do so you'd need to meet up and to do that you'd need to know where they were. This might prove... tricky.

I for the life of me cannot see the parallel with the IRA. Bar the odd Bobby Sands individual, they had an agenda, however warped, from which compromise was at least a possibility, combined with a desire to reap the benefits of their beliefs whilst still on this planet.

And this is a guy up for head of the Met?

"Do the public seriously want amateurs playing in this world?" No. But then again some 'professionals' might also be less than optimal, too.

BBC - Britain 'could talk to al-Qaeda

BBBC - some worthy extra input prior to mine

BBBC - I added more:

It's probably possible to negotiate with those prepared to fight, even at cost of their lives, FOR something.

I remain unconvinced there is much chance of sensible dialogue with those simply seeking to kill, especially their own, in the cause of being AGAINST everything.

Guardian - Terror and truth

Leaving aside the question of how and with whom you negotiate (AQ being now a loose franchise, so I doubt that even if OBL went on Wossy's show and cancelled the whole killing spree deal, many of a 'self and/or as many others' destructing bent would suddenly turn their swords into plowshares), there are a few historical precedents to bear in mind.

It's probably possible to negotiate with those prepared to fight, even at cost of their lives, FOR something. From Japanese kamikaze pilots to Booby Sands.

But I remain unconvinced there is much chance of sensible dialogue with those simply seeking to kill, especially their own, in the cause of being AGAINST everything.

Though the prospect of Sir. Hugh chatting mano a mano with a learning disabled suicide bomber (his noble handlers being unavailable for comment, one suspects) might be interesting.