TEENAGERS TO CHALLENGE UNIVERSITY FEES RISE

There is little I can say about THIS report. A fantastic opportunity for two students to show this sham government they are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I can only hope the judges, who after all are supposed to be unbiased and apply the law as it is, not as governments would like it to be will do just that.

(Please be aware that BBC links are subject to change and may not point to the report intended)

NICE BIT OF CREATIVE BBC REPORTING

The BBC shows its true [blue] colours reporting on u2's Glastonbury debut marred by tax protest. Everything it says is true. However, the article says little about the detail of the band's supposed [legal] tax evasion. But the article goes on to other performers and the weather! If you are reporting on an issue, stick to the issue. Don't try to muddy the waters with inconsequential and irrelevant information.

But anybody who knows anything about reporting will know this is a well known and well used technique to appear impartial while in fact directing the reader's/viewer's attention away from the facts (though there are few facts relating to the headline!)

I would like to know more about the issues the protesters were campaigning about. Why weren't Art Uncut interviewed and their views reported? Because the BBC supports the wealthy and their ability to [legally] avoid their [moral] tax responsibilities.

For those interested in more information about the protester's grievance, here's a link to Art Uncut's blog post on the subject http://www.artuncut.org.uk/blog/#blog-12.

It appears the story on the original link I posted has now changed from the 'tax protest' story. Fortunately, News Sniffer has the story here-

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/404919/diff/3/4

TOP STUDENTS EXPANSION PLAN 'COULD HIT SOCIAL MOBILITY'

BBC News reports that the rules on student admissions are to be relaxed to allow universities to accept more high achieving students. This is likely to result in fewer places for poorer students.

So there we have it- social mobility- if you can afford it. For those that question this statement on the grounds that it is based on ability, not income then I make the case that the wealthier you are, the better the education your children are likely to receive. Not just because you can live in wealthier areas that tend to have better schools but because it is easier for you to travel further to better schools. And of course, wealthier parents can afford private tuition and public school fees.

If this government is dedicated to social mobility and a fair education system then it is high time they took that education away from privatisation and back into the hands of the state. Let a politician's child have the same options as a labourer's child. This should not be a fear for the politician- or any other parent. If their child is truly gifted, they will excel in any system.