Corbyn / BBC declare social class of employees?

I remember a tv programme involving an exchange between pupils from Eton and an inner city comprehensive (I think in Liverpool).

At the end when they got together together to compare their experiences one of the Comp boys said to an Eton pupil "your parents must really hate you to have sent you here"

There are already schemes running which do this Annie. There was a programme on TV some time ago about how this benefitted the children when a comp set up links with a public school.One or two were even offered places on scholarships because the school recognised their talent. It seems even public schools have more social awareness than some on GN.

How would a child from a comp benefit from visiting private schools and getting to know how they work?

The ideal of course POGS should be a high quality education system that all children attend and which makes provision for the differences on entry by providing more support for the most needy. It would then not be necessary to look at origins or class differences only at results. Perhaps that is how other countries do it?
Given that it is unlikely to happen, what else could be done? More expenditure on education certainly, which would probably need a tax rise. Perhaps an extension of a scheme to allow state pupils to visit and spend time in private schools and get to know how they work. But this will all take time.
Meantime looking at the actual qualifications, background and education of candidates would seem to me a good measure. And using this to ensure a wide range of employees all bringing differing ideas and experiences into an organisation would be valuable for everyone. What surprises me is that people are making exactly the same excuses for not doing this as were once used against the measures now used to ensure equality for ethnic minorities and the disabled.

Class warfare always rears it’s head when the far left, trots and communists are are on the rise, Corbyn is obsessed with the politics of yesteryear. There was a time when one never heard anyone on the beeb who didn’t speak like the queen, now there are some accents I have trouble understanding.

That is the crux of it, POGS It is not that "socialism will inevitably lead to communism" It is that in a democracy no party, however elevated and philanthropic their aims, can be certain that they will be in power after the next election, and that all that data that they have garnered on individuals to ensure the fabled level playing field will not be used to nobble the players on the field still further if they are revealed to be potentially in opposition to the current junta.

Information on their ethnic and religious origins, disabilities, or sexuality once placed people in gas chambers. That didn't happen suddenly; there was a gradual shift in social engineering until these people were seen as expendable. That must never be allowed to be repeated.

So what to do with these people who are educated , earn more money and are deemed to be from a higher class than somebody else who is well educated, earns a lot of money but from a lower class.?

The answer appears to be being avoided .

Would you refuse to employ the first group in favour of the latter? In other words create a path to Social Engineering.

What should we do with all those in the Shadow Cabinet Labour MP's , I say Labour because this is a Labour Party idea, employees of the BBC who were either grammar school or Private School educated, went to Oxford , Cambridge, Harvard et al and are deemed to be from a higher Social Class than those who have benefitted from the exact same educational path but come from a supposed lower class.

Would you refuse the first group to stand as our parliamentary candidates/ representatives but the latter group are welcomed because they have had the same benefits but they are deemed to be from a lower Social Class.?

Would you refuse to allow the first group in favour of the latter? In other words create a path to Social Engineering.

The establishing of what constitutes which ' Class' we belong to is valid and relative but nobody has said what to do about the information !

Nobody has informed me what lies behind the principle of wanting to know a persons class for ' transparency' but not asking what their political leaning/allegiances, race, sexual orientation etc. is..

Would Ken Loach be a more valid program maker than David Attenborough? Would Dianne Abbott be a more valid Member of the Labour Party than Hilary Benn?

If your answer is no then why is Social Class different when it comes to the BBC? If it is right for the BBC then why not in every walk of life ?

This could be the ' entryism ' , if we haven't seen enough class warfare already, of adopting the need to know our Social Class by government and that wreaks of the days of Stalin/Marx and other leaders who follow their dogma. Education but on our terms and let's get rid of the “bourgeois.” You can see what's coming down the track.

That is the need to know no matter what guise you put it under and this ' soft creeping ' of class warfare is dangerous and is alive and kicking once again in the Labour Party under Corbyn and perversely some at the top of his circle, usually outside of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Maizie, do forgive me, your reference to ‘ a level playing field’ has amused me ?

It's an interesting discussion to read but I'm struggling to understand what relevance your comment at 8.25 today has to it, Ab.

Nobody's saying that all should have prizes. They're just asking for a level playing field.

It does Jalima , a child loses a race and is damaged for life.

Which sounds alarmingly like the policy of Sports Day at some schools!

Listened to a comedy programme last night, a sketch , the unfairness of the Olympic Games where just because a few could run the fastest many didn’t have a chance to have a gold medal so it should be open to all and everyone who took part receives a gold medal ?

anniebach Did I suggest that a shelf filler should be paid the same as a doctor? No. Someone - I think it was Monica - said that the notion of class is a load of rubbish because what determines people's ability to get on in life is primarily their income.

I was trying to point out that education, employment and income are inextricably linked. In the main, the highest earners are highly educated people. The statistics already show that a disproportionate number of high earners in senior positions, in relation to the population as a whole, have been privately educated. Research has also shown that particularly in the UK one of the main determinants of the acquisition of senior posts/high earnings is the income level of a person's parents.

Other countries seem to have been more successful in creating conditions whereby, despite different wealth levels, there is far more social mobility. I am not quite sure how they do this but I believe the issue needs investigating and addressing if we are to inspire and motivate people from all walks of life to contribute to society to the very best of their ability. At the moment, I believe there are many talented people who, given the right circumstances, could equal or even exceed the commitment and performance of those who currently glide, almost as if by right, into positions of power and influence.

And using one person's experiences to draw conclusions about the whole spectrum of media is bad logic. You have said yourself that internships are only for the very affluent.

And my point is that it was no easier then than now.'
Saying, 'Oh it was easier in the past' when someone, with some inside knowledge suggests something you do not agree with is wrong is just a cop-out.

Did anyone say it was easy? I think the words were it was easier than it is now.

It is an illusion that it was ever easy to get into the media. It took DD three years to get a place at drama school and another three years after she graduated to get a job in the media. It is still just as difficult - and she went in as a techie, not a creative.

Of course we do not want any small group influencing how people think, but in this multi-media international world as we know from ISIS recruits and the extreme right wing in the United States, if people do not like what they are hearing they tune into something else that appeals to them, whether execution videos or pseudo Nazi fascists groups.

And so many people do not interact with any newsmedia at all unless it is celebrities.

Yes Ilovecheese, I do know that . What has it to do with social class of employees ?

It would be a lot better is a shelf filler was paid a decent wage without the taxpayer having to subsidise their earnings.
Every job is important, without food being on the shelves, a doctor would have to spend more time shopping and less time doctoring.

What influence Trisher? Over what/whom?

M0nica I have no idea how old your DD is but I would suspect she is not a recent graduate seeking work in the media. In the past entry to the media was easier, but things change.
It isn't the quality or the value of the work that I am interested in, it is the influence that people working in the media exercise.

So when a shelf filler is paid the same as a doctor all will be well.

It takes more than quotas and edicts from on high to cause change. Social mobility is achieved largely by education - if you don't have the training and qualifications for a position, then in a time of less than full employment and too many people chasing too few jobs, more people will be working below their potential than above it unless they have the confidence and self-presentation skills to make themselves stand out from other candidates. Public schools give just such confidence, whatever the calibre of the pupils they start out with. The challenge to non-public schooling is to match that confidence.

Spending on education at all levels and ages is investment in the future of the whole community. Any government that cannot understand that needs to go on a training course itself to learn the basic links. Perhaps those basics should be an A-level subject in their own right, along with a course on why spending on the nation's health is also vital?

I believe the issue of social mobility and a move towards more proportionate representation of the population at higher levels of office is a pressing one which needs to be addressed.

I realise that several people do not feel this is an issue that needs addressing. That's fine - but I object to the implication that I, and others who have a similar view to me, are "bigots". Argue your case; don't make personal attacks.

Trisher, I said exactly what you say I didn't say, what I said was that that had nothing to do with class but everything to do with money, those who can afford private schools etc can afford to support an intern but 90% of those in what are defined as 'middle class' jobs can neither afford private education, nor to subsidise their children as interns.

The problem with internships is not particularly nepotism. DD did do six weeks work experience with a firm in the media, which she got just by writing and asking and following that was then offered several internships. All this despite neither of us having any media contacts at all, nor does DH play golf or any other 'useful' sport.

The problem is the lack of pay that limits such jobs to those who have access to private means of support, It is money that pulls the strings, not class.

I would limit unpaid internships to six weeks only, with no repeat in the same or an associated company within a year and beyond that all trainees should be paid the rate for the job, which would be a minimum of the living wage.

Yes, those working in the media hold more power but what they are doing qualitatively is no different to that done by builders, plumbers, electricians and multitudinous tradesmen who will offer job to a mates son or daughter who wants to get into their trade. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.