This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
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! |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
| 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.
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
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.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| .TUX. |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Being objective cannot depend on where you stand politically by the very nature and definition of objectivity. You'll be here forever trying to convince him.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Being objective cannot depend on where you stand politically by the very nature and definition of objectivity. 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 |
|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
Here is a race baiting story from the BBC - quelle surprise. 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. 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 |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.