You didn't appear to know much about the BBC from your incorrect posts
Does not make it government owned or run. It is similar to the US federal reserve banks.
He was simply sharing his opinion...exactly. First, one has to agree with that OPINION. Second, one who agrees has to believe that the weakness is so great that the U.S. should change its form of government. Professor Levi disagreeing with me does not concern me anymore than him wanting to recoup wasted figurehead funding to pay for the security of two former royals.
BBC is not government owned. It is subsidized.
Really? Are you serious? Are you saying that the BBC is not government funded? Funded by the UK public via taxes. That means it is government funded.
I'm not suggesting it is going to change the US constitution - but just demonstrating that the decentralised system, in the view of a professor with expertise in that area, will hamper the control of the disease. This is something you and others were suggesting wasn't the case when I asked. I should also add that some replied with the opinion that it would hamper control measures a few days ago.
It is nothing like the federal reserve. The point is from an information perspective, the BBC is more like VOA than it is like a public US network. The government influences the message. What does that have to do with a federal reserve?
Fee agreed and set by the government but PAID by the general public. I pay my license fee every year directly to the BBC.
He is a professor of public health, not of governance. Centralization is more "efficient" in any case of government control. It is not efficient in developing solutions and is not conducive to democracy. Most important, most recent death trends (last night's) do not substantiate a deduction that a centralized system is more effective in this circumstance than a decentralized one. Facts. Facts. Facts.
Absolutely doesn't. Truly independent. Indeed painfully independent sometimes as it tries to maintain a balanced reporting process.
Governments have two ways to make money: taxes and tariffs. So, by setting the fees (taxes) the government is controlling the companies income (means of production). It is government paid. None of this applies to truly free press. More vestiges of a non-democratic system.
A professor of Public Health sounds like the ideal person to advise on matters of public health don't you think ?
It is neither a tax nor a tariff. If you don't own a TV you don't have to pay.
The BBC is a publicly owned statutory corporation. It has no shareholders, and was created by royal charter, thus, granted legal status by the crown and guaranteed to exist by law. This is similar to our federal reserve banks as both are funded by gov't but not gov't owned.
Public health, not governance. You have a hard time differentiating, it seems.A professor of Public Health sounds like the ideal person to advise on matters of public health don't you think ?
He doesn't seem to agree with you and cites some states where things have worked well and others where it hasn't - decentralised = disjointed = Caballus goes off on one
In a case like this they are intertwined. As I say again - an expert in the field disagrees with your views - end of story.