48÷2(9+3) = ?

yes, including me! i have stated how it is slightly ambiguous and not entirely clear, if you bothered reading my earlier posts, but how the best way to go about it, and the more mathematically correct way, gives the answer of 2.
even using BIDMAS, the 2 is part of the brackets, if the coefficient of (9+3) were (48/2) then 48/2 would have been put in brackets by whoever wrote the question, as they would have spotted the ambiguity and rewritten it, however had they intended it to be 48/(2*(9+3)), then they may not have spotted the ambiguity within their intent.

try thinking about it from the point of view of the person who set the question, too. they would have been more likely to notice it was in bad format, had they intended it to be (48/2)(9+3).

if it were algebra instead, you wouldnt still be debating it, as first instinct would be to expand out the brackets!

BODMAS could also be interpreted as: brackets first - expand them out. although yes there is ambiguity with what the coefficient is. gah this is so frustrating!

48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
48÷24
= 2

Don't be herping the derp. It's 2. Endo storo. Just because you've calculated what's in the brackets doesn't mean the bracket has gone away.

Yet here it is, making a massive difference.

Obviously this will just go round in circles lol.

What textbook says this? I challenge you to cite this claim and show me the evidence. BODMAS states division has precedence over multiplication....

48÷2(9+3)
48÷2(12)
48÷24
= 2

Don't be herping the derp. It's 2. Endo storo. Just because you've calculated what's in the brackets doesn't mean the bracket has gone away.

Well if we knew whether (9+3) was a numerator or denominator there would be no reason to use BIDMAS, we would simply divide the product of the numerator by the product of the denominator. The only reason we would use BIDMAS is for situations like this, where we must determine which functions to execute first. I agree that we should follow notation, but when the notation is ambiguous like in this example, using BIDMAS would seem necessary, and the only solution to overcome said ambiguity.

No, you use BIDMAS so that when you write something like 3×2+8÷2 you get 10 rather than 7, 15 or 18 (which are all things you can get by not following BIDMAS). However, when I write 2^3x it's fairly clear, to me at least, that I mean $2^{3x}$, but applying BIDMAS would tell me it's equal to $8x$.

BIDMAS isn't there to make ambiguous statements unambiguous; it's there to give you a framework with which to represent basic operations in mathematical notation. If you come across something which is ambiguous, you don't apply a contrived interpretation of BIDMAS to it (like people are doing here); instead you work out what it's supposed to be and fix it. But in this case we have no context other than "what is this", so we can't work out what it's supposed to be, so we can't fix it.

In this case, BIDMAS falls at the "brackets" bit, because it's not clear whether there should be a bracket around 2(9+3) or around 48/2. Regardless of what you do, there is an implicit bracket around one or the other, but it's not clear which, so it's ambiguous.

Nice one, you just convinced me. Also is there a tutorial anywhere here on how to use latex?

Or maybe the questioner is an idiot who should've made it clearer? Lets just come to the conclusion that some people will obtain an answer of 2 or 288 but the questioner should've displayed the question with more clarity. I still would take the answer to be 2.

No, you're wrong. Multiplication and Division are on the same level.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_4449191_solve-math-problem-using-pemdas.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/ks3bitesize/maths/number/order_operation/revise2.shtml
http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/projects/mepres/book8/bk8i4/bk8_4i3.htm
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/kids-dont-count-bodmas
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm
http://www.math.com/school/subject2/lessons/S2U1L2GL.html

Need I add any more???

crappest sources ever. They've probably been written by noobs who barely got through GCSE's and decided to be a popular kiddy maths writers. They should be banned from teaching - they're teaching kids incorrect things! I maintain my stand: show me a credible source - only one of those sources supports what you say about multiplication and division having equal precedence, and even that seems to have been written by some GCSE failing noob.