This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It looks to me as though Cummings is pushing this hard. We will have to wait a while yet to see how it ends up. De-criminalising none payment of the licence fee may well happen and we will have to see what impact that has on their revenue before judging too much. We live in fast moving times, not least on how we get our "news" as well as entertainment. What we need to be mindful of is to make sure we don't chuck the BBC baby out with the bathwater. For me this will be a big test of the new intake of Tory MPs. Will they stand up for the BBC's values and protect them from attack by the likes of Cummings? Or will they just be lobby sheep? What are BBC core values as to me they were suppose to be neutral but over the last few years have been far from that. Then the panorama stitch up of TR which I use to watch and like, just left me to think they have there own agenda and far from neutral Edited by cpfc_chap (24 Feb 2020 8.37pm)
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
"He seems to be blaming ME and others, me included for taking one of two interpretations from a poorly written sentence." Once again SS is either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what I actually wrote. It was NOTHING about anyone's "interpretation" of something that was capable of being misinterpreted. It was only about ME's false claim, which followed that misinterpretation, and not the misinterpretation itself. The continuing attempts to try to defend it are really quite illuminating. It seems some people are incapable of ever admitting a mistake yet would rush to accuse others of them at the slightest opportunity.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Waffle, waffle, toil and trouble. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Feb 2020 8.56pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by cpfc_chap
What are BBC core values as to me they were suppose to be neutral but over the last few years have been far from that. Then the panorama stitch up of TR which I use to watch and like, just left me to think they have there own agenda and far from neutral Edited by cpfc_chap (24 Feb 2020 8.37pm) The "panorama stitch up of TR" simply demonstrates your own lack of objectivity and says nothing about the BBC's core values. You are entitled to your opinion of course but they obviously come from a particular perspective and not from a neutral stance. One definition, from the BBC themselves, of their values is that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Seem pretty reasonable to me. Of course individual journalists may not achieve those high aspirations and they certainly won't always match the opinions of those who, like you, already have an established bias.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The "panorama stitch up of TR" simply demonstrates your own lack of objectivity and says nothing about the BBC's core values. You are entitled to your opinion of course but they obviously come from a particular perspective and not from a neutral stance. One definition, from the BBC themselves, of their values is that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Seem pretty reasonable to me. Of course individual journalists may not achieve those high aspirations and they certainly won't always match the opinions of those who, like you, already have an established bias. You mean most of them
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Bye bye to the BBC that can afford this: [Tweet Link]
WE writes....'The "panorama stitch up of TR" simply demonstrates your own lack of objectivity' This on a Panorama programme that had to be cancelled and saw the main journalist sacked months after because their very objectivity was brought into question. Could Robinson have relied on the BBC to be objective in coming to that decision by their own internal processes? No, it had to be displayed to the world by Robinson carrying out a sting operation on Panorama's main journalist via honey trap. If that footage hadn't been out there the BBC would have done nothing.....nothing...and that hatchet programme would have come out. Robinson had evidence that the 'impartial' BBC had worked with 'hope not hate' on it.....that footage exposed what these far left middle class parasites really think. Oh and don't give it about an 'individual journalist'....John Sweeney had been with the BBC for decades and fronted many a programme and was a major part of Panorama.....Good riddance to the lying drunk. Objective my arse. An elitist, defending the elite, once again. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2020 2.01am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
For me this is proof the BBC have an agenda.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
We have a post where WE complains about someone pin dancing. I think I've just about read it all now. He seems to be blaming ME and others, me included for taking one of two interpretations from a poorly written sentence. Give in. I have as it's plainly a waste of time discussing anything with him as he's just an argumentative ****pot. Going off at a tangent for a moment I wonder how many people have been put off reading and entering into discussions on this forum because of Wisbech The Rottweiler. I know that I hardly bother any more and at least one other moderator who used to be active here has gone missing and he and I can't be then only ones that no longer bother much
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Bye bye to the BBC that can afford this: [Tweet Link]
WE writes....'The "panorama stitch up of TR" simply demonstrates your own lack of objectivity' This on a Panorama programme that had to be cancelled and saw the main journalist sacked months after because their very objectivity was brought into question. Could Robinson have relied on the BBC to be objective in coming to that decision by their own internal processes? No, it had to be displayed to the world by Robinson carrying out a sting operation on Panorama's main journalist via honey trap. If that footage hadn't been out there the BBC would have done nothing.....nothing...and that hatchet programme would have come out. Robinson had evidence that the 'impartial' BBC had worked with 'hope not hate' on it.....that footage exposed what these far left middle class parasites really think. Oh and don't give it about an 'individual journalist'....John Sweeney had been with the BBC for decades and fronted many a programme and was a major part of Panorama.....Good riddance to the lying drunk. Objective my arse. An elitist, defending the elite, once again. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2020 2.01am) On the matter of the Tweet about Samira Ahmed I don't blame her for pursuing her case as the tribunal agreed she had been discriminated against. Just like the woman on Radio 4 who got a massive payout the reality is two women who I have never heard of got a payout because they were not paid as much as a bunch of blokes who I have never heard of. The fault here lies with the BBC pay structure and not Samira. I worked in a corporate culture all my working life those companies had a rigid pay structure for precisely this reason. There are always exceptions to the rule but this was for a handful of people at the very top. This it the BBC's problem, it's one thing to pay Jeremy Clarkson or Graham Norton outside of the salary structure because they are household names and the BBC believes they bring the viewers in. Some of the journalists / presenters at the BBC are on ridiculous money because allegedly they are heavyweights and yet I doubt the public could pick them out in a line up or tune in just for that person. In short the tail wags the dog and the BBC rolls over rather than telling these people this is the salary for the role take it or leave it. Once you start paying people this money it means that Samira and Co rightly point out they should be on the same scale. The BBC needs to put everyone in a pay structure and if there are to be exceptions this must be agreed at board level and evidence based. It's noticeable that these legal actions are not happening at other broadcasters I suspect because they have a proper structure.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
On the matter of the Tweet about Samira Ahmed I don't blame her for pursuing her case as the tribunal agreed she had been discriminated against. Just like the woman on Radio 4 who got a massive payout the reality is two women who I have never heard of got a payout because they were not paid as much as a bunch of blokes who I have never heard of. The fault here lies with the BBC pay structure and not Samira. This it the BBC's problem, it's one thing to pay Jeremy Clarkson or Graham Norton outside of the salary structure because they are household names and the BBC believes they bring the viewers in. Some of the journalists / presenters at the BBC are on ridiculous money because allegedly they are heavyweights and yet I doubt the public could pick them out in a line up or tune in just for that person.
Like yourself I had never heard of her before she made the headlines in this case. Apparently she presents Newswatch which is a program that I have never heard of either. I am guessing that if the Government wish to change the way that the BBC is funded they will use payouts like this to show how our money is being wasted. Hopefully we may see some sort of subscription model being introduced with varying levels of subscription being brought in for various different types of BBC product with them being told that they have to work within their budgets.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Like yourself I had never heard of her before she made the headlines in this case. Apparently she presents Newswatch which is a program that I have never heard of either. I am guessing that if the Government wish to change the way that the BBC is funded they will use payouts like this to show how our money is being wasted. Hopefully we may see some sort of subscription model being introduced with varying levels of subscription being brought in for various different types of BBC product with them being told that they have to work within their budgets. When you have a guaranteed income stream like the Licence fee cost cutting and viability are never at the top of the agenda. Commercial TV relies on advertising and the price the advertisers pay depends on the popularity of the program and the time of day. That in turn dictates the budget for the shows. 10am is the dead zone for TV viewing which is why it never made sense for the BBC to put on the Victoria Derbyshire at that time. It's an expensive show in a time slot which historically has low viewing figures and finally even the BBC that doesn't care about ratings realised that the cost of the show versus the viewers just didn't make sense. I fear the BBC will go through a lot more pain before it fully understands this.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Give in. I have as it's plainly a waste of time discussing anything with him as he's just an argumentative ****pot. Going off at a tangent for a moment I wonder how many people have been put off reading and entering into discussions on this forum because of Wisbech The Rottweiler. I know that I hardly bother any more and at least one other moderator who used to be active here has gone missing and he and I can't be then only ones that no longer bother much Why don't you trying reading your OWN posts and then accept that you were wrong! It would be a lot, lot quicker than me having to "argue" about it. I am not actually "arguing" about anything. Arguments require some degree of possible merit on either side. This is factual. You made a mistake but simply cannot admit it and then, together with your support team, seek to make out that the fault lies with me because I am a "Rottweiler". Such reprehensible tactics are unfortunately very common here.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.