FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > BBC and the licence fee
BBC and the licence fee
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters." Biased which way ? | |||
| |||
 | |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters. Biased which way ?" I'll give you a specific example: everytime the honours are announced the BBC news always say which MP has been given a knighthood and that their awards are statistically fewer, no mention of why they got a knighthood or why it wasn't "just" an OBE. | |||
| |||
"I have absolutely no idea why me and my hubby pay for it, we don’t watch any tv at all" If you're being literal then you don't need to. | |||
| |||
"I have absolutely no idea why me and my hubby pay for it, we don’t watch any tv at all If you're being literal then you don't need to." Anything we watch is on catchup on the Xbox. We have a BT TV box and I can’t remember the last time we actually used it Just never thought about it | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"BBC! I thought this post was gonna be way more interesting "Plenty of those threads elsewhere !  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I haven't watched a BBC channel by choice in a long time. Nothing against them but there are far better alternatives i.e. Netflix and Amazon Prime. C" Just on a tangent how do you get abs like that ? | |||
"For me and most people its got nothing to do with good value for money, political biased, Its being forced to pay for it" 
Scrap it. | |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters. Biased which way ?" I'm pretty sure there was research done that showed it was always biased towards the government of the day. So it depends on who's in power | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Firstly the TV licence fee is to watch all terrestrial live to air television not just the BBC. Of course the proceeds fund the BBC to avoid advertising. Many people don't realise Channel 4 is actually publicly owned like the BBC but funded by advertising. If you don't want to pay the fee don't but do not watch live to air TV. My big objection to both is their huge political bias to the left when they should be politically neutral. They are both fervently anti Brexit when they should just report events. For this reason while l do pay the fee l think it stinks." The presenters always seem like they have an agenda, instead of just reporting the facts. | |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters. Biased which way ? I'm pretty sure there was research done that showed it was always biased towards the government of the day. So it depends on who's in power" I always thought it was left wing. | |||
| |||
"BBC news is the most unbiased, and most factual in my opinion. Have you ever tried watching sky news or fox??? ITV is just too tabloid for my liking as well, everything is a disaster, going to kill us. Everything is sponsored by something. I wouldn't be surprised if when the time comes the death of the Queen would come to us "Sponsored by over 50s funeral plans". Typed while watching BBC news." Or Channel 4, watch Cathy Newman’s interview with Jordan Peterson, pretty embarrassing for her. | |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters. Biased which way ? I'm pretty sure there was research done that showed it was always biased towards the government of the day. So it depends on who's in power I always thought it was left wing." Thats the constant shout from the right. There have been a couple of studies into bias at the BBC that I know about, the first was done by one of the right wing think tanks and hardly suprisingly used a methodology that guaranteed that they found the BBC to be left wing leaning. The other study was funded by the BBC and only looked at news coverage, it was performed by one of the universities and based its findings on how much airtime representative and supporters of the different parties got. In this study the Conservatives got considerably more airtime but this was suggested to be consistent with the additional ammount of airtime Labour got when they formed the government. So yes basically the BBC give a biased amount of airtime to the party of government, who control the funding of the BBC. This is however, probably true of virtually all state broadcasters towards their own governments as generally governments have more issues to discuss/be challenged over. | |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters. Biased which way ? I'm pretty sure there was research done that showed it was always biased towards the government of the day. So it depends on who's in power I always thought it was left wing. Thats the constant shout from the right. There have been a couple of studies into bias at the BBC that I know about, the first was done by one of the right wing think tanks and hardly suprisingly used a methodology that guaranteed that they found the BBC to be left wing leaning. The other study was funded by the BBC and only looked at news coverage, it was performed by one of the universities and based its findings on how much airtime representative and supporters of the different parties got. In this study the Conservatives got considerably more airtime but this was suggested to be consistent with the additional ammount of airtime Labour got when they formed the government. So yes basically the BBC give a biased amount of airtime to the party of government, who control the funding of the BBC. This is however, probably true of virtually all state broadcasters towards their own governments as generally governments have more issues to discuss/be challenged over." I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. " That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. | |||
"Why wouldn't a news channel / provider give more coverage to the government? They are the ones in power, changing and doing things that affect people. Personally I want to know what the government is doing. Not a lot of point of reporting on the "opposition" whose job is to oppose everything the government suggest. There doesn't seem to be any bias when they report the misadventures of the members of either side. Happy to pay 41p per day for news. Then you get Blue Planet as well. Blue Planet? " Blue Planet and 6 Music is all I really use it for. I have to pay for Eastenders, that I have never watched in my life and Strictly, which is just a self congratulatory back patting exercise that goes on for weeks and weeks. | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports." I don’t have political leanings. I seek the truth with facts in a sea of misinformation, then make an informed decision based on clear thinking and logic. I’m not guided by what’s classed as right or left wing. | |||
| |||
"Got to admit watch a bit of Strictly, but not a die hard fan. Repair shop on bbc2 have watched a couple of times. Real marigold hotel. Doctor Who Have Radio2 on in the car constantly. Still pretty good value for 41p a day." I'm guessing, Graham Norton is on £15m a year. That's not good value | |||
"Got to admit watch a bit of Strictly, but not a die hard fan. Repair shop on bbc2 have watched a couple of times. Real marigold hotel. Doctor Who Have Radio2 on in the car constantly. Still pretty good value for 41p a day. I'm guessing, Graham Norton is on £15m a year. That's not good value" Well if you're paying the £15m then possibly not. But I do enjoy his chat show as well. | |||
| |||
"Got to admit watch a bit of Strictly, but not a die hard fan. Repair shop on bbc2 have watched a couple of times. Real marigold hotel. Doctor Who Have Radio2 on in the car constantly. Still pretty good value for 41p a day. I'm guessing, Graham Norton is on £15m a year. That's not good value Well if you're paying the £15m then possibly not. But I do enjoy his chat show as well." From what I gather a lot of presenters are on hefty contracts. OTT in my opinion. However, put everything together on all channels and radio and it's a bargain. I love what they give us online in sport | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Has the BBC and the licence fee become increasingly more obsolete with the advent of digital technology or is it the last bastion away from advertisers and biased opinion ?! Would you want to see the licence fee scrapped or are you happy to leave things the way they are ? Is the BBC good value for money, or is it a drain of your resources. Is there a BBC bias or do you think they manage to stay neutral ? " Part of me what's to say scrap the BBC with their left wing bias. Who else write articles about the nice side of Stalin and how fucking great that shit hole Cuba is. On the other hand, when you look at entirely privatised news in America, well I don't want that either. So keep the BBC but staff if with a few less soya guzzling beta males. | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports." No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. | |||
| |||
"Advertisers pay a premium for slots in and around the most popular programmes. This makes these programmes more lucrative to advertisers and increases revenue for the commercial stations. This can only contribute to the increasing lack of diversity and 'dumbing down' prevalent in commercial stations. I seem to remember that in an hour's viewing on ITV there would only be two reasonably short commercial breaks within a programme. Now it seems there are more and of longer duration. Are we going to reach a point where more air time is given over to advertising than the actual programmes themselves? I don't see the licence fee as being any different to any other monthly subscription to providers such as Netflix (which i also like) and most people are happy to pay." dont watch the tv live, just record the shows you like, and skip all breaks, i havent watched a advert in years | |||
"Advertisers pay a premium for slots in and around the most popular programmes. This makes these programmes more lucrative to advertisers and increases revenue for the commercial stations. This can only contribute to the increasing lack of diversity and 'dumbing down' prevalent in commercial stations. I seem to remember that in an hour's viewing on ITV there would only be two reasonably short commercial breaks within a programme. Now it seems there are more and of longer duration. Are we going to reach a point where more air time is given over to advertising than the actual programmes themselves? I don't see the licence fee as being any different to any other monthly subscription to providers such as Netflix (which i also like) and most people are happy to pay. dont watch the tv live, just record the shows you like, and skip all breaks, i havent watched a advert in years" TV's are meant to be smart these days. What surprises me is that no-one's come up with a device that enables you to avoid this drivel. I would have thought by now that someone would have invented something that automatically switches a television over to a 'screen saver' of the viewer's choice (a scene of paint drying would be infinitely preferable) at the beginning of a commercial break and then switches it back again at the end. Something i should patent perhaps. | |||
| |||
"After the shower of shite available to watch on the telly box today, i am all for scrapping it.. " | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. " Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. | |||
"The fee is reasonable but without doubt they are biased towards their political masters. Biased which way ? I'm pretty sure there was research done that showed it was always biased towards the government of the day. So it depends on who's in power" Which is strange, because I remember the BBC being broadly critical of the Labour government over Iraq. (The Hutton Enquiry?). And I’m sure many would argue that they are broadly critical of the current government over the whole Brexit shambles. | |||
"Got to admit watch a bit of Strictly, but not a die hard fan. Repair shop on bbc2 have watched a couple of times. Real marigold hotel. Doctor Who Have Radio2 on in the car constantly. Still pretty good value for 41p a day. I'm guessing, Graham Norton is on £15m a year. That's not good value" Amazingly he isn’t paid anywhere near what people “guess” on the internet. Apparently he’s on £850-900k. Which is still a lot, but then like it or not the BBC operates in an industry where salaries are increased mainly by the private sector. He could earn a lot more on ITV or Sky. And yes, I know we don’t have to pay for ITV or Sky (although where do you think ad revenue ultimately comes from?), but if the BBC wants to attract top talent it isn’t going to come cheap. | |||
| |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder." Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. " It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"T.V licence.. People still actually pay for one? Wow.. That must mean people still suck up and bow down to the goons from capita. What you need to remember is this: Televisions recieve signals, they do not transmit them. All the years you were told and threatened by adverts ( BBC info films actually) saying detector vans would find you and you'd be prosecuted, was absolute bullshite. The vans were simply full of capita (as called now) who would go door knocking and try and intimidate you into buying a a licence or using threatening tactics to get you go sign a document admitting you didn't have one, then using your signature to prosecute you ( your signature tacitly giving them your consent to joinder, this admitting liability and liable for a fine). Unless you watch 'live' T.V, then you do NOT need a licence. The licence is used to fund the BBC which has been proven to provide false flag news (broadcasting the collapse of Tower 7 (9/11), 25 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed and the live news feed being hurriedly taken off air. Proven to have harboured and still does, child abusers and paedophiles, and also broadcast government controlled mis-information they call 'news'. Call T.V licensing (record the call and tell them you are doing so), do NOT give your name as you're under no obligation to do so.. Tell them you no longer require a T.V licence at your address as you do not watch any television in any capacity that conflicts with the requirements of their licence. They'll refund any money you may have already paid for unused portion of the licence and will send you a letter after 2 years asking if your circumstances have changed. This is so they can keep tabs in case you move property and someone else moves in, then they can hound the new tenants for money for a licence to fund political, moral and ethical corruption. Tell them that you also give notice that from this moment forward and in perpetuity, that you have removed all implied right of access to your property from capita and all of its associated third party representatives and associates. Hang up. Do not engage in further conversation. It's very simple and the £150.00 a year (or whatever is) licence fee, can then be used to buy naughty outfits, sex toys or club membership to enjoy and enhance the swinging lifestyle. Remember.. Carrying a gun is illegal.. Unless you pay a fee to the government then it becomes legal. Driving a car is illegal, unless you pay a fee to the government then it becomes legal. Amazing isn't it how everything requires payment to make it allowed? One day, hopefully, the 'stock'.. That's the term the government use to call us, the people.. will wake up, smell the coffee and a revolution shall begin! " Do you own a tin foil hat by any chance | |||
"T.V licence.. People still actually pay for one? Wow.. That must mean people still suck up and bow down to the goons from capita. What you need to remember is this: Televisions recieve signals, they do not transmit them. All the years you were told and threatened by adverts ( BBC info films actually) saying detector vans would find you and you'd be prosecuted, was absolute bullshite. The vans were simply full of capita (as called now) who would go door knocking and try and intimidate you into buying a a licence or using threatening tactics to get you go sign a document admitting you didn't have one, then using your signature to prosecute you ( your signature tacitly giving them your consent to joinder, this admitting liability and liable for a fine). Unless you watch 'live' T.V, then you do NOT need a licence. The licence is used to fund the BBC which has been proven to provide false flag news (broadcasting the collapse of Tower 7 (9/11), 25 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed and the live news feed being hurriedly taken off air. Proven to have harboured and still does, child abusers and paedophiles, and also broadcast government controlled mis-information they call 'news'. Call T.V licensing (record the call and tell them you are doing so), do NOT give your name as you're under no obligation to do so.. Tell them you no longer require a T.V licence at your address as you do not watch any television in any capacity that conflicts with the requirements of their licence. They'll refund any money you may have already paid for unused portion of the licence and will send you a letter after 2 years asking if your circumstances have changed. This is so they can keep tabs in case you move property and someone else moves in, then they can hound the new tenants for money for a licence to fund political, moral and ethical corruption. Tell them that you also give notice that from this moment forward and in perpetuity, that you have removed all implied right of access to your property from capita and all of its associated third party representatives and associates. Hang up. Do not engage in further conversation. It's very simple and the £150.00 a year (or whatever is) licence fee, can then be used to buy naughty outfits, sex toys or club membership to enjoy and enhance the swinging lifestyle. Remember.. Carrying a gun is illegal.. Unless you pay a fee to the government then it becomes legal. Driving a car is illegal, unless you pay a fee to the government then it becomes legal. Amazing isn't it how everything requires payment to make it allowed? One day, hopefully, the 'stock'.. That's the term the government use to call us, the people.. will wake up, smell the coffee and a revolution shall begin! Do you own a tin foil hat by any chance" Not at all. I just enjoy my life by not allowing myself to be exploited. Try it. Knowledge of the law and legislation works wonders in our favour. 
Ignorance of law is not a defence in law, so knowing it makes us less susceptible to being exploited, like so many others are who don't educate themselves.
Do you read and watch MSM by any chance?  | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me." Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. " I have long held the opinion that ITV news is levelled at those who struggle to read the Sun. GMTV (or whatever it is called now) is even worse. | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. " Are you saying here that any criticism of the BBC for giving the likes of Nigel Farage a disproportionate amount of airtime doesn’t count because anyone making that criticism is an idiot? | |||
| |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. " that's incredible! | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. Are you saying here that any criticism of the BBC for giving the likes of Nigel Farage a disproportionate amount of airtime doesn’t count because anyone making that criticism is an idiot? " I'm saying that any reasonably intelligent person can see that given the number of people who voted to leave the EU, Nigel farage is far more news worthy than the green party or veganism. | |||
| |||
"Got to admit watch a bit of Strictly, but not a die hard fan. Repair shop on bbc2 have watched a couple of times. Real marigold hotel. Doctor Who Have Radio2 on in the car constantly. Still pretty good value for 41p a day. I'm guessing, Graham Norton is on £15m a year. That's not good value Amazingly he isn’t paid anywhere near what people “guess” on the internet. Apparently he’s on £850-900k. Which is still a lot, but then like it or not the BBC operates in an industry where salaries are increased mainly by the private sector. He could earn a lot more on ITV or Sky. And yes, I know we don’t have to pay for ITV or Sky (although where do you think ad revenue ultimately comes from?), but if the BBC wants to attract top talent it isn’t going to come cheap." Ah the old "you have to pay to attract the talent" ... have never bought that... scenario. For arguements sake lets say the pay ceiling at the BBC was set at no more than the Prime Minister earns. So Gary Linekers £1.8 million a year and Nortons several hundred thousand is slashed along wih several hundred other employees. So they all decide to seek pastures new for their "talent" The jobs market in the media sector is not finite there are only so many and if there is a sudden glut of so called "talent" then the pay structure will adjust downwards to accomodate. The BBC then employ new talent. Once that talent becomes "talent" and their ego rises they can then move on fresh blood moves in, the "talent" market becomes ever increasingly saturated so they have to undercut each other to get a job. The BBC does not need to compete because its subsidised by a tax so therefore it does not need to pay a ridiculous pay structure. | |||
" The presenters always seem like they have an agenda, instead of just reporting the facts. " They also have huge ego's, its all about promoting themselves and upping their celebrity status. | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. Are you saying here that any criticism of the BBC for giving the likes of Nigel Farage a disproportionate amount of airtime doesn’t count because anyone making that criticism is an idiot? I'm saying that any reasonably intelligent person can see that given the number of people who voted to leave the EU, Nigel farage is far more news worthy than the green party or veganism. " Close, but no cigar. So Farage warranted as much airtime as he got because large numbers of people voted to leave the EU, and his party’s stance was leaving the EU... But neither Natalie Bennet or Caroline Lucas (the later even being an elected MP) warranted a fraction of that airtime even though similarly large numbers of people voted to remain in the EU, and their party’s stance was staying in the EU. That does sound a little like a double standard to me. | |||
"Got to admit watch a bit of Strictly, but not a die hard fan. Repair shop on bbc2 have watched a couple of times. Real marigold hotel. Doctor Who Have Radio2 on in the car constantly. Still pretty good value for 41p a day. I'm guessing, Graham Norton is on £15m a year. That's not good value Amazingly he isn’t paid anywhere near what people “guess” on the internet. Apparently he’s on £850-900k. Which is still a lot, but then like it or not the BBC operates in an industry where salaries are increased mainly by the private sector. He could earn a lot more on ITV or Sky. And yes, I know we don’t have to pay for ITV or Sky (although where do you think ad revenue ultimately comes from?), but if the BBC wants to attract top talent it isn’t going to come cheap. Ah the old "you have to pay to attract the talent" ... have never bought that... scenario. For arguements sake lets say the pay ceiling at the BBC was set at no more than the Prime Minister earns. So Gary Linekers £1.8 million a year and Nortons several hundred thousand is slashed along wih several hundred other employees. So they all decide to seek pastures new for their "talent" The jobs market in the media sector is not finite there are only so many and if there is a sudden glut of so called "talent" then the pay structure will adjust downwards to accomodate. The BBC then employ new talent. Once that talent becomes "talent" and their ego rises they can then move on fresh blood moves in, the "talent" market becomes ever increasingly saturated so they have to undercut each other to get a job. The BBC does not need to compete because its subsidised by a tax so therefore it does not need to pay a ridiculous pay structure." I’m going to stop you at “For arguements sake lets say the pay ceiling at the BBC was set at no more than the Prime Minister earns.”. Why on earth would you do that? What the PM earns is completely irrelevant. I’m not convinced it would work out like that. And I’m not convinced the licence fee being used to effectively bear the brunt of blooding talent that then moves into the commercial sector is that great a use of it. | |||
"Interesting some think that the BBC will blindly peddle the 'brief of the day' from their Government 'masters'. These folks may need to read what the likes of Laura Kuenssberg and John Pienaar are saying every day in their roles as correspondents. Take 10 and view the BBC News website and count the number of (to me endless amount of) negative stories on Brexit and how they always put them out to their 'HYS' forum. Positive news is buried the Business section somewhere. The BBC is a publicly funded body so therefore it should not have an 'Editorial Policy' let alone party political bias. The Guardian, Express, Star etc can do as they please as they are private businesses and people can choose not to buy the paper. The BBC has a unique and overly powerful position in the British Media and blatantly abuses it. the Licence fee methodology is a system well beyond its sell by date. It worked when there was no ITV or there were only 3 channels. Not now." But in this example, surely the BBC only reports more negative stories about Brexit, because Bexit actually is an absolute shambles and good Brexit news is virtually non existent? | |||
" I’m going to stop you at “For arguements sake lets say the pay ceiling at the BBC was set at no more than the Prime Minister earns.”. Why on earth would you do that? What the PM earns is completely irrelevant. " Th PM is paid by the public, all at the BBC are paid by the public. The PM job is the top public paid job so no other public paid job should pay more. Its a simple benchmark. | |||
" I’m going to stop you at “For arguements sake lets say the pay ceiling at the BBC was set at no more than the Prime Minister earns.”. Why on earth would you do that? What the PM earns is completely irrelevant. Th PM is paid by the public, all at the BBC are paid by the public. The PM job is the top public paid job so no other public paid job should pay more. Its a simple benchmark." It’s not that simple though, because unlike any other industry that is made up of a private and public sector, the PM’s salary is almost unique in that it isn’t based on its position. So the PM job isn’t the top public paid job. It would be nice to think that the BBC could base salaries on the PM’s but it can’t because it has to compete with the commercial sector. As it is, the BBC pays considerably less than its commercial equivalents, but it still has to pay reasonably well, rather than being capped at some arbitrary figure like the PMs salary. | |||
"But in this example, surely the BBC only reports more negative stories about Brexit, because Bexit actually is an absolute shambles and good Brexit news is virtually non existent? " I made a much wider point than just Brexit but you just proved my point. Whether Brexit the action is a shambles or not or whether its the negotiations or not or whether .. blah blah etc is purely a matter of opinion. And opinion driven by political gain is why the BBC has taken sides. When it should not do so. And a shambles? Well there are two people in the negotiations - The EU and the UK and who laid out the programme for it? the EU Given the majority of the UK electorate voted for it across the political divides then the BBC should, if anything, be supporting it. For the record there are many positives while none of the forecast Armageddon has materialised despite the best efforts of 'experts' and Project Fear led by the likes of the BBC. I am OK with the Guardian being anti- Brexit as its their choice but the BBC is NOT a private organisation and so should be apolitical and neutral at all times. IMHO. | |||
"But in this example, surely the BBC only reports more negative stories about Brexit, because Bexit actually is an absolute shambles and good Brexit news is virtually non existent? I made a much wider point than just Brexit but you just proved my point. Whether Brexit the action is a shambles or not or whether its the negotiations or not or whether .. blah blah etc is purely a matter of opinion. And opinion driven by political gain is why the BBC has taken sides. When it should not do so. And a shambles? Well there are two people in the negotiations - The EU and the UK and who laid out the programme for it? the EU Given the majority of the UK electorate voted for it across the political divides then the BBC should, if anything, be supporting it. For the record there are many positives while none of the forecast Armageddon has materialised despite the best efforts of 'experts' and Project Fear led by the likes of the BBC. I am OK with the Guardian being anti- Brexit as its their choice but the BBC is NOT a private organisation and so should be apolitical and neutral at all times. IMHO." It’s not really an equal opinion though. The overwhelming expert consensus really is that we’ll be worse off after Brexit. Most objective Brexit related news really is negative. It’s also the opinion of some that the Earth is flat. It doesn’t mean that flat earthers should get equal airtime. The majority of the U.K. electorate did not vote to leave. The BBC should neither be supporting it or not supporting it, it should be reporting on it with as nuetral a stance as possible. If you are saying there are many positives, I’d be interested to hear what they are. I’m not sure Armageddon was predicted, but either way, you know we haven’t actually left the EU yet? | |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. Are you saying here that any criticism of the BBC for giving the likes of Nigel Farage a disproportionate amount of airtime doesn’t count because anyone making that criticism is an idiot? I'm saying that any reasonably intelligent person can see that given the number of people who voted to leave the EU, Nigel farage is far more news worthy than the green party or veganism. Close, but no cigar. So Farage warranted as much airtime as he got because large numbers of people voted to leave the EU, and his party’s stance was leaving the EU... But neither Natalie Bennet or Caroline Lucas (the later even being an elected MP) warranted a fraction of that airtime even though similarly large numbers of people voted to remain in the EU, and their party’s stance was staying in the EU. That does sound a little like a double standard to me." It's intellectually dishonest for you to compare the influence farage had on the leave campaign (large) with the influence the green party had on remain (fuck all). In doing so, you make my point for me. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I’d say most of there presenters swing to the left, that’s the impression I get. That probably says more about your political leaning. It seems most people tend to generally perceive TV broadcasters as being biased against the party the viewer supports. No it's a statistical fact that emerges from the BBC having to give "balanced" coverage, which essentially means giving coverage to things that most people don't give two shits about. These are overwhelmingly left wing parties like the greens and left wing issues like veganism. Which is strange, because I thought they get criticised a lot for giving disproportionate coverage to the right, as evidenced by all those appearances of Nigel Farage on political shows. It’s almost as though bias is in the eye of the beholder. Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. It doesn’t really matter who makes that criticism. The point is that it is made. If the BBC is accused of bias from all sides, it’s difficult to argue that it really has a particular bias one way or the other. Most people claiming bias tend to actually just mean something they happen to disagree with. And your comment about Marx on repeat sounds like a strawman to me. Of course it matters, the opinions of idiots don't get the same credibility as intelligent people. Are you saying here that any criticism of the BBC for giving the likes of Nigel Farage a disproportionate amount of airtime doesn’t count because anyone making that criticism is an idiot? I'm saying that any reasonably intelligent person can see that given the number of people who voted to leave the EU, Nigel farage is far more news worthy than the green party or veganism. Close, but no cigar. So Farage warranted as much airtime as he got because large numbers of people voted to leave the EU, and his party’s stance was leaving the EU... But neither Natalie Bennet or Caroline Lucas (the later even being an elected MP) warranted a fraction of that airtime even though similarly large numbers of people voted to remain in the EU, and their party’s stance was staying in the EU. That does sound a little like a double standard to me. It's intellectually dishonest for you to compare the influence farage had on the leave campaign (large) with the influence the green party had on remain (fuck all). In doing so, you make my point for me. " It’s not the BBC’s job to give airtime proportional to the influence someone has in something. It also seems likely that there was a correlation between his influence and the airtime he received. | |||
"is enforced by fear and oppression should be scrapped , most money goes to old boys club to squander , I wonder if it is possible to get tv that will not can not get their signal , that would stuff them !" I must admit I didn’t realise that most of the money goes to the old boys club and is squandered. I know some people like to think it’s by fear and oppression, but back in the real world most people don’t actually think it’s that big a deal. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Who the fuck watches TV? " You want names ? | |||
| |||
"is enforced by fear and oppression should be scrapped , most money goes to old boys club to squander , I wonder if it is possible to get tv that will not can not get their signal , that would stuff them !" Quite simple, buy a large computer monitor that does not have a tv tuner in it. And don't watch broadcast TV. Then you don't need a license. | |||
"By _entish79Find posts by _entish79 Man 5 minutes ago Glasgow "is enforced by fear and oppression I must admit I didn’t realise that most of the money goes to the old boys club and is squandered. I know some people like to think it’s by fear and oppression, but back in the real world most people don’t actually think it’s that big a deal. TOTAL rubbish so can you name any other business that has special days put aside at court to fine people who often can not afford the fees , who can knock on doors and intimidate people into signing documents to prosecute themselves , who do not even do their job in reporting in a balanced manner as contracted to , and send demanding letters with menaces Think that Scottish air has affected your judgment m8" Try any car park operator. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 " That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! | |||
| |||
"By _entish79Find posts by _entish79 Man 5 minutes ago Glasgow "is enforced by fear and oppression I must admit I didn’t realise that most of the money goes to the old boys club and is squandered. I know some people like to think it’s by fear and oppression, but back in the real world most people don’t actually think it’s that big a deal. TOTAL rubbish so can you name any other business that has special days put aside at court to fine people who often can not afford the fees , who can knock on doors and intimidate people into signing documents to prosecute themselves , who do not even do their job in reporting in a balanced manner as contracted to , and send demanding letters with menaces Think that Scottish air has affected your judgment m8" I said most people. If there have been extreme cases where tv licensing staff have acted badly, it almost certainly isn’t the norm that they are intimidating people into signing documents to prosecute themselves. The fact is that a lot of people just evade and get found out. Again, not everyone who doesn’t have a licence, but a lot of people. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! " They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest." The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going | |||
" Criticised by who? The people that are angry Marx isn't being braodcast on repeat. The BBC is like all government departments, mainly staffed by left wingers. " It's a bloody revolving door to the Tory party! | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going " You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. | |||
"I haven’t watched anything on BBC for a long time now. they don’t really do any shows that appeal to me. " Exactly, you're pretty much guaranteed they can't shoe anything funny since anything more edgy than a knock knock jokes will offend someone. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does." You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
| |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
"Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.” | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”"I will, sheeple are easy to ignore | |||
"Has the BBC and the licence fee become increasingly more obsolete with the advent of digital technology or is it the last bastion away from advertisers and biased opinion ?! Would you want to see the licence fee scrapped or are you happy to leave things the way they are ? Is the BBC good value for money, or is it a drain of your resources. Is there a BBC bias or do you think they manage to stay neutral ? " I haven't watched the BBC for about 5 years now. I rarely watch any tv as more into films. So not sure what i'm paying for | |||
| |||
" Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”" When was the time that wealth wasn't concentrated and the median person had a better standard of living then now? | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”"What are sheeple? | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”
What are sheeple?"Personally I'd say you are, but it's one of those terms where everyone thinks someone else is it and nobody self identifies with it. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”
What are sheeple?
Personally I'd say you are, but it's one of those terms where everyone thinks someone else is it and nobody self identifies with it. "Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”
What are sheeple?
Personally I'd say you are, but it's one of those terms where everyone thinks someone else is it and nobody self identifies with it.
Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? "Think it was on his word of the day toilet roll. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”
What are sheeple?
Personally I'd say you are, but it's one of those terms where everyone thinks someone else is it and nobody self identifies with it.
Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? "People that go along with propaganda basically | |||
"I don’t watch live tv so don’t have to pay for a tv license " Not true now I believe. There was a loop hole which allowed that but I’m sure they plugged it recently to include catch up TV as well as live. But it would be so much better value if the presenters weren’t paid as much. People like Norton and Linekar get far to much for what they do. | |||
"If you watch or record any live TV you'd still have to pay regardless of the channel. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 That's just like that to protect their guaranteed income They squander the lot on producing shite, "celebrities" wages and the hundreds of people on the gravy train. Scrap it and see how long they last! They squander “the lot” on “shite”? Sorry, but it’s difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks everything on the BBC is “shite”. What sort of stuff do you enjoy on other channels? And I’d be interested in hearing about this gravy train thing? It sounds like some nonsense soundbite from the Daily Mail to be honest. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17 of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC's total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017 Do you actually think its value for money? Biggest con going You’re asking me about value for money, but all you have done is quote a single figure without any context. But if you add some context about how much it’s used by how many people, then if it only works out at an average around 15p per person per hour of use, then yeah - I would say that was pretty decent value for money. Or compare it to the total income of commercial television, and how much that is watched I’d say it was pretty decent value for money. Heck, the combined budgets of Netflix and Amazon Prime is approaching $14bn, and doesn’t provide as wide a range of content as the BBC does. You carry on paying my friend - it's very easy to "opt out" I'm not being forced and or threatened by any organisation to pay them whether I use their "service" or not Then the rules got changed to "any live programme" as droves and droves of people opted out. So opt out again with a slightly different worded letter I don't watch live TV, they know I don't so they leave me alone - ha ha detector vans, what a bloody joke What they mean is a detector man from capita (the debt collection company) that looks through your front window and "catches you" a bit difficult when you live on the 3rd floor! Anyway, if it's all so good, brilliant, fantastic and great, unbiased and has no political agenda, leave your direct debit as it is and I'll spend the 150 quid a year on something else
Which is what I said early on in the thread
Best just leaving the sheeple to graze in their cozy pasture.
Naom Chomsky sums it up brilliantly
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”
What are sheeple?
Personally I'd say you are, but it's one of those terms where everyone thinks someone else is it and nobody self identifies with it.
Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”?
People that go along with propaganda basically "And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? | |||
"I don’t watch live tv so don’t have to pay for a tv license Not true now I believe. There was a loop hole which allowed that but I’m sure they plugged it recently to include catch up TV as well as live. But it would be so much better value if the presenters weren’t paid as much. People like Norton and Linekar get far to much for what they do. " Too much compared to what though? How much should they be paid for what they do? How would it become better value? If they were paid less, would you like to see that reflected in a reduction of the licenc fee? | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all?" From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. " No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda?" Not so much on this thread. I'm just telling you why i have that opinion. I don't think the BBC is shit either, I just don't personally like it. I understand why other people do. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? Not so much on this thread. I'm just telling you why i have that opinion. I don't think the BBC is shit either, I just don't personally like it. I understand why other people do. " Oh, unreasonable things on other threads? It’s hard to keep up. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Sheeple Sheeple is a derogatory term that highlights the passive herd behavior of people easily controlled by a governing power which likens them to sheep, a herd animal that is easily led about Sometimes also called Bahhh Bahhhs Hope this helps "Thanks! So anyone who doesn’t think the BBC is shit, has been been controlled and somehow brainwashed into thinking that? 
Is there a word for people who find it so hard to get their head around the fact that others will disagree with them, that they find the easiest thing to do is trot out some lame ass derogatory cliche about being controlled?
There’s a certain irony in people referring to others as “sheeple” rather than thinking of something a bit more original all by themselves. | |||
"Sheeple Sheeple is a derogatory term that highlights the passive herd behavior of people easily controlled by a governing power which likens them to sheep, a herd animal that is easily led about Sometimes also called Bahhh Bahhhs Hope this helps
Thanks! So anyone who doesn’t think the BBC is shit, has been been controlled and somehow brainwashed into thinking that?
Is there a word for people who find it so hard to get their head around the fact that others will disagree with them, that they find the easiest thing to do is trot out some lame ass derogatory cliche about being controlled?
There’s a certain irony in people referring to others as “sheeple” rather than thinking of something a bit more original all by themselves. "That's the whole point - people are told what to think and do, if you don't you'll be fined and sheeple accept this - oh I've got to do this or else, and that my friend is exactly how the BBC forces people (sheeple) to pay up whether they want to or not. It's a Tax just like the whole host of other taxes there are, these ensure people are bled dry to keep them in their place. 5 Billion quid a year and the likes of strictly come dancing gets churned out every year, utter garbage. | |||
"Sheeple Sheeple is a derogatory term that highlights the passive herd behavior of people easily controlled by a governing power which likens them to sheep, a herd animal that is easily led about Sometimes also called Bahhh Bahhhs Hope this helps
Thanks! So anyone who doesn’t think the BBC is shit, has been been controlled and somehow brainwashed into thinking that?
Is there a word for people who find it so hard to get their head around the fact that others will disagree with them, that they find the easiest thing to do is trot out some lame ass derogatory cliche about being controlled?
There’s a certain irony in people referring to others as “sheeple” rather than thinking of something a bit more original all by themselves.
That's the whole point - people are told what to think and do, if you don't you'll be fined and sheeple accept this - oh I've got to do this or else, and that my friend is exactly how the BBC forces people (sheeple) to pay up whether they want to or not.
It's a Tax just like the whole host of other taxes there are, these ensure people are bled dry to keep them in their place.
5 Billion quid a year and the likes of strictly come dancing gets churned out every year, utter garbage.
"Yeah, because Strictly is the only thing the BBC does. It’s conpletely ridiculous to think they shouldn’t do anything that anyone happens not to like. So am I a sheeple because I don’t really have that much of a problem with it? I don’t get the assumption that I have somehow been coerced into accepting it. Maybe I just don’t think it’s all that bad. Given how much people still make use of the BBC, doesn’t that kind of suggest that most people don’t think it’s all garbage that they are being forced to pay for? | |||
"Sheeple Sheeple is a derogatory term that highlights the passive herd behavior of people easily controlled by a governing power which likens them to sheep, a herd animal that is easily led about Sometimes also called Bahhh Bahhhs Hope this helps
Thanks! So anyone who doesn’t think the BBC is shit, has been been controlled and somehow brainwashed into thinking that?
Is there a word for people who find it so hard to get their head around the fact that others will disagree with them, that they find the easiest thing to do is trot out some lame ass derogatory cliche about being controlled?
There’s a certain irony in people referring to others as “sheeple” rather than thinking of something a bit more original all by themselves.
That's the whole point - people are told what to think and do, if you don't you'll be fined and sheeple accept this - oh I've got to do this or else, and that my friend is exactly how the BBC forces people (sheeple) to pay up whether they want to or not.
It's a Tax just like the whole host of other taxes there are, these ensure people are bled dry to keep them in their place.
5 Billion quid a year and the likes of strictly come dancing gets churned out every year, utter garbage.
"Does using the word ‘sheeple’ make you feel somehow superior and incredible pleased with yourself, cause you seem to use it an awful lot ?! Bet your the sort the sort of person who thinks you’re off the grid and totally underground cause you use and Android phone instead of an i phone. | |||
| |||
"For me and most people its got nothing to do with good value for money, political biased, Its being forced to pay for it" This. They can ram it! | |||
"For me and most people its got nothing to do with good value for money, political biased, Its being forced to pay for it This. They can ram it!" Are you a genuine non user of broadcast services, or just another leach living of the money of others?  | |||
"For me and most people its got nothing to do with good value for money, political biased, Its being forced to pay for it This. They can ram it! Are you a genuine non user of broadcast services, or just another leach living of the money of others? "Not a leach...or a leech for that matter. Non user of broadcast services. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda?" "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! | |||
"Proud to be a sheeple, it means I happily contribute to a society I choose to live in, I am seldom anti social, accept the rule of law, and know that my taxes are collected for the common good. Like many I don't watch a great deal of BBC television, but I do use terrestrial broadcast services quite a bit, and listen to a lot of BBC radio. So am happy to pay the license fee. Those who genuinely never use broadcast media, and never listen to the radio can opt out, but it's amazing how many of them opt out of paying their share but still want to use the services others are paying for that annoy me. Much better to be a sheeple, than a leach. "A society that's forced on you. Taxes to pay for 'the common good'.. Really? So, you pay tax on the money you earn, you then pay tax on your fuel and your car to buy the food you need to survive, which you also pay tax on. You pay tax on the house you live in and the amenities within it. You pay tax on the money you've already paid tax on when you save the money and then when you come to take your savings out the bank, you're taxed again! Now, you may or may not know this tiny little fact, but taxation is for one purpose and one purpose only.. To protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic.. There is no other lawful reason for taxation. Now, we live in a common law country under common law jurisdiction, like it or not common law is God's law. Now, our false monarch, Queen Saxa Gotha Coburg.. Or Windsor as they changed their name to, swore upon her coronation to uphold God's law... Common law. So, let's assume that her coronation wasn't a fraudulent affair.. False monarch with no rightful heir and also coronated on a false Stone of Scone (the original was stolen by the Scots).. Then under that oath, queenie should not be allowing any other taxation from her government.. The government's sole role is to defend our country! So, ask yourself why we have been constantly at war the last 100+ years? War creates wealth, through taxation and through arms sales. So, you pay your taxes, government uses them, quite openly to trade in arms, yet do you see any of the profits from your taxes? Nope! This is where the corruption lays. You blindly pay these taxes to a company.. Yes!.. The government, as is the primeminister, is registered as a company at Companies House! If McDonald's demand you give them 20% of your earnings in tax.. Would you give it them? So, while you pay your taxes on your taxes on your taxes on your taxes, and are left wondering why the person implementing these taxes has multi billion assets and shares, while you have to bust ya bollox off, working till your 70+ to get a pension your going to be taxed on again.. It's worth educating yourself to how the economy actually works and the global fraud its based on that's maintained by the elite. Look outside the box.. Stop scrubbing flouride in your gums for 2 minutes twice a day, leave the aspartame (artificial sweetener that they have now made more companies use so as to avoid the sugar tax (oh look, another tax!), let your brain breathe and see the other side of the story. It's not a black and white world! Oh, and before the 'conspiracy theorist' remarks come out.. Just remember, Conspiracy Theorist.. A name given to those who know the truth, by those who wish to hide and deny it. | |||
"Proud to be a sheeple, it means I happily contribute to a society I choose to live in, I am seldom anti social, accept the rule of law, and know that my taxes are collected for the common good. Like many I don't watch a great deal of BBC television, but I do use terrestrial broadcast services quite a bit, and listen to a lot of BBC radio. So am happy to pay the license fee. Those who genuinely never use broadcast media, and never listen to the radio can opt out, but it's amazing how many of them opt out of paying their share but still want to use the services others are paying for that annoy me. Much better to be a sheeple, than a leach.
A society that's forced on you. Taxes to pay for 'the common good'.. Really? So, you pay tax on the money you earn, you then pay tax on your fuel and your car to buy the food you need to survive, which you also pay tax on. You pay tax on the house you live in and the amenities within it. You pay tax on the money you've already paid tax on when you save the money and then when you come to take your savings out the bank, you're taxed again! Now, you may or may not know this tiny little fact, but taxation is for one purpose and one purpose only.. To protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic.. There is no other lawful reason for taxation. Now, we live in a common law country under common law jurisdiction, like it or not common law is God's law. Now, our false monarch, Queen Saxa Gotha Coburg.. Or Windsor as they changed their name to, swore upon her coronation to uphold God's law... Common law. So, let's assume that her coronation wasn't a fraudulent affair.. False monarch with no rightful heir and also coronated on a false Stone of Scone (the original was stolen by the Scots).. Then under that oath, queenie should not be allowing any other taxation from her government.. The government's sole role is to defend our country!
So, ask yourself why we have been constantly at war the last 100+ years? War creates wealth, through taxation and through arms sales. So, you pay your taxes, government uses them, quite openly to trade in arms, yet do you see any of the profits from your taxes? Nope! This is where the corruption lays. You blindly pay these taxes to a company.. Yes!.. The government, as is the primeminister, is registered as a company at Companies House! If McDonald's demand you give them 20% of your earnings in tax.. Would you give it them?
So, while you pay your taxes on your taxes on your taxes on your taxes, and are left wondering why the person implementing these taxes has multi billion assets and shares, while you have to bust ya bollox off, working till your 70+ to get a pension your going to be taxed on again.. It's worth educating yourself to how the economy actually works and the global fraud its based on that's maintained by the elite.
Look outside the box.. Stop scrubbing flouride in your gums for 2 minutes twice a day, leave the aspartame (artificial sweetener that they have now made more companies use so as to avoid the sugar tax (oh look, another tax!), let your brain breathe and see the other side of the story.
It's not a black and white world!
Oh, and before the 'conspiracy theorist' remarks come out.. Just remember, Conspiracy Theorist.. A name given to those who know the truth, by those who wish to hide and deny it. "Spot on... 1% control the world 4% are sell out puppets 90% are asleep 5% know and are tying to wake up the 90% The 1% don't want the 5% waking up the 90% Keep them poor, in line and brainwash them starting at age 4 Works a treat on sheeple
| |||
"Conspiracy Theorist.. A name given to those who know the truth, by those who wish to hide and deny it. "Hmmm ok I take some of your points, but counter with a question... You are a member of a country club, it offers golf, tennis, a gym, and bar / entertainment facilities. If you want to play golf there is a fee to pay, same for tennis, and drinks at the bar are also sold for a profit. Do you throw a tantrum because as you paid your membership everything Should be free? Accept things are not perfect, but you like ten is so stay a member, or refuse to pay the membership because it's not what you want? If you don't want to pay tax on tax with your taxed income, then simply dont. But that means you lose your membership of the uk country club. So please leave quietly | |||
"Conspiracy Theorist.. A name given to those who know the truth, by those who wish to hide and deny it.
Hmmm ok I take some of your points, but counter with a question...
You are a member of a country club, it offers golf, tennis, a gym, and bar / entertainment facilities.
If you want to play golf there is a fee to pay, same for tennis, and drinks at the bar are also sold for a profit.
Do you throw a tantrum because as you paid your membership everything Should be free? Accept things are not perfect, but you like ten is so stay a member, or refuse to pay the membership because it's not what you want?
If you don't want to pay tax on tax with your taxed income, then simply dont. But that means you lose your membership of the uk country club. So please leave quietly "I have left the BBC club. Just because their club is well known and mass marketed, doesn't mean its the best. I'm happy to pay for what I require when I require it. Just because the country club serves drinks, doesn't mean I should be forced to drink them. Just because the BBC is watchable on my telly, doesn't mean I have to watch it. It's down to choice and having something forced upon me isn't a choice. I choose to remove the forced attempt to coerce me into viewing and paying for, something I object to on a moral and ethical basis, by not doing so. So, in answer to your counter comment .. I'd find a country club that offers what I want, not what they think I need. | |||
"Conspiracy Theorist.. A name given to those who know the truth, by those who wish to hide and deny it.
Hmmm ok I take some of your points, but counter with a question...
You are a member of a country club, it offers golf, tennis, a gym, and bar / entertainment facilities.
If you want to play golf there is a fee to pay, same for tennis, and drinks at the bar are also sold for a profit.
Do you throw a tantrum because as you paid your membership everything Should be free? Accept things are not perfect, but you like ten is so stay a member, or refuse to pay the membership because it's not what you want?
If you don't want to pay tax on tax with your taxed income, then simply dont. But that means you lose your membership of the uk country club. So please leave quietly
I have left the BBC club.
Just because their club is well known and mass marketed, doesn't mean its the best.
I'm happy to pay for what I require when I require it. Just because the country club serves drinks, doesn't mean I should be forced to drink them. Just because the BBC is watchable on my telly, doesn't mean I have to watch it.
It's down to choice and having something forced upon me isn't a choice. I choose to remove the forced attempt to coerce me into viewing and paying for, something I object to on a moral and ethical basis, by not doing so.
So, in answer to your counter comment .. I'd find a country club that offers what I want, not what they think I need. "That's fine, but you are happy to stay in the UK with a monarchy and government as it is though? Because your last post indicated some possible resentment
By the way simply remove your tv antenna and broadcast TV is not forced on you, so if that is your only issue it's simple to solve. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! " I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. " The torys are already destroying the NHS as we know it, so that'll be gone soon enough. As for your baby/bathwater proverb, I'd prefer to think that I'd keep the baby.. The good bit, and just get rid of the dirty bathwater.. The bad bit. It's a ridiculous saying that is wrong in its foundation. Why would anyone throw away the good with the bad? It's yet another mis-bite that incites people for a train of thought that they can't have the good without the bad.. But we can! It requires effort which we are systematically dummed down to not apply. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The torys are already destroying the NHS as we know it, so that'll be gone soon enough. As for your baby/bathwater proverb, I'd prefer to think that I'd keep the baby.. The good bit, and just get rid of the dirty bathwater.. The bad bit. It's a ridiculous saying that is wrong in its foundation. Why would anyone throw away the good with the bad? It's yet another mis-bite that incites people for a train of thought that they can't have the good without the bad.. But we can! It requires effort which we are systematically dummed down to not apply. " But what is the bad bit? The bit of the BBC that is analogous to paedophiles? It has to cater for everyone, so all it can really do is provide as wide a range of stuff as possible. So by definition there’s going to be a lot of stuff that people don’t like. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The torys are already destroying the NHS as we know it, so that'll be gone soon enough. As for your baby/bathwater proverb, I'd prefer to think that I'd keep the baby.. The good bit, and just get rid of the dirty bathwater.. The bad bit. It's a ridiculous saying that is wrong in its foundation. Why would anyone throw away the good with the bad? It's yet another mis-bite that incites people for a train of thought that they can't have the good without the bad.. But we can! It requires effort which we are systematically dummed down to not apply. But what is the bad bit? The bit of the BBC that is analogous to paedophiles? It has to cater for everyone, so all it can really do is provide as wide a range of stuff as possible. So by definition there’s going to be a lot of stuff that people don’t like." It's what they stand for and how they are funded I disagree with. Bit like the Attic swingers club in Derby. The club may well be a great club, but I won't go on principal or pay money to the owner who has a very disturbing past. Would you, for example, go to a country club where the facilities are great, but you knew the owner had a history of abusing minors? It's down to morality and ethics and in my opinion, the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation has neither. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The torys are already destroying the NHS as we know it, so that'll be gone soon enough. As for your baby/bathwater proverb, I'd prefer to think that I'd keep the baby.. The good bit, and just get rid of the dirty bathwater.. The bad bit. It's a ridiculous saying that is wrong in its foundation. Why would anyone throw away the good with the bad? It's yet another mis-bite that incites people for a train of thought that they can't have the good without the bad.. But we can! It requires effort which we are systematically dummed down to not apply. But what is the bad bit? The bit of the BBC that is analogous to paedophiles? It has to cater for everyone, so all it can really do is provide as wide a range of stuff as possible. So by definition there’s going to be a lot of stuff that people don’t like. It's what they stand for and how they are funded I disagree with. Bit like the Attic swingers club in Derby. The club may well be a great club, but I won't go on principal or pay money to the owner who has a very disturbing past. Would you, for example, go to a country club where the facilities are great, but you knew the owner had a history of abusing minors? It's down to morality and ethics and in my opinion, the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation has neither. " No, I wouldn’t go to a club where I knew the owner had a history of abusing minors. You’re trying to argue that the BBC in 2018 is run by people have no morals or ethics, and that the BBC stands for “the abuse of minors” because of the what some people did 40 odd years ago? Sweet Jesus. That’s like trying to argue that neither the NHS nor Soham Village College have any morals or ethics because of what Harold Shipman and Ian Huntley did, ie complete and utter nonsense. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The torys are already destroying the NHS as we know it, so that'll be gone soon enough. As for your baby/bathwater proverb, I'd prefer to think that I'd keep the baby.. The good bit, and just get rid of the dirty bathwater.. The bad bit. It's a ridiculous saying that is wrong in its foundation. Why would anyone throw away the good with the bad? It's yet another mis-bite that incites people for a train of thought that they can't have the good without the bad.. But we can! It requires effort which we are systematically dummed down to not apply. But what is the bad bit? The bit of the BBC that is analogous to paedophiles? It has to cater for everyone, so all it can really do is provide as wide a range of stuff as possible. So by definition there’s going to be a lot of stuff that people don’t like. It's what they stand for and how they are funded I disagree with. Bit like the Attic swingers club in Derby. The club may well be a great club, but I won't go on principal or pay money to the owner who has a very disturbing past. Would you, for example, go to a country club where the facilities are great, but you knew the owner had a history of abusing minors? It's down to morality and ethics and in my opinion, the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation has neither. No, I wouldn’t go to a club where I knew the owner had a history of abusing minors. You’re trying to argue that the BBC in 2018 is run by people have no morals or ethics, and that the BBC stands for “the abuse of minors” because of the what some people did 40 odd years ago? Sweet Jesus. That’s like trying to argue that neither the NHS nor Soham Village College have any morals or ethics because of what Harold Shipman and Ian Huntley did, ie complete and utter nonsense." I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely highlighting that the BBC has condoned and actively hidden the exposé of child abuse within its walls for many years.This is evidenced fact. The British government / establishment are widely renowned for and acknowledged as being purveyors of child abuse for which the BBC is their 'voice'. The issue of the British Government 'stealing' children via social services has even been raised in the European Court. I'll happily send the link via private message to those who want this evidence. These kids are very often never seen again once they are removed from their natural mothers. Not only the abuse, but the reporting of false flag events as 'news' at the behest of the establishment is another reason I won't fund the vile corporation. The constant political biased propaganda reporting.. Really?.. They may well appeal to the readers of the Sun and the Daily Fail newspapers and to those who put a tick in the blue box come election time, but there are those of us who don't buy into their contrite drivel. You keep watching your eastenders and whatever 'groundbreaking drama' they're going to show you this year and be happy. Me, well I'll just keep finding the alternative sources of information to educate myself, rather than the misinformation that the BBC spew! | |||
"I have absolutely no idea why me and my hubby pay for it, we don’t watch any tv at all" This is a problem I have when getting the Internet I,d rather use my pc but should dip into the tv channels more often I,m not happy how the system works, if you have a pc they don,t trust you not useing catchup without a licence, I,ve told them I don,t use the pc for watching channels but they don,t trust anyone, I,m not a lover of digital anyway ever since it arrived with the old system we did,nt have to contend with buffering some nights it ruins my viewing of channels unless you buy optic fibre, they should of give people a choice those who wanted analogue and those who wanted digital so now unless you pay out more it,ll never be the same again. | |||
" Yes, but what actually do you mean by “sheeple”? People that go along with propaganda basically And what propaganda do you beleive I am going along with? Is your insinuation here that because I don’t happen to agree with yourself and others, the only explanation for that in your mind is that I hold those views because I am too ignorant to form my own reasonable opinion, and so must instead blindly follow something that you, in your enlightened view, consider to be “propaganda”? And that doesn’t sound remotely arrogant? At all? From my perspective, I find what you say to be very predictable to the point it sounds rehearsed and straight out a text book. That's how I personally distinguish between people who I just disagree with and people who are just ideologues. When all their beliefs seem to cluster in predictable but logically unrelated patterns, it reeks of ideology to me. I could be wrong and you might very well think the same about me. No, not rehearsed. Which did you think sounded the most unreasonable thing I said? Because I didn’t think I’d said anything that unreasonable. My view is basically that the BBC isn’t shit, and that collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal. Given the diversity of its output, when anyone dismissed it all as shit, it’s hard to take seriously, and I think says more about them than the BBC. Why is that such an unreasonable view that makes you conclude I am blindly following propaganda? "... collectively, despite its imperfections, still provides a great deal." The same can be said of the human race, collectively and as a general rule we are, in the majority, nice people. But there are paedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves among us, so shall we just ignore them, let them carry on doing what they do, simply because 'despite their imperfections', they're generally good people? If you bought a new car, let's say a Rolls Royce, and it broke down constantly. Would you not bother going back to the supplier and demanding reimbursement or recompense, or would you just simply 'suck it up', because after all, generally they're a reliable car and you should accept that you've got a bad one and not make a fuss? People are far too apathetic. Apathy is created and instilled in you subconsciously, by the shite you read and watch in the msm. There is alternative news.. Find it, read it, find out what the real world issues are! I don’t think comparing the BBC to rapists, paedophiles or cars that continually breakdown are a particularly good analogies. Assuming you would agree that the NHS isn’t perfect either, would you apply the same logic and have that shutdown too? I would take the view that I wouldn’t want the baby thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The torys are already destroying the NHS as we know it, so that'll be gone soon enough. As for your baby/bathwater proverb, I'd prefer to think that I'd keep the baby.. The good bit, and just get rid of the dirty bathwater.. The bad bit. It's a ridiculous saying that is wrong in its foundation. Why would anyone throw away the good with the bad? It's yet another mis-bite that incites people for a train of thought that they can't have the good without the bad.. But we can! It requires effort which we are systematically dummed down to not apply. But what is the bad bit? The bit of the BBC that is analogous to paedophiles? It has to cater for everyone, so all it can really do is provide as wide a range of stuff as possible. So by definition there’s going to be a lot of stuff that people don’t like. It's what they stand for and how they are funded I disagree with. Bit like the Attic swingers club in Derby. The club may well be a great club, but I won't go on principal or pay money to the owner who has a very disturbing past. Would you, for example, go to a country club where the facilities are great, but you knew the owner had a history of abusing minors? It's down to morality and ethics and in my opinion, the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation has neither. No, I wouldn’t go to a club where I knew the owner had a history of abusing minors. You’re trying to argue that the BBC in 2018 is run by people have no morals or ethics, and that the BBC stands for “the abuse of minors” because of the what some people did 40 odd years ago? Sweet Jesus. That’s like trying to argue that neither the NHS nor Soham Village College have any morals or ethics because of what Harold Shipman and Ian Huntley did, ie complete and utter nonsense. I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely highlighting that the BBC has condoned and actively hidden the exposé of child abuse within its walls for many years.This is evidenced fact. The British government / establishment are widely renowned for and acknowledged as being purveyors of child abuse for which the BBC is their 'voice'. The issue of the British Government 'stealing' children via social services has even been raised in the European Court. I'll happily send the link via private message to those who want this evidence. These kids are very often never seen again once they are removed from their natural mothers. Not only the abuse, but the reporting of false flag events as 'news' at the behest of the establishment is another reason I won't fund the vile corporation. The constant political biased propaganda reporting.. Really?.. They may well appeal to the readers of the Sun and the Daily Fail newspapers and to those who put a tick in the blue box come election time, but there are those of us who don't buy into their contrite drivel. You keep watching your eastenders and whatever 'groundbreaking drama' they're going to show you this year and be happy. Me, well I'll just keep finding the alternative sources of information to educate myself, rather than the misinformation that the BBC spew! " Ah. You’re not talking so much about the cars within the BBC from the 70s. You are saying that the British Government is responsible for disappearing children for purposes of child abuse, under the guise of “social care”. And the BBC are complicit in this by virtue of their silence and/or covering up of this activity? Just speechless. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
