You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
November 1 2026 11.16pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Why is this a BBC top story? (LOCKED)


Page 69 of 91 < 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 >
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 16 Feb 20 1.24pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Has anyone made the point about the fact that the BBC came out with 'we pull the country together', in a surreal and untrue take on the license fee....literally a week or so after one of their main presenters (Kish Kumar) released a BS video on the BBC based on another BBC funded show saying that the 'British invented nothing and are awful'....which isn't true and is nonsensical and race baiting the core audience.

No Mr BBC chairman....You represent the Guardian's belief system....which is a minority outside of the middle classes..... and that mindset infects everything you put out.

The other month the BBC also...through their website literally had a video talking about the negative aspects of 'whiteness'.

The chairman of the BBC talks porkies.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Feb 2020 12.08pm)

And currently on the website they are promoting multiple lovers for women. As if they need encouragement. Distasteful or disgraceful - I don't think that helps anyone.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Stirlingsays Flag 16 Feb 20 1.37pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

And currently on the website they are promoting multiple lovers for women. As if they need encouragement. Distasteful or disgraceful - I don't think that helps anyone.

The time has come for the BBC to compete.....like the Guardian does and then it can really see how popular its takes are.

I'd like to pick and choose what I pay for.....Radio four and the world service.....Melvyn Bragg's 'In our Time'.

But why should I have to pay £150 odd quid for content, some of which I find objectionable and much of which is pretty low grade....though it's true that their nature progammes are well made....but they now come with political messaging.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 16 Feb 20 1.50pm

Originally posted by Badger11

If the BBC stopped wasting the public's money and focused on core responsibilities this problem would largely go away.

It has massively overreached itself whilst greedily sucking up the taxpayers money. 6000 people alone work in the news department they spend a fortune on a 24 hour news channel nobody watches 80 plus local radio stations that stifle competition against commercial and community radio stations. Another fortune on the BBC website that again is anti competitive and of course the hundreds of mandarins with ridiculous job titles and I haven't even mentioned the high salaries or gold plated pension scheme.

I admit I want the licence fee abolished but the BBC is not even trying to meet it's critics halfway. They could close a lot of the peripheral stuff and reduce the duplication of resources (multiple teams covering the same news story) halve the licence fee and still produce quality programming. Most people would probably be okay with that.

Some of us believe it is bias so we won't change our opinion but like Brexit there is an opportunity here to compromise with the majority if they dig their heels in this will go the way of Brexit and the government will get it's way.

The BBC has been warned but just like the Brexit elite they know best and no doubt that's what they will say when the turn the lights out.

I agree with quite a lot of this. I don't have any issue with the BBC withdrawing from much of it's peripheral broadcasting. I think it could drop ALL it's music stations without anyone being affected. Reducing the size of it's management makes sense too.

Concentrating on what it does best makes perfect sense and that includes it's news coverage, both home and abroad. Whether that needs 6000 people is a question I cannot possibly answer but keeping it as it is seems essential to me to provide us all with news from an objective viewpoint. As I often said I don't see any bias in the BBC. Only those with a strong leaning to either the left or right tend to see a bias and the left do every bit as much as those on here do.

So I hope that the licence fee model is retained in some way. I don't want to see the BBC's independence threatened in any way, either by government, commercial interests or worst of all by an owner with an agenda.

Everyone, whatever their political viewpoint, needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nothing lasts for ever and one day there will be a government you don't like who the BBC will be holding to account too.

 


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 Flag The garden of England 16 Feb 20 3.42pm

If the BBC hadnt taken the 40 pieces of silver the other year it would be semi state owned.
Oh the irony with boris now in power.
Would have been very interesting!

 

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Flag Stoke sub normal 16 Feb 20 10.51pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I agree with quite a lot of this. I don't have any issue with the BBC withdrawing from much of it's peripheral broadcasting. I think it could drop ALL it's music stations without anyone being affected. Reducing the size of it's management makes sense too.

Concentrating on what it does best makes perfect sense and that includes it's news coverage, both home and abroad. Whether that needs 6000 people is a question I cannot possibly answer but keeping it as it is seems essential to me to provide us all with news from an objective viewpoint. As I often said I don't see any bias in the BBC. Only those with a strong leaning to either the left or right tend to see a bias and the left do every bit as much as those on here do.

So I hope that the licence fee model is retained in some way. I don't want to see the BBC's independence threatened in any way, either by government, commercial interests or worst of all by an owner with an agenda.

Everyone, whatever their political viewpoint, needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nothing lasts for ever and one day there will be a government you don't like who the BBC will be holding to account too.

Dropping all music channels mustn't happen. Radio 1, fair enough, the (multiple) commercial stations cover that content. But there are not many alternative music stations. How would people get to discover Jazz, for example? Or folk music? Or Heavy Metal, Big Band, Classical, and etc. The BBC do a pretty decent job of airing a variety of different musical genres.

Out of interest, what's the difference between an owner with an agenda and a director with an agenda?

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (16 Feb 2020 10.52pm)

 


Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 16 Feb 20 11.20pm

[quote=Tim Gypsy Hill '64;3510810]

Dropping all music channels mustn't happen. Radio 1, fair enough, the (multiple) commercial stations cover that content. But there are not many alternative music stations. How would people get to discover Jazz, for example? Or folk music? Or Heavy Metal, Big Band, Classical, and etc. The BBC do a pretty decent job of airing a variety of different musical genres.

Out of interest, what's the difference between an owner with an agenda and a director with an agenda?

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (16 Feb 2020 10.52pm)

People who own media empires don't have our best interests at heart. At best they just seek to make money so bow to commercialism and populism. They will tell us what we want to hear and not what what we need to know. At worst they have a specific world view which gets promoted via their platforms.

We already have more than enough of them available and we don't want the BBC turning into another. We need it to retain it's independence and freedom to speak the truth to power, free of all outside interests. Everyone will disagree with some of it's journalism some of the time but I welcome the fact that they are free to report what they see in the way they see it.

 


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.

Stirlingsays Flag 16 Feb 20 11.47pm

The reason the BBC is going to fall is precisely because of people like WE.

The BBC isn't what he claims it is. It isn't objective and it isn't balanced.

Many of its ex employees make a mockery of what he says.

A form of much reduced and de-fanged BBC will be the end result before Boris leaves office.

But it doesn't really matter does it, the left destroyed a once loved institution, like they fecking destroy everything and now Boris is driving the train that's going to put it out of its current misery.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Feb 2020 11.48pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

W12 17 Feb 20 4.37am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The reason the BBC is going to fall is precisely because of people like WE.

The BBC isn't what he claims it is. It isn't objective and it isn't balanced.

Many of its ex employees make a mockery of what he says.

A form of much reduced and de-fanged BBC will be the end result before Boris leaves office.

But it doesn't really matter does it, the left destroyed a once loved institution, like they fecking destroy everything and now Boris is driving the train that's going to put it out of its current misery.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Feb 2020 11.48pm)

In some ways this government seems a little more red pilled than I had expected. We need a short and brutal march through the institutions to redress some balance and what better place to start than the BBC.

 

Stirlingsays Flag 17 Feb 20 5.27am

Originally posted by W12

In some ways this government seems a little more red pilled than I had expected. We need a short and brutal march through the institutions to redress some balance and what better place to start than the BBC.

Precisely.

We will see just how committed Johnson is to this over the next couple of years.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Badger11 Flag Beckenham 17 Feb 20 7.42am

[quote=Tim Gypsy Hill '64;3510810]

Dropping all music channels mustn't happen. Radio 1, fair enough, the (multiple) commercial stations cover that content. But there are not many alternative music stations. How would people get to discover Jazz, for example? Or folk music? Or Heavy Metal, Big Band, Classical, and etc. The BBC do a pretty decent job of airing a variety of different musical genres.

Out of interest, what's the difference between an owner with an agenda and a director with an agenda?

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (16 Feb 2020 10.52pm)

That is my point whether the BBC means to or maybe it just happens they have strangled niche radio stations. Commercial radio / local radio / community radio all rely on advertising but as they struggle to get decent audience figures they don't get it. There are some good examples Classic FM and Scala for instance.

I have no problem with the BBC having one alternate music station that covered multiple genre's but they need to withdraw from local radio or go commercial. John Gaunt presented a daytime show on Talksport he told the listeners he was paid double his current fee when he was a presenter on BBC local radio, that is how they strangle the competition.

Edited by Badger11 (17 Feb 2020 7.43am)

 


One more point

Badger11 Flag Beckenham 17 Feb 20 7.56am

Once again the BBC shows it's tolerance this time to a former player commentating on a game.

During the broadcast, Ramage, who the BBC confirmed would no longer work with the corporation, said: "When I look at certain players, their body language, their stance, the way they act, you just feel, hold on a minute, he needs pulling down a peg or two.

"So I'd probably say that about all the young black lads, all the young advice if they wanted it, that, you know, it's about, when you are struggling for form, you are going through a sticky patch, it's about going back to basics, working hard, and doing the right things."

[Link]

Ramage immediately apologised.

""Ramage's full apology said: "I wish to apologise unreservedly for a comment that I made after yesterday's game.

"What I said was wholly inappropriate and unintentional. Race is irrelevant to the issues that I was discussing and I deeply regret what I said. I sincerely hope that the players accept my apology.

"I would like to reiterate my heartfelt apology not only to the players but also the fans that have listened to me over the past seven years and also to those that followed me throughout my career.

"I would like to reinforce that this error in no way reflects my personal views.""

But apparently it is never enough to apologise so the BBC is happy to work with people who break the law e.g. convicted killers and drug offenders because they have done their time but one word out of place during a live broadcast and you are toast.

And if you read what Ramage said it is literally one word "black" I think most of us would agree with the rest of his comments that some young players regardless of race get big headed and forget the basics.

Still in BBC land tolerance never extends to racial slip of the tongues and apologies do not count.

Edited by Badger11 (17 Feb 2020 7.58am)

 


One more point

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Feb 20 10.37am

"The BBC isn't what he claims it is. It isn't objective and it isn't balanced"

As I have said many times what is objective and balanced always depends on where you stand politically.

Standing way out on the right ensures that your perception of where the balance point is won't be where others, with less extreme viewpoints, see it.

Standing on the far left produces exactly the same problem.

So such whilst such views cannot be ignored neither must they be allowed to determine how the BBC itself makes it's determinations. It must be allowed to do so free of political interference from any and all quarters.

People with strong political views, both from the left and the right, are never likely to be happy with the BBC and that's not just par for the course. It's probably also a good thing as it demands constant critical analysis and any necessary adjustments.

 


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.

ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 17 Feb 20 10.51am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

"The BBC isn't what he claims it is. It isn't objective and it isn't balanced"

As I have said many times what is objective and balanced always depends on where you stand politically.

Standing way out on the right ensures that your perception of where the balance point is won't be where others, with less extreme viewpoints, see it.

Standing on the far left produces exactly the same problem.

So such whilst such views cannot be ignored neither must they be allowed to determine how the BBC itself makes it's determinations. It must be allowed to do so free of political interference from any and all quarters.

People with strong political views, both from the left and the right, are never likely to be happy with the BBC and that's not just par for the course. It's probably also a good thing as it demands constant critical analysis and any necessary adjustments.

Being objective cannot depend on where you stand politically by the very nature and definition of objectivity.
Being balanced means, politically, you have to give equal time to all political opinions. Since the BBC demonises any right wing thinking, then it also clearly isn't balanced.

 


Red and Blue Army!

.TUX. Flag 17 Feb 20 11.16am

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Being objective cannot depend on where you stand politically by the very nature and definition of objectivity.
Being balanced means, politically, you have to give equal time to all political opinions. Since the BBC demonises any right wing thinking, then it also clearly isn't balanced.

You'll be here forever trying to convince him.

 


Buy Litecoin.

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Feb 20 11.25am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

"The BBC isn't what he claims it is. It isn't objective and it isn't balanced"

As I have said many times what is objective and balanced always depends on where you stand politically.

Standing way out on the right ensures that your perception of where the balance point is won't be where others, with less extreme viewpoints, see it.

Standing on the far left produces exactly the same problem.

So such whilst such views cannot be ignored neither must they be allowed to determine how the BBC itself makes it's determinations. It must be allowed to do so free of political interference from any and all quarters.

People with strong political views, both from the left and the right, are never likely to be happy with the BBC and that's not just par for the course. It's probably also a good thing as it demands constant critical analysis and any necessary adjustments.

The whole media is infested with 'progressives' and Lefties. How blind must you be if you fail to see that?

Saying that it depends on your point of view is a disingenuous argument.
Why don't you back it up with some examples?

 

Badger11 Flag Beckenham 17 Feb 20 12.03pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Being objective cannot depend on where you stand politically by the very nature and definition of objectivity.
Being balanced means, politically, you have to give equal time to all political opinions. Since the BBC demonises any right wing thinking, then it also clearly isn't balanced.

If the BBC is so unbiased why is it that the left defend it to the hilt whilst the right complain of bias. That suggests that this is some form of bias.

 


One more point

ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 17 Feb 20 5.58pm

Here is a race baiting story from the BBC - quelle surprise.

[Link]

A student visa became life. And on return 'home' to Africa the street food made it all worthwhile. When sick they considered getting free treatment in the UK - like many others apparently. And considered getting free Western education for all the children. Luckily Africa was miles better - as we all know Sierra Leone is a lovely, street food vibe, kind of hipster place the BBC would love.
I guess any asylum seekers from there should also be considered illegal and immediately deported, as apparently, everyone is celebrating local culture and having a great time. All from this fact based and objective article, with no agenda whatsoever.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Badger11 Flag Beckenham 18 Feb 20 8.06am

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Here is a race baiting story from the BBC - quelle surprise.

[Link]

A student visa became life. And on return 'home' to Africa the street food made it all worthwhile. When sick they considered getting free treatment in the UK - like many others apparently. And considered getting free Western education for all the children. Luckily Africa was miles better - as we all know Sierra Leone is a lovely, street food vibe, kind of hipster place the BBC would love.
I guess any asylum seekers from there should also be considered illegal and immediately deported, as apparently, everyone is celebrating local culture and having a great time. All from this fact based and objective article, with no agenda whatsoever.

Hey don't knock it I hear that many African countries are on the brink of becoming Wakanda so good luck to them and no need to leave of course, I mean why would you leave paradise.

 


One more point

W12 18 Feb 20 9.34am

I'm now strongly of the opinion that many advocates of "free speech" in the public sphere are getting in the way or worse. Podcasts like "Spiked", "Triggernometry" and "London Calling" with their catchy theme tunes and never ending discussions of "woke" culture like at the BBC simply do not accurately represent the dark path our society has taken and the threat we are currently facing. This culture has already produced a huge number of real victims and you won't find them discussing things like the rape gangs or drawing a red line between the huge increase in volient crime and mass immigration or highlighting the issue of demographic change etc.

 

Badger11 Flag Beckenham 18 Feb 20 9.49am

Reports today that Boris is at odds with Cummings as apparently he is not as keen as Dominic in crushing the BBC.

This smacks to me of good cop bad cop. I think this is all leading up the the decriminalisation of non payment of the licence fee which will inevitably lead to a fall in revenue for the BBC so they will have to make cuts.

If the BBC has any common sense they will accept this, if they continue down their path of splurging the taxpayers money and perceived bias then they will end up losing the licence fee. They shopuld also swallow the over 75's costs this has not started yet and if pensioners have one thing that is time on their hands.

I suspect you will see a very polite but vociferous non co operation campaign starting this summer with people like Helen Mirren refusing to pay.

Edited by Badger11 (18 Feb 2020 9.51am)

 


One more point

Page 69 of 91 < 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic