Is our Country's system fair to all.

[Mister M]

This maybe slightly off topic, but I've noticed over the last 10 years that the wealthy really have gotten a stranglehold over the arts

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31110063

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/13/privileged-few-control-culture-politics-media

 

Dramas, music and television programmes that represented British working class life like those of the 1960s and 1970s have really been on the decline. And those that spearheaded this movement from Joe Strummer, Michael Caine, Albert Finney, Ray Davies have all been replaced by identikit musicians and actors.

I'm sad to say that it shows - you could hardly say that the music of Mumford and Sons is vital and alive. Though this is purely subjective, some people may find their music vibrant

[hyper]

Well that's fine, but there's little point in engaging in a discussion simply to state "I cop out because I can't be bothered to think about the problem.

Its a pity that that's all you have taken in. that was my final sentiment in exasperation at your inability to accept that things aren't always fair.

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2016 at 14:47 ----------

 

Getting a job because you can do the work and that's known to someone, is different to getting a job JUST because you know someone, that's nepotism and it's just another form of structural disadvantage.

Life is full of structural disadvantage. Here are some of the ones that have benefitted me over the years. And bear in mind, I am no well-connected elitist.

- Was offered a job with the council after uni cos Dad worked there (I took another job which I found myself)

- I got into Josephines every Friday night without queueing cos I knew one of the bouncers

- I get bricklaying done for a beer cos my mate is a bricky

 

All things the Eton attender doesn't get. I wonder if he talks about structural disadvantages.

 

It happens, accept it and deal with it swiftly, or spend your life negatively resenting the connections you haven't got

[Mister M]

Its a pity that that's all you have taken in. that was my final sentiment in exasperation at your inability to accept that things aren't always fair.

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2016 at 14:47 ----------

 

Life is full of structural disadvantage. Here are some of the ones that have benefitted me over the years. And bear in mind, I am no well-connected elitist.

- Was offered a job with the council after uni cos Dad worked there (I took another job which I found myself)

- I got into Josephines every Friday night without queueing cos I knew one of the bouncers

- I get bricklaying done for a beer cos my mate is a bricky

 

All things the Eton attender doesn't get. I wonder if he talks about structural disadvantages.

 

It happens, accept it and deal with it swiftly, or spend your life negatively resenting the connections you haven't got

 

Having said that politicians from all parties have made the theme of social mobility their priority. If even politicians acknowledge there's a problem, then you can guarantee it's a big problem.

It isn't simply a matter of people grumbling 'life isn't fair'

[Michael_W]

This maybe slightly off topic, but I've noticed over the last 10 years that the wealthy really have gotten a stranglehold over the arts

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31110063

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/13/privileged-few-control-culture-politics-media

 

Dramas, music and television programmes that represented British working class life like those of the 1960s and 1970s have really been on the decline. And those that spearheaded this movement from Joe Strummer, Michael Caine, Albert Finney, Ray Davies have all been replaced by identikit musicians and actors.

I'm sad to say that it shows - you could hardly say that the music of Mumford and Sons is vital and alive. Though this is purely subjective, some people may find their music vibrant

 

I would argue that it's the luvvies who have got a stranglehold over the arts as opposed to the wealthy as you call them !

[Mister M]

I would argue that it's the luvvies who have got a stranglehold over the arts as opposed to the wealthy as you call them !

 

'Luvvies', as you call them, come in all shapes, sizes and political opinions.

[Anna B]

'Luvvies', as you call them, come in all shapes, sizes and political opinions.

 

There's no doubt though that it helps to have friends (or Daddy's friends,) who are actors, producers, directors, casting agents, investors, etc in the arts, who can introduce you, put in a good word, influence the people who count and so on.

It also helps to have enough money (or Daddy's money,) to allow you to live in London, and to see you through when you're starting out and through the hard times.

That cuts out an awful lot of very talented but impoverished actors.

[ECCOnoob]

I think the complete opposite.

 

In modern times, particularly compared to 20 years ago, there has never been so many opportunities to get into the "Arts". Open access is an understatement.

 

If you want to be the next top comic, shove a few childish pranks or skits on youtube and if you are good enough and popular enough, before you know it, you could be on tv with your own series.

 

Want to be the next Andrea Bocelli, get yourself noticed on one of the multiple Simon Cowell debacles.

 

There are multiple arts festivals with open auditions all the time, gaudy lifestyle shows with "scripted reality" (is that not Acting in any other language?)

 

The internet is creating stars from just being known on the internet. People are creating and distributing their own short films and full length movies without touching the precious sanctuaries of Hollywood or Pinewood.

 

Even the serious business of News and Current Affairs has given up bothering to do some journalism and would rather let us public chuck in our own opinions and videos on subjects we know piddle all about.

 

Plenty of performers who are big names today have not come from the "luvvie" scene and there are plenty others who have no magic contact with a key to the door.

 

I think things have changed dramatically and certainly have not become restrictive.

 

Go back a few decades and it would have been unheard of for untrained, uneducated, unknown "talent" to be getting spots on TV or Theatres.

 

Look around what we have now.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[Anna B]

Well you've certainly mentioned some things I'd never thought about. The internet, video bloggs etc may turn out to be game changers, but contests provide only one winner, and even they sometimes sink without trace.

 

However the figures are these: Only 7% of the population go to private schools, therefore you might expect that, if it was a level playing field, they would have 7% of the top jobs. But in fact 42% of British Bafta winners went to Independent schools, as did 67% of Oscar winners and 19% of winners at the Brit awards.

 

'Researchers at The Sutton Trust examined the backgrounds of more than 1,200 people working in high level jobs, and found that the UK is still overwhelmingly run by privately educated graduates.'

 

'Around 75% of the UK's top judges went to a fee paying school, and among top military personnel, 71% were educated in the private sector. Around half of leading print journalists and solicitors were taught at fee paying schools. And in politics, half of the cabinet were privately educated, including old Etonian David Cameron - compared to just 13% of the shadow cabinet, and around 32% of MPs overall.'

 

Yesterday, Sutton Trust's chairman, Sir Peter Lampri said, "Our research shows that your chances of reaching the top in so many areas of British life are very much greater if you went to an Independent school."

Daily Mail 24.2.16

[nomoney]

think it was Charles but if your mummy his well the Queen,seems it is not what you know,but u you know.

[tzijlstra]

This story just says it all, in my humble opinion.

 

Apparently, if you are at Eton and have a rich mummy and daddy plus their no doubt 'old school-buddy top lawyer who knows all the judges in the country' you can pretty much get away with sharing images of 2 year olds forced to have intercourse with dogs. I would think if the lad was from Rotherham he'd be put in jail for 12 years and made into a 'public example!'