This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 becky  over the moon 29 Sep 21 8.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The world service remains something to be very proud of. In many countries, which have national broadcasters who are controlled by their governments, it is still the most trusted source of news and information. It is arguably our most valuable export, as it sets us apart from almost everyone else and shows the best aspects of British standards of respect and accuracy. An image that is very important but under threat from the current government and especially the PM. Funding that export, via the licence fee, and keeping the government's, of any hue, mucky hands off it, seems like very good value for money to me. Money we should all be willing and proud to pay. It's not all about "me" and what "I" get out of it. It's much bigger than that. It is! Especially when I'm paying........
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
 Badger11 Beckenham 29 Sep 21 9.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The world service remains something to be very proud of. In many countries, which have national broadcasters who are controlled by their governments, it is still the most trusted source of news and information. It is arguably our most valuable export, as it sets us apart from almost everyone else and shows the best aspects of British standards of respect and accuracy. An image that is very important but under threat from the current government and especially the PM. Funding that export, via the licence fee, and keeping the government's, of any hue, mucky hands off it, seems like very good value for money to me. Money we should all be willing and proud to pay. It's not all about "me" and what "I" get out of it. It's much bigger than that. The government already pays the BBC for the World Service and I can see it may have value. So this would be part of the BBC basic package I suggested.
One more point |
|
| silvertop Portishead 29 Sep 21 10.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
I honestly do not believe the Workd Service is listened to by any great numbers, with the internet and global news available on tv, people just do not listen to the “wireless”. Years ago, yes, but not now. Certainly does not warrant licence money being spent on it 192 million listeners. And if there is someone on the Today program who you think - how did they get him/her on? - partly because that program reaches the ears in this country they want to reach; and partly the world wide amplification through the World Service. And while you may hate the woke nature of the BBC (I share, believe me!), you don't really feel it through the WS. Indeed, compared to the sort of state controlled garbage most world listeners are forced to consume, it is a bastion of impartiality. No wonder despots always seek to block it. Lived a year in Hong Kong and it was a life saver; and not just for the football. If it is not going to be spent through the license fee, it needs to be spent through the tax payer with a covenant to protect it against future government cuts e.g. 2/3 majority. Along with the OU, one of this nation's most important cultural entities.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Sep 21 4.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
192 million listeners. And if there is someone on the Today program who you think - how did they get him/her on? - partly because that program reaches the ears in this country they want to reach; and partly the world wide amplification through the World Service. And while you may hate the woke nature of the BBC (I share, believe me!), you don't really feel it through the WS. Indeed, compared to the sort of state controlled garbage most world listeners are forced to consume, it is a bastion of impartiality. No wonder despots always seek to block it. Lived a year in Hong Kong and it was a life saver; and not just for the football. If it is not going to be spent through the license fee, it needs to be spent through the tax payer with a covenant to protect it against future government cuts e.g. 2/3 majority. Along with the OU, one of this nation's most important cultural entities. While respecting Spider's opinion in light of what's been said of today's world service I probably would be happy to see it included within a protected license package. If nothing else in the west it has symbolic value but wider afield it can be a window for some into reason and objectivity in situations where civilisation seems distant (even if the modern west has travelled far from it) . Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Sep 2021 4.07pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 01 Oct 21 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The world service remains something to be very proud of. In many countries, which have national broadcasters who are controlled by their governments, it is still the most trusted source of news and information. It is arguably our most valuable export, as it sets us apart from almost everyone else and shows the best aspects of British standards of respect and accuracy. An image that is very important but under threat from the current government and especially the PM. Funding that export, via the licence fee, and keeping the government's, of any hue, mucky hands off it, seems like very good value for money to me. Money we should all be willing and proud to pay. It's not all about "me" and what "I" get out of it. It's much bigger than that. Wholeheartedly agree with all that (and that's a first). I too see the World Service as something to be proud of, possibly unique in the world, and offering truth and hope to people who might otherwise be deprived of those things. But in my case it is indeed also 'about "me" and what "I" get out of it': when I'm driving, and Radio 4 and LBC are getting on my nerves, I have no hesitation in switching to World Service - and then often staying with it.
|
|
cryrst  The garden of England 01 Oct 21 7.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
Wholeheartedly agree with all that (and that's a first). I too see the World Service as something to be proud of, possibly unique in the world, and offering truth and hope to people who might otherwise be deprived of those things. But in my case it is indeed also 'about "me" and what "I" get out of it': when I'm driving, and Radio 4 and LBC are getting on my nerves, I have no hesitation in switching to World Service - and then often staying with it. Try classic fm. Very calming with no opinions or stupid competitions.
|
|
Orange1290  12 Oct 21 6.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Yet another thing to hate the Biased Bullshyte Co for . . . On their sport/football page, the lead story isnt about England v Hungary, no, its full on Faroe Is v Scotland . . . WTF?
Pro China, EU & Palestine |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 05 Nov 21 10.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The Dolphin
Poor old Huw has upset the virtue signalling woke brigade so he is being "spoken to" for daring to not follow the party line. These spineless fools have no idea what they are unleashing. One simple question. When will the 'offended' be satisfied? I think we all know the answer.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 05 Nov 21 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Defund the BBC.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 05 Nov 21 11.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Defund the BBC. Cultural Marxists. Extorting money from Joe Public to pay for his own indoctrination. giving sanctuary & opportunity to Paedo's like Rolf Harris & Jimmy Savile.
Edited by PalazioVecchio (05 Nov 2021 11.27am)
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 05 Nov 21 7.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The Dolphin
Poor old Huw has upset the virtue signalling woke brigade so he is being "spoken to" for daring to not follow the party line. If you actually read the story, you might just understand that the BBC are not talking to him about what he wrote. They are talking about whether expressing any personal opinion by a BBC journalist conflicts with their impartiality obligations. I would have thought the hard-right posters here would approve of that! You wouldn't want a BBC journalist expressing support for views you disagree with, though obviously you believe that already happens. With this story, you now have an open door to challenge the BBC over any personal utterance by BBC journalists that you believe aren't impartial. Good luck. Please share the responses 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. |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 05 Nov 21 8.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If you actually read the story, you might just understand that the BBC are not talking to him about what he wrote. They are talking about whether expressing any personal opinion by a BBC journalist conflicts with their impartiality obligations. I would have thought the hard-right posters here would approve of that! You wouldn't want a BBC journalist expressing support for views you disagree with, though obviously you believe that already happens. With this story, you now have an open door to challenge the BBC over any personal utterance by BBC journalists that you believe aren't impartial. Good luck. Please share the responses here. And you believe that do you? They are using that reasoning as an excuse. Sometimes the written word isn't actually how it is.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 05 Nov 21 9.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
And you believe that do you? They are using that reasoning as an excuse. Sometimes the written word isn't actually how it is. BBC journalists are, so far as I am aware, contractually bound by the requirements of the BBC to remain impartial, both in their presentation of the output and in any personal opinions they express publicly. If they accept the contact, then they must also accept its restrictions. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If anyone feels unable to accept the restrictions, then they are free not to sign, or resign if they already have.
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. |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 05 Nov 21 10.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If you actually read the story, you might just understand that the BBC are not talking to him about what he wrote. They are talking about whether expressing any personal opinion by a BBC journalist conflicts with their impartiality obligations. I would have thought the hard-right posters here would approve of that! You wouldn't want a BBC journalist expressing support for views you disagree with, though obviously you believe that already happens. With this story, you now have an open door to challenge the BBC over any personal utterance by BBC journalists that you believe aren't impartial. Good luck. Please share the responses here. Now do Gary Lineker who spouts his usual BS on Twitter seemingly at will because he (although employed by the BBC)has declared himself freelance
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 05 Nov 21 10.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
Now do Gary Lineker who spouts his usual BS on Twitter seemingly at will because he (although employed by the BBC)has declared himself freelance With so many programmes being made these days by independent production companies, their employees, or any freelancers they use, are not going to be bound by the BBC's requirements. I guess though that the companies may well insert requirements into their own contracts, as without them, they run the risk of not getting the work. With the freelancers it must be a balancing act in which a presenter is obligated whilst actually working for the BBC, but is otherwise free to say whatever they wish. It's only the direct employees, like Edwards, who would be restricted.
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. |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 06 Nov 21 4.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
With so many programmes being made these days by independent production companies, their employees, or any freelancers they use, are not going to be bound by the BBC's requirements. I guess though that the companies may well insert requirements into their own contracts, as without them, they run the risk of not getting the work. With the freelancers it must be a balancing act in which a presenter is obligated whilst actually working for the BBC, but is otherwise free to say whatever they wish. It's only the direct employees, like Edwards, who would be restricted. And isn't that just a bit weird. Get payed by the BBC and say what you want because they don't pay your tax.
|
|
| BlueJay UK 06 Nov 21 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Being well known and running your own twitter account is up there as a bad idea with not locking your door at night and forgetting to replace your bog roll.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.