Who's it fooling though?

It's been easy to see that the Mail and Express are essentially whatever that era of Tory party thinks.....They skipped to social liberal without missing a beat in time with the Tories themselves.

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

...Or Ch4 or any other broadcaster.

There are many reasons to attack the BBC - principal among them being the unique public funding of a diminishing and increasingly irrelevant entity - but most of the frothing twaddle I read on here is the ranting from the right wing press about what is more likely than not Equality Act compliance.

Last night I started watching This Town and think it is pretty good. The BBC still has something to offer, even though most of its drama output has become an irritating exercise in inclusivity. Let it get bought out by one of the US giants and allow it to flourish in Streaming Land (e.g. Doctor Who now co-owned by Disney).

Just please revoke the regulation that tied it to the Equality Act (an imported EU law) and please leave us R3, R4, 6Music and (above all) the World Service. All their other channels are either not listened to or can be replicated in the commercial world (R2 for instance is still hugely popular and would do fine with ad breaks).

I am positive the public would happily fund that limited output given we are talking £buttons in the scheme of things. It is too important an aspect of this country's culture to just dump.

Just because if someone else was asked to write an article on the same subject doesn’t mean the BBC’s is “skewed”!

This is the problem with these constant attacks on the BBC. They come from a different perspective. One which itself has a strong bias. The BBC is charged to look at things from a neutral viewpoint and its output is always going to be at odds with those whose are either on the left or the right.

We can all disagree with what any writer says, decides is relevant or more or less important. They are also constrained by the space allocated to them, rewriting by sub editors and editors and the lawyer’s pen.

So whilst others may consider that benefit fraud should have been at the heart of the article, whoever wrote this decided this piece would not include it. Not because of any inconvenience. Just a different approach.

Benefit fraud is a big and important subject that deserves, and gets, discussed. In my own opinion not nearly enough though. I believe it’s a terrible blight on modern society that needs strong attention. That though doesn’t mean I think the BBC’s article on the level of sickness should be attacked. I think it’s their article and a useful contribution to the national debate.

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.

Didn't Martin Bashir have a good run too, after the critisim of the 'Diana' interview?

A great way to get 'retired' on medical grounds without losing that gold plated pension we all contribute to.

Edited by becky (21 Apr 2024 8.22am)

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

The article clearly stated in the headline why are more being get sick, it is reasonable to mention that some aren't and that the government is doing a poor job of weeding them out. Not to mention this as a factor is to ignore the obvious.

One more point

Great defence. Someone else might have done something differently.
Edward Marshall Hall would've been proud of that one.