FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tories aiming at BBC
Tories aiming at BBC
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you..." Yes, very dangerous and full of hate. Like the Labour party in print. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." Do you genuinely believe that most people in this country are bigoted? And why is that a good thing? Why is non-bigotry "dangerous"? I'm not up for this new race-hate media channel that you're proposing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Yes, very dangerous and full of hate. Like the Labour party in print." I love it when you get right wingers putting forward views that sound just like communism! Do you not understand that freedom of speech is what made this democratic country so great? The bbc actually has to, as part of its charter be accountable to the public unlike sky, amazon, netflix, whoever. Maybe you would be happier with a state broadcaster like Russia Today who always toe the party line? If you cant cope with opinions that you dont like then you really can make a choice and go elsewhere. Its laughable isnt it really....you won an election and you think you can vindictively destroy one of the greatest broadcasting institutions in the world with a reputation for honesty and impartiality that is recognised even in profoundly undemocratic countries. Oh and one last thing, when Boris made a complete cunt of himself by pocketing that reporters phone, that was actually an ITV reporter so how does your warped logic work with that one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you genuinely believe that most people in this country are bigoted? And why is that a good thing?" The election results show an overwhelming majority for someone widely thought of as racist, misogynistic and bigoted. Would you not agree? Outside of awful places like Bristol, London and Brighton (ie 90% of the UK  ) - people are very different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Yes, very dangerous and full of hate. Like the Labour party in print. I love it when you get right wingers putting forward views that sound just like communism! Do you not understand that freedom of speech is what made this democratic country so great? The bbc actually has to, as part of its charter be accountable to the public unlike sky, amazon, netflix, whoever. Maybe you would be happier with a state broadcaster like Russia Today who always toe the party line? If you cant cope with opinions that you dont like then you really can make a choice and go elsewhere. Its laughable isnt it really....you won an election and you think you can vindictively destroy one of the greatest broadcasting institutions in the world with a reputation for honesty and impartiality that is recognised even in profoundly undemocratic countries. Oh and one last thing, when Boris made a complete cunt of himself by pocketing that reporters phone, that was actually an ITV reporter so how does your warped logic work with that one? " Nobody cares about the phone incident. BBC is not "unbiased". Far from it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it was that privately owned channel 4 that the tories had a beef with." They feel the BBC is remain-biased and left biased. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you genuinely believe that most people in this country are bigoted? And why is that a good thing? The election results show an overwhelming majority for someone widely thought of as racist, misogynistic and bigoted. Would you not agree? Outside of awful places like Bristol, London and Brighton (ie 90% of the UK ) - people are very different."Yeah those awful places where people are treated like humans regardless of the colour of their skin, sexual orientation, religion etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." That is left wing talk,censorship is the kind of thing that Corbyn stood for.I and many others voted for freedom. However why should we pay for left wing propaganda,no we should not.I lot I love about the BBC but it must be as politically neutral as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it was that privately owned channel 4 that the tories had a beef with." I will not watch channel 4 anuymore.If we the majority do not watch it,it will close,that is the free market. It is up to us to close channel 4 not the goverment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it was that privately owned channel 4 that the tories had a beef with.I will not watch channel 4 anuymore.If we the majority do not watch it,it will close,that is the free market. It is up to us to close channel 4 not the goverment" I guess you dislike a media company that exposes Tory lies over and over then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the OP: you honestly think the BBC and Guardian are dangerous and biased compared to the likes of the Mail and Express? The BBC and Guardian are generally left wing, but they base reporting on facts for the most part. The Mail and the Express flat out make shit up and spew hatred and warlike language. They're deranged." Rubbish,both the Gasurdian and the mail have a place in society,your a typical left winger and dictator | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the OP: you honestly think the BBC and Guardian are dangerous and biased compared to the likes of the Mail and Express? The BBC and Guardian are generally left wing, but they base reporting on facts for the most part. The Mail and the Express flat out make shit up and spew hatred and warlike language. They're deranged.Rubbish,both the Gasurdian and the mail have a place in society,your a typical left winger and dictator " I didn't say they don't both have a place. But the OP suggested the Guardian and the BBC are more dagerous than the likes of the Mail and the Express. That's a bizarre position to hold. And the Mail and Express serve a v useful function if toilet paper runs out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the OP: you honestly think the BBC and Guardian are dangerous and biased compared to the likes of the Mail and Express? The BBC and Guardian are generally left wing, but they base reporting on facts for the most part. The Mail and the Express flat out make shit up and spew hatred and warlike language. They're deranged." The OP stated many times across different threads that he celebrates the spread of race-hate and misinformation to further the far right cause. So I do believe him when he posts this stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP stated many times across different threads that he celebrates the spread of race-hate and misinformation to further the far right cause." I've not once celebrated it. I've just said that is the view of a proportion of the population. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP stated many times across different threads that he celebrates the spread of race-hate and misinformation to further the far right cause. I've not once celebrated it. I've just said that is the view of a proportion of the population." So in a democratic country like ours you dont have to listen if you dont want to. The BBC has since its inception been about promoting a British viewpoint which if you look at chaucer, shakespeare, dickens etc you will find that a fundamental part of is the poking fun at and deflating pompous individuals and thereby reminding them who they are. The current crop of Tory politicians need to grow up a little, stop listening to that grubby little Dominic Cummings telling them to lie all the time and learn to be magnanimous in victory. Maybe if you dont like paying for the bbc now you are a grown up, you should remember how many wonderful and historic programmes it made when you were younger which have lasted the test of time - Monty Python, Doctor Who, Strictly come dancing, anything by David Attenborough, Top Gear, Blue Peter, Question Time, and thats just the TV side of it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Multiple questions here 1)should the license be decriminalised- have you every been on the receiving end of the barrage of intimidating and threatening letters full of threats, when the license has run out, you qualify for a free on or the previous tenant has moved out and not informed them so you receive the letters? They are shockingly aggressive. That should definitely be changed 2) Should government be in control of media- absolutely not. There is no question the BBC is biased. Trump has just today launched an attack on CCN demanding it be shut down etc etc. Fox is his favourite toy and he has attacked newspapers for reporting stuff he doesn’t like. That is a dangerous situation . 3) newspapers are never neutral. They have to be economic and target their audience. Nowadays there are actually very very few journalists writing, big papers maybe have one or maybe two on the news desk. News comes in from the Press Agency or Reuter’s and is copied verbatim. IMost newspapers have a store of articles of various angles already written, to tweet and publish is required. The days of a full office of sweating journos frantically scrabbling to find and write the truth and so long gone, they never existed. " The tories are intent on making the bbc as self sufficient as possible and the letters they send out demanding payment are a reflection of this. I dont like the tone of them but thats what the government wanted them to do. The bbc is not biased, it just doesn’t agree with your world view. Trump is an arse without a doubt but he is not controlling Fox media - that is the bastard progeny of the Murdoch clan - Maggie Thatchers favourite! Newspapers do not have hundreds of reporters working as they once did to cover stories from their own editorial viewpoint. The rise of reuters and the shift to freelance stringers and online media is one of the major reasons newspapers are so limited in their viewpoints these days. The golden days of fair and thoughtful reporting in newspapers are over and the news you get given is not journalism in its classic sense. Attacking the bbc for bias is what the weak minded and mendacious do and if you want a free and fair press dont knock it because the people who benefit from that are not your friends and they feed you the stories they want to rather than the real news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you genuinely believe that most people in this country are bigoted? And why is that a good thing? The election results show an overwhelming majority for someone widely thought of as racist, misogynistic and bigoted. Would you not agree? Outside of awful places like Bristol, London and Brighton (ie 90% of the UK ) - people are very different."Well, on the basis that more people didn't vote for the Tories and Johnson than did vote for them, no I don't agree with you. But if you want to play your game of "Democracy is what I made up" then yes, I'd agree with you that a lot of people voted for someone racist and bigoted in Johnson and the Tories. However I don't quite see why you think these qualities are a good thing and that out state broadcaster should embrace them. But as I live in an "awful" place like Bristol (actually technically, I'm in Filton, so alas we are still Blue) you probably will ignore any view I have. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." Interesting that so many people think the BBC is actually a propaganda machine for the current right wing government 
Can you say what some of these “dangerous ideas” are that they promote? Even if you accept that there is a left wing bias (which I don’t), I’m curious as to what exactly is dangerous about traditionally left wing notions like equality, fairness and diversity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"id rather see them drop the licence fee as a mandatory thing, put adds all over the place of free to air tv and pick up a Netflix model for the iPlayer. Those that want uninterrupted tv on demand can pay for it those that don’t want it or can’t afford the licence fee get it for free on an advertising subsidised route." It’s not really as simple as putting ads everywhere. The available ad revenue is only finite, so if the BBC had to be funded by ads, it would take away some of the existing ad revenue from commercial channels. And if it was relying on ad revenue, it would probably marginalise a lot of the more niche stuff, and so reduce the diversity of its output in favour of more populist content to successfully compete for that ad revenue. So it would be to the detriment of both the BBC and the existing commercial sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Yes, very dangerous and full of hate. Like the Labour party in print." What are some of the most hateful views of the Guardian or Labour Party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Yes, very dangerous and full of hate. Like the Labour party in print. I love it when you get right wingers putting forward views that sound just like communism! Do you not understand that freedom of speech is what made this democratic country so great? The bbc actually has to, as part of its charter be accountable to the public unlike sky, amazon, netflix, whoever. Maybe you would be happier with a state broadcaster like Russia Today who always toe the party line? If you cant cope with opinions that you dont like then you really can make a choice and go elsewhere. Its laughable isnt it really....you won an election and you think you can vindictively destroy one of the greatest broadcasting institutions in the world with a reputation for honesty and impartiality that is recognised even in profoundly undemocratic countries. Oh and one last thing, when Boris made a complete cunt of himself by pocketing that reporters phone, that was actually an ITV reporter so how does your warped logic work with that one? Nobody cares about the phone incident. BBC is not "unbiased". Far from it." But people from right across the political spectrum accuse the BBC of being biased. So it can’t be institutionally biased one way or the other. “Bias” doesn’t actually just mean “something I disagree with”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." Congratulations OP. By calling for an order to gag the free press you have successfully crossed the line from right wing extremism to fascism. Now all you need to do is learn to goose step and buy a pair of jack boots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Yes, very dangerous and full of hate. Like the Labour party in print. I love it when you get right wingers putting forward views that sound just like communism! Do you not understand that freedom of speech is what made this democratic country so great? The bbc actually has to, as part of its charter be accountable to the public unlike sky, amazon, netflix, whoever. Maybe you would be happier with a state broadcaster like Russia Today who always toe the party line? If you cant cope with opinions that you dont like then you really can make a choice and go elsewhere. Its laughable isnt it really....you won an election and you think you can vindictively destroy one of the greatest broadcasting institutions in the world with a reputation for honesty and impartiality that is recognised even in profoundly undemocratic countries. Oh and one last thing, when Boris made a complete cunt of himself by pocketing that reporters phone, that was actually an ITV reporter so how does your warped logic work with that one? Nobody cares about the phone incident. BBC is not "unbiased". Far from it. But people from right across the political spectrum accuse the BBC of being biased. So it can’t be institutionally biased one way or the other. “Bias” doesn’t actually just mean “something I disagree with”." I've yet to see any specific 'left wing' bias in the BBC. Maybe someone on here can give an example. And no, the occasional homosexual kiss doesn't count as 'left wing'. As for right-wing biases, the most obvious is Question Time, and the sheer number of times they get Farage on, or have right-wing biases in the audience with questions that go unchallenged. But much of Laura Kussenberg's output is also very biased toward the right. The most recent example being her breaking the law on giving info on postal votes. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are some of the most hateful views of the Guardian or Labour Party?" Racism and sexism. Identity politics. Cultural marxism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another example being 90% of Brexit stories on the BBC are about how it's a problem, of the "challenges" and "division" it's causing. And next to none about the opportunity or hope around it. It should be 50/50 between the challenges and the opportunities." That's not his though. That's simply an objective fact. It's like arguing that the BBC is biased on climate change or flat earth stuff. Being impartial doesn't mean giving equal weight to two sides if something, especially if one side is demonstrably nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it." I think your post and the one above it kinds of proves my point. Too often bias is merely perceived based on our own views. But seeing something we disagree with is not bias. Especially if people who think the opposite also claim bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are some of the most hateful views of the Guardian or Labour Party? Racism and sexism. Identity politics. Cultural Marxism." Can you give some practical example rather than trite soundbites? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another example being 90% of Brexit stories on the BBC are about how it's a problem, of the "challenges" and "division" it's causing. And next to none about the opportunity or hope around it. It should be 50/50 between the challenges and the opportunities." problem is there is a thing called "evidence" that tends to skew these types of things... so lets try an experiment.... to show you how silly you actually sound at the moment... let me give you an example... replace the word "brexit" with "climate change".... reread the whole lot... and see if you think your statement holds up.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it." Right, as I said... no left wing bias. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP stated many times across different threads that he celebrates the spread of race-hate and misinformation to further the far right cause. I've not once celebrated it. I've just said that is the view of a proportion of the population." of a proportion of the population actually... of those who votes, only 42% of those who voted, voted conservative... so by definition that means 58% don't necessarilly hold the same view | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it." but thats the thing... the BBC make programmes that would not be made otherwise because the public remit think to yourself this.... how much local and diverse programming to do you see on ITV..... really? when you and i were kids, ITV use to make kids programming.... now they don't! why? because they don't make money from it!, they cut back the local they they do, because they don't make money!! you see pure commercial tv... pay for sky! the BBC isn't just TV.... it's radio... its local radio..... looked at the website lately.... how about iplayer... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it. but thats the thing... the BBC make programmes that would not be made otherwise because the public remit think to yourself this.... how much local and diverse programming to do you see on ITV..... really? when you and i were kids, ITV use to make kids programming.... now they don't! why? because they don't make money from it!, they cut back the local they they do, because they don't make money!! you see pure commercial tv... pay for sky! the BBC isn't just TV.... it's radio... its local radio..... looked at the website lately.... how about iplayer... " the BBC is all about over paid chief execs and overpaid so called stars with over inflated egos. Its way past its sell by date and needs to move with the Times. I never watch it anymore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it. but thats the thing... the BBC make programmes that would not be made otherwise because the public remit think to yourself this.... how much local and diverse programming to do you see on ITV..... really? when you and i were kids, ITV use to make kids programming.... now they don't! why? because they don't make money from it!, they cut back the local they they do, because they don't make money!! you see pure commercial tv... pay for sky! the BBC isn't just TV.... it's radio... its local radio..... looked at the website lately.... how about iplayer... " Not to mention BBC World Service which is part-funded by the licence fee too. But then I'd imagine our lovely right-wingers here would scrap it because "It's foreign... innit!" -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another example being 90% of Brexit stories on the BBC are about how it's a problem, of the "challenges" and "division" it's causing. And next to none about the opportunity or hope around it. It should be 50/50 between the challenges and the opportunities. problem is there is a thing called "evidence" that tends to skew these types of things... so lets try an experiment.... to show you how silly you actually sound at the moment... let me give you an example... replace the word "brexit" with "climate change".... reread the whole lot... and see if you think your statement holds up.... " Trouble is that too many people still think that is an equal debate. We’d probably need to reach ”climate change” with ”the moon is made of cheese”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it. but thats the thing... the BBC make programmes that would not be made otherwise because the public remit think to yourself this.... how much local and diverse programming to do you see on ITV..... really? when you and i were kids, ITV use to make kids programming.... now they don't! why? because they don't make money from it!, they cut back the local they they do, because they don't make money!! you see pure commercial tv... pay for sky! the BBC isn't just TV.... it's radio... its local radio..... looked at the website lately.... how about iplayer... the BBC is all about over paid chief execs and overpaid so called stars with over inflated egos. Its way past its sell by date and needs to move with the Times. I never watch it anymore " Is it? How are you defining ”over paid”? And please, for the love of God, don't bring the PM’s salary into this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Re BBC left wing bias - just look at it's recent television productions. Even kids TV. They are box-ticking excercises in "diversity" in the casts. And usually consist of heroic ethnic minority females standing up to big-bad white men. It's such a cringey misandrist narrative. Just like every other story in the Guardian being about how terrible men / white people are in some way. Radio 4 is another shining example. Exploring everything from poetry to theatre "in a feminist perspective". Oh, some new roman coins have been unearthed, what does this tell us about feminism in 200AD? In all seriousness, it's a huge bias to a London-centric, left-wing, inclusive, diverse, multicultural mentality. This is not something that should be publicly funded and I for one am glad the Tories are going to put an end to it. but thats the thing... the BBC make programmes that would not be made otherwise because the public remit think to yourself this.... how much local and diverse programming to do you see on ITV..... really? when you and i were kids, ITV use to make kids programming.... now they don't! why? because they don't make money from it!, they cut back the local they they do, because they don't make money!! you see pure commercial tv... pay for sky! the BBC isn't just TV.... it's radio... its local radio..... looked at the website lately.... how about iplayer... the BBC is all about over paid chief execs and overpaid so called stars with over inflated egos. Its way past its sell by date and needs to move with the Times. I never watch it anymore " Well, if *you* never watch it anymore, then I guess it really must be past it's a sell-by date. What were you just saying about ”over inflated egos” because the irony is killing me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's like arguing that the BBC is biased on climate change or flat earth stuff. Being impartial doesn't mean giving equal weight to two sides if something, especially if one side is demonstrably nonsense." That's all subjective. It's all down to opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so lets try an experiment.... to show you how silly you actually sound at the moment... let me give you an example... replace the word "brexit" with "climate change".... reread the whole lot... and see if you think your statement holds up.... " It's all down to whether you see Brexit as positive or negative. And ditto climate change, if you believe it's a) happening and b) it's root cause is mankind, then you can form an opinion on whether it's a problem or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's like arguing that the BBC is biased on climate change or flat earth stuff. Being impartial doesn't mean giving equal weight to two sides if something, especially if one side is demonstrably nonsense. That's all subjective. It's all down to opinion. " Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so lets try an experiment.... to show you how silly you actually sound at the moment... let me give you an example... replace the word "brexit" with "climate change".... reread the whole lot... and see if you think your statement holds up.... It's all down to whether you see Brexit as positive or negative. And ditto climate change, if you believe it's a) happening and b) it's root cause is mankind, then you can form an opinion on whether it's a problem or not." No, it’s not really down to whether anyone sees something. It’s down to what all the available economic or scientific expertise and evidence suggests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. " You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true?" You do realise that just because something isn't universally accepted as true doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence doesn't suggest that it is true? You make it sound as though unless something is ”universally accepted as true” then it's effectively a 50:50 debate. I'm the same of climate change it hadn't been anywhere near a 50:50 debate for a long time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true? You do realise that just because something isn't universally accepted as true doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence doesn't suggest that it is true? You make it sound as though unless something is ”universally accepted as true” then it's effectively a 50:50 debate. I'm the same of climate change it hadn't been anywhere near a 50:50 debate for a long time." I think the climate has changed many times in the past, pre-industrialisation. This current warmer period could be partly or wholly unrelated to mankind. Either way it's mostly talked about by virtue signalling cretins as a justification for their brand new hybrid car, which ironically is worse for the environment than running an older car for longer. But hey, it looks good when you're trying to impress your Guardian reading cretin friends. And totally ignores the REAL threat to the environment on every metric; overpopulation. So yes, I am interested and educated on the environment. I am vegetarian. I don't fly for my holidays, I don't have kids and I do not own a new car. My actions are far more eco-friendly than the average "environmentalist" who lacks any sort of ability to critically assess the shite put out by left-wing sources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What if you don't watch TV? I watch Netflix, Amazon Google Play movies etc. But I still have a TV licence. Why? Because of the endless harassment and threats from the TV licence people. I've even contacted them and told them I don't watch the crap on BBC. It didn't help. It's more like a protection racket." Yes. The revolution won't be televised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true? You do realise that just because something isn't universally accepted as true doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence doesn't suggest that it is true? You make it sound as though unless something is ”universally accepted as true” then it's effectively a 50:50 debate. I'm the same of climate change it hadn't been anywhere near a 50:50 debate for a long time. I think the climate has changed many times in the past, pre-industrialisation. This current warmer period could be partly or wholly unrelated to mankind. Either way it's mostly talked about by virtue signalling cretins as a justification for their brand new hybrid car, which ironically is worse for the environment than running an older car for longer. But hey, it looks good when you're trying to impress your Guardian reading cretin friends. And totally ignores the REAL threat to the environment on every metric; overpopulation. So yes, I am interested and educated on the environment. I am vegetarian. I don't fly for my holidays, I don't have kids and I do not own a new car. My actions are far more eco-friendly than the average "environmentalist" who lacks any sort of ability to critically assess the shite put out by left-wing sources." Yes, we know that ”the climate has changed many times in the past”. To ignore the overwhelming mass of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence about climate change, reducing the argument to ”the climate has changed many times in the past” is beyond naive and simplistic. Its as though you think you’ve stumbled across some sort of revolutionary bit of key information that the entire scientific community has somehow overlooked. You really haven’t. Sure, overpopulation is a massive issue too. But it's not an either or situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true? You do realise that just because something isn't universally accepted as true doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence doesn't suggest that it is true? You make it sound as though unless something is ”universally accepted as true” then it's effectively a 50:50 debate. I'm the same of climate change it hadn't been anywhere near a 50:50 debate for a long time. I think the climate has changed many times in the past, pre-industrialisation. This current warmer period could be partly or wholly unrelated to mankind. Either way it's mostly talked about by virtue signalling cretins as a justification for their brand new hybrid car, which ironically is worse for the environment than running an older car for longer. But hey, it looks good when you're trying to impress your Guardian reading cretin friends. And totally ignores the REAL threat to the environment on every metric; overpopulation. So yes, I am interested and educated on the environment. I am vegetarian. I don't fly for my holidays, I don't have kids and I do not own a new car. My actions are far more eco-friendly than the average "environmentalist" who lacks any sort of ability to critically assess the shite put out by left-wing sources. Yes, we know that ”the climate has changed many times in the past”. To ignore the overwhelming mass of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence about climate change, reducing the argument to ”the climate has changed many times in the past” is beyond naive and simplistic. Its as though you think you’ve stumbled across some sort of revolutionary bit of key information that the entire scientific community has somehow overlooked. You really haven’t. Sure, overpopulation is a massive issue too. But it's not an either or situation." Their peer reviews Their opinions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you genuinely believe that most people in this country are bigoted? And why is that a good thing? The election results show an overwhelming majority for someone widely thought of as racist, misogynistic and bigoted. Would you not agree? Outside of awful places like Bristol, London and Brighton (ie 90% of the UK ) - people are very different."An "overwhelming majority" of 44% voted for the Conservative party for whatever reason. The exit poll demographics have 62% of those 65+ voting Conservative, 49% of 55-64 and falling fairly linearly in each age group to 19% of 18-24. The old are more racist, misogynistic and bigoted. That's to do with the period that they grew up in and the attitudes of society at that time not their chronological age. The young will not take on these attitudes as they age because their lives are different. So the present that you enjoy will not be the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." The BBC charter requires neutrality and it is scrutinised on that. As an organisation it is regularly criticised by all political persuasions. I am sure that the BBC would commission lots of right wing comedy. Who would you suggest as a funny right wing comedian? Should they be expressing the opinion that coloured people are not as clever as white ones? That women should not be at home looking after the house? Would that be more reflective of the society that we live in? You only seem to have an issue with organisations that disagree with your point of view. Should all publications that disagree with your opinion be shut down? Are the opinions expressed in the Daily Mail balanced "dangerous" too in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true? You do realise that just because something isn't universally accepted as true doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence doesn't suggest that it is true? You make it sound as though unless something is ”universally accepted as true” then it's effectively a 50:50 debate. I'm the same of climate change it hadn't been anywhere near a 50:50 debate for a long time. I think the climate has changed many times in the past, pre-industrialisation. This current warmer period could be partly or wholly unrelated to mankind. Either way it's mostly talked about by virtue signalling cretins as a justification for their brand new hybrid car, which ironically is worse for the environment than running an older car for longer. But hey, it looks good when you're trying to impress your Guardian reading cretin friends. And totally ignores the REAL threat to the environment on every metric; overpopulation. So yes, I am interested and educated on the environment. I am vegetarian. I don't fly for my holidays, I don't have kids and I do not own a new car. My actions are far more eco-friendly than the average "environmentalist" who lacks any sort of ability to critically assess the shite put out by left-wing sources." Which part of the data set do you take exception too? CO2 and temperature correlation? The modelling? Ice core data? Ocean sediment data? Water rise data? Something specific. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, the issues of climate change and whether or not the earth is flat are certainly not down to mere opinion. You do realise not everying you believe is universally accepted as true? You do realise that just because something isn't universally accepted as true doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence doesn't suggest that it is true? You make it sound as though unless something is ”universally accepted as true” then it's effectively a 50:50 debate. I'm the same of climate change it hadn't been anywhere near a 50:50 debate for a long time. I think the climate has changed many times in the past, pre-industrialisation. This current warmer period could be partly or wholly unrelated to mankind. Either way it's mostly talked about by virtue signalling cretins as a justification for their brand new hybrid car, which ironically is worse for the environment than running an older car for longer. But hey, it looks good when you're trying to impress your Guardian reading cretin friends. And totally ignores the REAL threat to the environment on every metric; overpopulation. So yes, I am interested and educated on the environment. I am vegetarian. I don't fly for my holidays, I don't have kids and I do not own a new car. My actions are far more eco-friendly than the average "environmentalist" who lacks any sort of ability to critically assess the shite put out by left-wing sources. Yes, we know that ”the climate has changed many times in the past”. To ignore the overwhelming mass of peer reviewed scientific research and evidence about climate change, reducing the argument to ”the climate has changed many times in the past” is beyond naive and simplistic. Its as though you think you’ve stumbled across some sort of revolutionary bit of key information that the entire scientific community has somehow overlooked. You really haven’t. Sure, overpopulation is a massive issue too. But it's not an either or situation. Their peer reviews Their opinions "*sigh* If they are opinions, they are backed up by virtually all available data and evidence, as scrutinised by experts in the field. You make it sound like it’s just a bunch of people chatting about it down the pub. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please can we get back on point which is the Tories intent to crush the bbc into submission and what that means for free and democratic media in this country. The Vindictiveness of their intentions shocks me and I am utterly astonished that some people think its a good idea. There is a lack of respect for the laws and values of democracy in this new government which is breathtaking. Dominic Cummings is an extremely dangerous man and Boris is his mouthpiece and willing accomplice. They are infatuated with each other and have a strategy where only their acolytes who are as abrasive and unforgiving as their masters are allowed into government. There is no moderation allowed under Cummings win at all costs regime. Christ alive just look at them - patel, gove, raab, cleverly, hancock, etc In the traditional conservative party there would have been experienced moderating influences like ken clarke but this new government’s actions are very reminiscent of the rise of hitler and his putsch against the old guard of the sa. "Not just the BBC has been mentioned for "review". Channel 4 too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please can we get back on point which is the Tories intent to crush the bbc into submission and what that means for free and democratic media in this country. The Vindictiveness of their intentions shocks me and I am utterly astonished that some people think its a good idea. There is a lack of respect for the laws and values of democracy in this new government which is breathtaking. Dominic Cummings is an extremely dangerous man and Boris is his mouthpiece and willing accomplice. They are infatuated with each other and have a strategy where only their acolytes who are as abrasive and unforgiving as their masters are allowed into government. There is no moderation allowed under Cummings win at all costs regime. Christ alive just look at them - patel, gove, raab, cleverly, hancock, etc In the traditional conservative party there would have been experienced moderating influences like ken clarke but this new government’s actions are very reminiscent of the rise of hitler and his putsch against the old guard of the sa.
Not just the BBC has been mentioned for "review". Channel 4 too."It's their own fault for using pesky facts at inconvenient times. They should know just to hail the glorious leader in all things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Channel 4, with impartial presenters like John Snow, who shouted "fuck the Tories" at Glastonbury?" Yep you definitely are a vegetarian | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a week" What else regularly has higher viewing figures? The purpose is to provide impartial as far as possible and non-commercial programming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a week What else regularly has higher viewing figures? The purpose is to provide impartial as far as possible and non-commercial programming." The BBC, on average, have 30% of the viewing figures. ITV, about 25%. As much as we need impartiality and non-commercial TV and radio, what grates some are things like SPOTY, a BBC awards show which costs a lot of money to produce but is unnecessary. Also, the necessity for BBC to produce shows in Scotland (to tick a box), yet fly London executives to Scotland and back and accommodate them instead of giving the work to their Scottish counterparts. This may sound like small fry but it all adds up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a week" It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Channel 4, with impartial presenters like John Snow, who shouted "fuck the Tories" at Glastonbury?" If he blurted out ”fuck the Tories” in the middle of an interviewing the C4 news you might have a point. As it is, you’re confusing ”privately held views” with ”editorial professionalism”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it was that privately owned channel 4 that the tories had a beef with." Channel 4 is owned by "UK Government Investments" not privately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a weeku It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of?" i dont mind paying my taxes. for the nhs and schools and all the other stuff i do resent paying a tax for a t.v channel yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a weeku It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of? i dont mind paying my taxes. for the nhs and schools and all the other stuff i do resent paying a tax for a t.v channel yes." Oh ffs its not just a tv channel though is it....it employs huge numbers of talented people in tv, radio, websites etc and fosters talent that then goes on to work worldwide and makes our country look like it is clever and thoughtful which makes it attractive. Its about promotion of the whole concept of a United Kingdom and it has devolved much of its work to other parts of the country so is not just London centric. Just because you choose not to watch tv or vote doesn’t mean the whole thing should be torn down or emasculated to suit the present circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a weeku It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of? i dont mind paying my taxes. for the nhs and schools and all the other stuff i do resent paying a tax for a t.v channel yes. Oh ffs its not just a tv channel though is it....it employs huge numbers of talented people in tv, radio, websites etc and fosters talent that then goes on to work worldwide and makes our country look like it is clever and thoughtful which makes it attractive. Its about promotion of the whole concept of a United Kingdom and it has devolved much of its work to other parts of the country so is not just London centric. Just because you choose not to watch tv or vote doesn’t mean the whole thing should be torn down or emasculated to suit the present circumstances." Indeed pretty much most of Bristol’s creative, digital and media sector can trace its roots to the BBC here. From there spawned the CD-ROM producers, then the website designers, then the mobile developers. Not to mention all the post production facilities that the BBC enabled to grow. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas.That is left wing talk,censorship is the kind of thing that Corbyn stood for.I and many others voted for freedom. However why should we pay for left wing propaganda,no we should not.I lot I love about the BBC but it must be as politically neutral as possible." You're aware the BBCs Interrogators in Chief- Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are One Nation Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas.That is left wing talk,censorship is the kind of thing that Corbyn stood for.I and many others voted for freedom. However why should we pay for left wing propaganda,no we should not.I lot I love about the BBC but it must be as politically neutral as possible. You're aware the BBCs Interrogators in Chief- Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are One Nation Tories?" Exactly....but then maybe that kind of complex behaviour is a bit difficult for the op to understand....shades of gray are probably a nightmare for him let alone other colours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a weeku It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of? i dont mind paying my taxes. for the nhs and schools and all the other stuff i do resent paying a tax for a t.v channel yes. Oh ffs its not just a tv channel though is it....it employs huge numbers of talented people in tv, radio, websites etc and fosters talent that then goes on to work worldwide and makes our country look like it is clever and thoughtful which makes it attractive. Its about promotion of the whole concept of a United Kingdom and it has devolved much of its work to other parts of the country so is not just London centric. Just because you choose not to watch tv or vote doesn’t mean the whole thing should be torn down or emasculated to suit the present circumstances. Indeed pretty much most of Bristol’s creative, digital and media sector can trace its roots to the BBC here. From there spawned the CD-ROM producers, then the website designers, then the mobile developers. Not to mention all the post production facilities that the BBC enabled to grow. -Matt" Exactly - it makes a massive contribution to the quality of life and freedom of expression in Bristol and has helped to keep much of the city going after the decline of the docks and heavy industry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're aware the BBCs Interrogators in Chief- Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are One Nation Tories?" A drop in the ocean | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're aware the BBCs Interrogators in Chief- Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are One Nation Tories? A drop in the ocean" ..as far as we know. Besides which if the BBC had an institutionally left wing agenda these two would never have risen to the positions they have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're aware the BBCs Interrogators in Chief- Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil are One Nation Tories? A drop in the ocean" Is this the return of centy? You seem to be on a similar idealogical thread to him. Reds under the bed eh? You’re flirting with fascism and you really should know better or perhaps you’re just another attention seeker saying dumb ass things to get noticed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a weeku It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of? i dont mind paying my taxes. for the nhs and schools and all the other stuff i do resent paying a tax for a t.v channel yes." what about your taxes being used to bomb again goat herders and there children or trident missiles or to sustain that ridiculous lot of free loaders in the palace or to finance abortions . There worse things your tax dollar is being used for . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would" Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them." wow ...24 out of 25 deaths since 2005 are palestinian ..live ammunition used to shoot dead 160 protestors armed with stones and petrol bombs . Over 3000 shot some elderly children and medics . All in the same incident. Over 80 per cent of children under the age of 12 in Gaza suffering clinical psychological problems due constant bombardment by israel. Freedom of movement and medical and food supplies denied to palestinianians living in what is effectively a concentration camp behind prison walls. Military trials of Palestinians where the conviction rate is almost 100 per cent. Continuous illegal demolision of Palestinian homes . 4 million quid a week from Congress to buy weaponry to subjugate and ethically cleanse.However it was decreed 10000 years ago by that great celestial estate agent in the sky that the chosen people would inherit the land so all justifiable,? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them." Who really are the terrorists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. Not all material will suit all segments of their marketplace - you have your own biases | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"fuck me there are some fuckwits on here. "diverse" output is a dangerous thing. respecting difference is bad??? " Welcome to the Politics section of Fabswingers. The dirge of humanity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't agree more. The BBC is the jewel in the crown in this country and people don't value it enough. When I see rags like the Mail and the Sun prosper, it makes me sick. Poor tories and their supporters: they only own 85% of the media in this country. It is so unfair for them to have the BBC and the Guardian representing different views. " The BBC isn't even left wing. They are generally bias towards whatever the government is in power. Not to mention the amount of airtime they give to Farage, UKIP, BXP over the years, while ignoring the greens (who have an MP). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." If you don’t like it, don’t listen. Simple as. Don’t get yourself worked up. You might do your self an injury. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What you will see now is... Boris will be attacked by the corrupt media.. Same as Trump has.. it's a movie "The corrupt media? You mean the Telegraph, Sun and Daily Mail owned by billionaires? What "corruption" and what "attacks"? Are you able to point to any examples? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For decades, right wingers such as the mail, the sun and the tory party have wanted to see the BBC lose the special privileges which were endowed upon it as state broadcaster (which it definitely is). I would never wish to align myself with those elements and their unworthy motives. HOWEVER The mandatory TV licence tax, imposed by law and enforced with unacceptably egregious penalties, is directed solely at one broadcaster, which can't be fair, particularly in today's multi-platform broadcasting market. The BBC behemoth should stand on its own feet and cut its cloth accordingly. It generates substantial revenues by selling programmes, but if subscriptions or advertising income are required to top up their revenues, so be it. The BBC has never been accountable to the public anyway and the practices of its management and board of supposed trustees do not meet acceptable standards. In the recent issue of a female reporter complaining about unequal pay, not once did I hear anyone in the organisation ask whether they are all overpaid, some more than others, some grossly and obscenely so. This is public money, remember. On the subject of the Savile scandal, covered up for years by management, one BBC insider reports that all those who made noises and rocked the boat, have been eased out. Where once I would have defended the BBC's position, I have felt that from Birt onwards, the corporation has not deserved its special protected status. " Every organisation requires change and development. In many ways the BBC management is too comfortable. However, the reason that it has a special status is to be able to maintain editorial neutrality which is very clearly not the case in the printed press. The BBC editorial policy forces the rest of UK TV and radio news to follow a similar pattern as it is bench-marked. Look at the US networks in contrast. The licensing also allows the BBC to do a lot of work that is not commercially driven for small audiences. This is apart subsidised by popular programming. All of this also creates an organisational scale that provides training for the entire industry and commissions independent production companies that grow into successful businesses. You just need to look properly to see its full value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For decades, right wingers such as the mail, the sun and the tory party have wanted to see the BBC lose the special privileges which were endowed upon it as state broadcaster (which it definitely is). I would never wish to align myself with those elements and their unworthy motives. HOWEVER The mandatory TV licence tax, imposed by law and enforced with unacceptably egregious penalties, is directed solely at one broadcaster, which can't be fair, particularly in today's multi-platform broadcasting market. The BBC behemoth should stand on its own feet and cut its cloth accordingly. It generates substantial revenues by selling programmes, but if subscriptions or advertising income are required to top up their revenues, so be it. The BBC has never been accountable to the public anyway and the practices of its management and board of supposed trustees do not meet acceptable standards. In the recent issue of a female reporter complaining about unequal pay, not once did I hear anyone in the organisation ask whether they are all overpaid, some more than others, some grossly and obscenely so. This is public money, remember. On the subject of the Savile scandal, covered up for years by management, one BBC insider reports that all those who made noises and rocked the boat, have been eased out. Where once I would have defended the BBC's position, I have felt that from Birt onwards, the corporation has not deserved its special protected status. Every organisation requires change and development. In many ways the BBC management is too comfortable. However, the reason that it has a special status is to be able to maintain editorial neutrality which is very clearly not the case in the printed press. The BBC editorial policy forces the rest of UK TV and radio news to follow a similar pattern as it is bench-marked. Look at the US networks in contrast. The licensing also allows the BBC to do a lot of work that is not commercially driven for small audiences. This is apart subsidised by popular programming. All of this also creates an organisational scale that provides training for the entire industry and commissions independent production companies that grow into successful businesses. You just need to look properly to see its full value." yes you are right it belongs in bargain hunt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas." Completely agree. Ott political correctness pisses off so many people its unreal. Creates a huge backlash because its just unrealisitic. Their bias reporting and frankly deliberate misinformation on climate and farming is disgusting. It appears to me that the organisation is run by left wing or liberal women with agendas and axes to grind. Its just the way I and many many others see it. When political correctness gets pushed, minorities get too much emphasis, generating a sense of guilt among the 'normal' masses, it creates a backlash that essentially makes it worse for the causes that the BBC are trying to help in the first place. Victimisation, virtue signaling, grand standing is rife right the way through a lot of their programs and is obvious to me millions just wont pay the fee from now on. A downfall they have brought upon themselves. I have no sympathy im afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. Completely agree. Ott political correctness pisses off so many people its unreal. Creates a huge backlash because its just unrealisitic. Their bias reporting and frankly deliberate misinformation on climate and farming is disgusting. It appears to me that the organisation is run by left wing or liberal women with agendas and axes to grind. Its just the way I and many many others see it. When political correctness gets pushed, minorities get too much emphasis, generating a sense of guilt among the 'normal' masses, it creates a backlash that essentially makes it worse for the causes that the BBC are trying to help in the first place. Victimisation, virtue signaling, grand standing is rife right the way through a lot of their programs and is obvious to me millions just wont pay the fee from now on. A downfall they have brought upon themselves. I have no sympathy im afraid. " If you're a real human, then our species has utterly failed, and the meteorite should come and end it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. Completely agree. Ott political correctness pisses off so many people its unreal. Creates a huge backlash because its just unrealisitic. Their bias reporting and frankly deliberate misinformation on climate and farming is disgusting. It appears to me that the organisation is run by left wing or liberal women with agendas and axes to grind. Its just the way I and many many others see it. When political correctness gets pushed, minorities get too much emphasis, generating a sense of guilt among the 'normal' masses, it creates a backlash that essentially makes it worse for the causes that the BBC are trying to help in the first place. Victimisation, virtue signaling, grand standing is rife right the way through a lot of their programs and is obvious to me millions just wont pay the fee from now on. A downfall they have brought upon themselves. I have no sympathy im afraid. " I am hard put to tell if this is a pisstake or if you mean what you say. If you do mean it then your starting point of liberal hating misogyny is to be honest a bit pathetic - its you playing the victim because you don’t like or understand something and you are cross about it because nobody is listening to you. Well you are not the only foot stomping child who doesnt like what the grown ups say on this particular thread but sometimes you just need to take a breath before you post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When political correctness gets pushed, minorities get too much emphasis, generating a sense of guilt among the 'normal' masses, it creates a backlash that essentially makes it worse for the causes that the BBC are trying to help in the first place. " Only amongst the mouth breathers. Social change happens because of individuals who advocate the highest principles, if not we'd still be pushing children up chimneys. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it was that privately owned channel 4 that the tories had a beef with. They feel the BBC is remain-biased and left biased." . Well there right, it's massively left wing, they fall over themselves over diversity and getting balance except right wing diversity and balance  . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lets face facts apart from attenborough the rest of what yhey put on the bbc is lucky to get more the 5 or 6 million veiwers and in a country of nearly 70 million thats pretty dire.either make it subscription or start advertising i resent paying for something that i watch mabey once a week sometimes no times a weeku It's not dire at all. Given the sheer number of channels available the BBC still commands a disproportionately large audience share and reach. The licence fee may not be perfect, but compared to subscription it advertising us the least worst option, as the alternatives would be detrimental to with the BBC and commercial television. Do you also reset contributing to other publicly funded service you don't make much use of? i dont mind paying my taxes. for the nhs and schools and all the other stuff i do resent paying a tax for a t.v channel yes." It’s a bit more than “a tv channel” though, isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The blatant propagandisation of the population is overwhelmingly perpetrated by the right wing media . I am apolitical and not a socialist but a lurch to far right is very dangerous and with it greater division and consequently a disenfranchisement amongst many people . As for the BBC is has just be lambasted for its pro tory stance " Which obviously explains why the Tories are currently seething about how the BBC treated them during the election campaign. Again, “bias” does not mean “something I disagree with”. The fact that the BBC is regularly accused of both left and right wing bias is probably a pretty good indicator that it is in fact guilty of neither. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them." Not for the first time, I think you’re missing the point. He didn’t like them because they were a “bunch of terrorists”. He empathised and understood the persecution they have endured at the hands of the Israelis. I will defend to the death the right of Israel to protect its internationally recognised border. But the systematic and deliberate expansionist policy of settlement building beyond that border? Not so much. Thinking that much in no way supports or condones terrorism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For decades, right wingers such as the mail, the sun and the tory party have wanted to see the BBC lose the special privileges which were endowed upon it as state broadcaster (which it definitely is). I would never wish to align myself with those elements and their unworthy motives. HOWEVER The mandatory TV licence tax, imposed by law and enforced with unacceptably egregious penalties, is directed solely at one broadcaster, which can't be fair, particularly in today's multi-platform broadcasting market. The BBC behemoth should stand on its own feet and cut its cloth accordingly. It generates substantial revenues by selling programmes, but if subscriptions or advertising income are required to top up their revenues, so be it. The BBC has never been accountable to the public anyway and the practices of its management and board of supposed trustees do not meet acceptable standards. In the recent issue of a female reporter complaining about unequal pay, not once did I hear anyone in the organisation ask whether they are all overpaid, some more than others, some grossly and obscenely so. This is public money, remember. On the subject of the Savile scandal, covered up for years by management, one BBC insider reports that all those who made noises and rocked the boat, have been eased out. Where once I would have defended the BBC's position, I have felt that from Birt onwards, the corporation has not deserved its special protected status. " Again, both subscription and advertising models would be to the detriment of both the BBC and the commercial sector. And it’s simply not true that the BBC is not held accountable. It publishes detailed reports annually and is absolutely held to account by OFCOM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. Completely agree. Ott political correctness pisses off so many people its unreal. Creates a huge backlash because its just unrealisitic. Their bias reporting and frankly deliberate misinformation on climate and farming is disgusting. It appears to me that the organisation is run by left wing or liberal women with agendas and axes to grind. Its just the way I and many many others see it. When political correctness gets pushed, minorities get too much emphasis, generating a sense of guilt among the 'normal' masses, it creates a backlash that essentially makes it worse for the causes that the BBC are trying to help in the first place. Victimisation, virtue signaling, grand standing is rife right the way through a lot of their programs and is obvious to me millions just wont pay the fee from now on. A downfall they have brought upon themselves. I have no sympathy im afraid. " What would you say were some of the most misleading pieces of information reported by the BBC recently? I hate the term “virtue signalling”. It just seems a lazy way of dismissing perfectly valid and reasonable points and arguments that someone might be making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" and getting balance except right wing diversity and balance ."How do you know this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For decades, right wingers such as the mail, the sun and the tory party have wanted to see the BBC lose the special privileges which were endowed upon it as state broadcaster (which it definitely is). I would never wish to align myself with those elements and their unworthy motives. HOWEVER The mandatory TV licence tax, imposed by law and enforced with unacceptably egregious penalties, is directed solely at one broadcaster, which can't be fair, particularly in today's multi-platform broadcasting market. The BBC behemoth should stand on its own feet and cut its cloth accordingly. It generates substantial revenues by selling programmes, but if subscriptions or advertising income are required to top up their revenues, so be it. The BBC has never been accountable to the public anyway and the practices of its management and board of supposed trustees do not meet acceptable standards. In the recent issue of a female reporter complaining about unequal pay, not once did I hear anyone in the organisation ask whether they are all overpaid, some more than others, some grossly and obscenely so. This is public money, remember. On the subject of the Savile scandal, covered up for years by management, one BBC insider reports that all those who made noises and rocked the boat, have been eased out. Where once I would have defended the BBC's position, I have felt that from Birt onwards, the corporation has not deserved its special protected status. Every organisation requires change and development. In many ways the BBC management is too comfortable. However, the reason that it has a special status is to be able to maintain editorial neutrality which is very clearly not the case in the printed press. The BBC editorial policy forces the rest of UK TV and radio news to follow a similar pattern as it is bench-marked. Look at the US networks in contrast. The licensing also allows the BBC to do a lot of work that is not commercially driven for small audiences. This is apart subsidised by popular programming. All of this also creates an organisational scale that provides training for the entire industry and commissions independent production companies that grow into successful businesses. You just need to look properly to see its full value.yes you are right it belongs in bargain hunt " I have no idea what this means  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" and getting balance except right wing diversity and balance .
How do you know this?". I've watched several interviews with ex BBC employees like John Humphreys. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good and quite rightly so. TV licence is a joke. " It does need changing , however you can not deny that some of the best TV has been shown on the BBC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the one hand, I don't like being effectively forced to pay a tv tax. On the other hand, it's a v good thing to have a media organisation that's generally free of government and investor interference. On the whole, it's far better for us all that the BBC exists in its current form." True, but people should be given a choice . I am sure the technology is now in place to stop people from watching the BBC if they don’t pay for it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them. Not for the first time, I think you’re missing the point. He didn’t like them because they were a “bunch of terrorists”. He empathised and understood the persecution they have endured at the hands of the Israelis. I will defend to the death the right of Israel to protect its internationally recognised border. But the systematic and deliberate expansionist policy of settlement building beyond that border? Not so much. Thinking that much in no way supports or condones terrorism. " spot on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them. Not for the first time, I think you’re missing the point. He didn’t like them because they were a “bunch of terrorists”. He empathised and understood the persecution they have endured at the hands of the Israelis. I will defend to the death the right of Israel to protect its internationally recognised border. But the systematic and deliberate expansionist policy of settlement building beyond that border? Not so much. Thinking that much in no way supports or condones terrorism. " I like you would defend Israel's right to exist and I have no problem castigating Hamas for there murderous activity . The saddest thing is of all the people in history that should understand the folly of persecution it's the jewish people and the most ghastly contemporary injustices are being perpetrated by Israel on there behalf.Corbyn isn't a virtue signaller or a terrorist sympathiser..despite being a dinosaur he has a genuine concern for the terribly subjugated and ethnically displaced palestinians. Again I refer to the holocaust industry a phenomenon that most of the media buys into ..opportunistic and stealthy and very insidious allowing Ireal to act with impunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He sympathised with the Palestinian people as anyone with a moral compass would Bunch of terrorists. Stabbing, bombing and murdering Jews. No wonder Corbyn liked them. Not for the first time, I think you’re missing the point. He didn’t like them because they were a “bunch of terrorists”. He empathised and understood the persecution they have endured at the hands of the Israelis. I will defend to the death the right of Israel to protect its internationally recognised border. But the systematic and deliberate expansionist policy of settlement building beyond that border? Not so much. Thinking that much in no way supports or condones terrorism. " I like you would defend Israel's right to exist and I have no problem castigating Hamas for there murderous activity . The saddest thing is of all the people in history that should understand the folly of persecution it's the jewish people and the most ghastly contemporary injustices are being perpetrated by Israel on there behalf.Corbyn isn't a virtue signaller or a terrorist sympathiser..despite being a dinosaur he has a genuine concern for the terribly subjugated and ethnically displaced palestinians. Again I refer to the holocaust industry a phenomenon that most of the media buys into ..opportunistic and stealthy and very insidious allowing Ireal to act with impunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the one hand, I don't like being effectively forced to pay a tv tax. On the other hand, it's a v good thing to have a media organisation that's generally free of government and investor interference. On the whole, it's far better for us all that the BBC exists in its current form. True, but people should be given a choice . I am sure the technology is now in place to stop people from watching the BBC if they don’t pay for it " Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of?" NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity."Yeah and fuck all those people who choose to get ill too. And don't get me started on all the pople who let themselves get old! Or those lazy disabled people! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity."your right the NHS should be only used for the benefit of healthy people. No comment on my abuse post by Israel? I thought not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity."At least your honest, but that’s quite the controversial view. So what would you suggest people who cannot afford private healthcare do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity.your right the NHS should be only used for the benefit of healthy people. No comment on my abuse post by Israel? I thought not."Woukd love to meet you both not to have sex but to try and encourage some humanity..tough I know but I love a challenge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity."Funny how people only ever mention these particular vices. If we were going to remove the NHS from people who have contributed to their own ill health, we will also have to remove it from people who drink more than the recommended guidelines, or don't eat enough fruit and vegetables, or don't exercise enough. Sure hope you don't fall into any of those categories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity.
Funny how people only ever mention these particular vices.
If we were going to remove the NHS from people who have contributed to their own ill health, we will also have to remove it from people who drink more than the recommended guidelines, or don't eat enough fruit and vegetables, or don't exercise enough.
Sure hope you don't fall into any of those categories. "Or simply have the misfortune to become ill through, you know, diseases existing. The notion that illness is something to be penalised is utterly bizarre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity."So once again you revel in your own selfishness. I wonder if you are the kind of person who thinks that because you pay your private health care premium that you shouldn't pay anything towards the nhs? Well I wonder how you would feel if you had a serious car crash and had to find a private provider who would be able to provide the emergency medicine you would require? The problem with so many people who feel that they shouldn’t have to pay twice for something is that they use false equivalence - private hospitals here like to take on the elective easy procedures which can be safely costed leaving the nhs to pick up the more expensive and complex procedures - there is no equivalent to the US system over here thank god. I know it is unfashionable right now but there is this thing called society and the idea is you contribute for the common good and thereby improve peoples lives to everyones benefit but you probably think thats communism rather than pragmatism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know "Not true at all ..some people have diminished responsibility according to physical and psychological problems very often through no fault of there own.You refuse to engage in any debate but simply persist in making horrible comments . The sad thing is you are representative of a huge swathe of the population..election result indicative . I'm so happy not to be you ..elated in fact that I see society as a collective where we are identified as to how we treat the least amongst us ..the elderly the infirm the marginalised in society.Thank you for reinforcing my sense of moral and ethical superiority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for reinforcing my sense of moral and ethical superiority." And that's how you respond to my legitimate political views? Regardless of what you or I think, the NHS is finished
Can't come soon enough.
Our fem half is NHS management too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for reinforcing my sense of moral and ethical superiority. And that's how you respond to my legitimate political views? Regardless of what you or I think, the NHS is finished
Bloody hell your right it is finished
Can't come soon enough.
Our fem half is NHS management too." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for reinforcing my sense of moral and ethical superiority. And that's how you respond to my legitimate political views? Regardless of what you or I think, the NHS is finished
Bloody hell your right it is finished
Can't come soon enough.
Our fem half is NHS management too."bloody hell in that case it is finished | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know "Personal responsibility doesnt seem to be an even remotely radical idea to me as I have been all my life but in your case its just a convenient headline for your personal selfishness. There is nothing in your posts that suggests otherwise. Hateful? Depressing would be more appropriate really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know "Nope. You’ve lost me. Can you talk a bit more about how ”personal responsibility” prevents people from ever needing healthcare? And what you propose people who cannot afford private healthcare do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
Nope. You’ve lost me. Can you talk a bit more about how ”personal responsibility” prevents people from ever needing healthcare?
And what you propose people who cannot afford private healthcare do?"Personal responsibility is shorthand for if they cant pay they can die! Interesting when you think of someone like Stephen Hawking - I wonder how he would have fitted into the OPs worldview? I guess he would have been left to die when he was at college because he was too much of a burden in relation to his monetary contribution at that point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for reinforcing my sense of moral and ethical superiority. And that's how you respond to my legitimate political views? Regardless of what you or I think, the NHS is finished
Bloody hell your right it is finished
Can't come soon enough.
Our fem half is NHS management too.bloody hell in that case it is finished"Either that or you have decided that you'll be these forums "edgelord" because, you know, liberals (or something) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know ". It's why most of Europe go for a part fee based system. At the end of the day .
Nobodys instead in any of this, they want a health care system that's free at point of use, cost effective and ran well, a good point of this is that it's a national health service not an international one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know "On the up side. If the Tories kill off all the poor people in this country. They will have eradicated poverty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
On the up side. If the Tories kill off all the poor people in this country. They will have eradicated poverty.". I doubt that, not now they've all started voting for them, hopefully they'll change targets to over educated climate scientists the pompous middle class and guardian readers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
On the up side. If the Tories kill off all the poor people in this country. They will have eradicated poverty..
I doubt that, not now they've all started voting for them, hopefully they'll change targets to over educated climate scientists the pompous middle class and guardian readers "What a warped mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the right talk about 'personal responsibility' what they really mean is 'I don't see why I should have to lift a finger or spend a penny to help anyone else'." Very cynical | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
On the up side. If the Tories kill off all the poor people in this country. They will have eradicated poverty..
I doubt that, not now they've all started voting for them, hopefully they'll change targets to over educated climate scientists the pompous middle class and guardian readers What a warped mind". I know but Mecca will still have me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Which other publicly funded services should be people be given the choice of opting out of? NHS for definite
It will happen.
I for one cannot wait to stop subsidising people who choose drugs, smoking and obesity."Would you also like to stop subsidising children with leukemia? Perhaps that's their parents' responsibility, but I guess if they "choose drugs, smoking and obesity" their children deserve what they get. What a sweetheart you are  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know "okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer.... do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS? if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer....
do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS?
if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole!
"You're wasting your breath. Ohmygawd seem immune to reason and humanity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer....
do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS?
if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole!
You're wasting your breath. Ohmygawd seem immune to reason and humanity."oh i know... but i want to make their position look really heartless and cruel... so lets keep going! and then you get to the subject of how do you treat (charge) those with "pre existing conditions".... so if said person had had breast cancer... and beat it... and didn't go bankrupt in the process! you then charge them more for their insurance going forward because they become more of a health liability to you!...... kinda perverse would you not say..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer....
do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS?
if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole!
You're wasting your breath. Ohmygawd seem immune to reason and humanity."This thread inadvertently highlights a real issue. Since the election, it would appear that people like the OP feel emboldened by the result and are now feeling like they can be more public with their bigotry. It's being reported everywhere. And usually I ignore such reports. But it's been interesting to see it playing out live right here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer....
do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS?
if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole!
You're wasting your breath. Ohmygawd seem immune to reason and humanity.
This thread inadvertently highlights a real issue.
Since the election, it would appear that people like the OP feel emboldened by the result and are now feeling like they can be more public with their bigotry.
It's being reported everywhere. And usually I ignore such reports. But it's been interesting to see it playing out live right here."I agree. The OP is either a troll and craving attention and saying controversial things to fill an empty void in his life or he actually believes what he is saying. Let’s hope it is the former rather than the latter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer....
do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS?
if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole!
You're wasting your breath. Ohmygawd seem immune to reason and humanity.
This thread inadvertently highlights a real issue.
Since the election, it would appear that people like the OP feel emboldened by the result and are now feeling like they can be more public with their bigotry.
It's being reported everywhere. And usually I ignore such reports. But it's been interesting to see it playing out live right here.
I agree. The OP is either a troll and craving attention and saying controversial things to fill an empty void in his life or he actually believes what he is saying. Let’s hope it is the former rather than the latter "If he genuinely believes it, then I just feel sorry for him. I can't image what's gone so badly wrong in his life that he's ended up so confused and hateful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have the radical idea that... everyone has personal responsibility. Hateful I know
okay.... lets take something common and no controversial.... lets take breast cancer....
do you have any idea of how much the drugs and treatment would cost if not for the NHS?
if i said the last reason that people in america go bankrupt isn't because they can't for example pay mortgages... but because healthcare costs spiral out of control! that is an indictment on society as a whole!
You're wasting your breath. Ohmygawd seem immune to reason and humanity.
This thread inadvertently highlights a real issue.
Since the election, it would appear that people like the OP feel emboldened by the result and are now feeling like they can be more public with their bigotry.
It's being reported everywhere. And usually I ignore such reports. But it's been interesting to see it playing out live right here.
I agree. The OP is either a troll and craving attention and saying controversial things to fill an empty void in his life or he actually believes what he is saying. Let’s hope it is the former rather than the latter
If he genuinely believes it, then I just feel sorry for him. I can't image what's gone so badly wrong in his life that he's ended up so confused and hateful. "He can’t be a happy person right now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you..." Hilarious ...... the election and Brexit was won by the daily mail and daily express spreading all those lies about dianne Abbott , Corbyn and McDonnell , telling lies anti semitism being rife and commonplace in the Labour Party ( it’s all fake news don’t you know), and about Corbyn kicking up a storm when someone had the temerity to take down an outrageous anti semetic mural that he saw nothing wrong with. Fake news ?. Bye bye Corbyn, Abbott McDonnell and welcome to next batch if Marxist anti semetic IRA/ Hamas supporters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Hilarious ...... the election and Brexit was won by the daily mail and daily express spreading all those lies about dianne Abbott , Corbyn and McDonnell , telling lies anti semitism being rife and commonplace in the Labour Party ( it’s all fake news don’t you know), and about Corbyn kicking up a storm when someone had the temerity to take down an outrageous anti semetic mural that he saw nothing wrong with. Fake news ?. Bye bye Corbyn, Abbott McDonnell and welcome to next batch if Marxist anti semetic IRA/ Hamas supporters. " Ooh is that the sound of a stuck record I hear? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Hilarious ...... the election and Brexit was won by the daily mail and daily express spreading all those lies about dianne Abbott , Corbyn and McDonnell , telling lies anti semitism being rife and commonplace in the Labour Party ( it’s all fake news don’t you know), and about Corbyn kicking up a storm when someone had the temerity to take down an outrageous anti semetic mural that he saw nothing wrong with. Fake news ?. Bye bye Corbyn, Abbott McDonnell and welcome to next batch if Marxist anti semetic IRA/ Hamas supporters. Ooh is that the sound of a stuck record I hear? "Sure is
The sound of labours soundtrack, stuck on repeat. No new tracks .... just their worst hits . Long may it continue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Hilarious ...... the election and Brexit was won by the daily mail and daily express spreading all those lies about dianne Abbott , Corbyn and McDonnell , telling lies anti semitism being rife and commonplace in the Labour Party ( it’s all fake news don’t you know), and about Corbyn kicking up a storm when someone had the temerity to take down an outrageous anti semetic mural that he saw nothing wrong with. Fake news ?. Bye bye Corbyn, Abbott McDonnell and welcome to next batch if Marxist anti semetic IRA/ Hamas supporters. " This says it all. You're so indoctrinated that you already believe the next people are Marxist, anti-Semitic, etc without even knowing who they are. Some people are beyond all hope for any rational thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are considering alterations to the licence fee. Decriminalising non payment. Thoughts on this? From a commercial view, it's unfair they are subsidised by the population in an otherwise free market. From a political view, a lot of their content like Radio 4, all their comedy and most of their programmes are heavily left-wing, politically correct, pro-feminist and "diverse". That goes directly against the views of most people in this country. In that respect, it makes democratic sense to shut them down, or force them to make their content more reflective of the society we now live in. Could something be done about The Guardian too? They have some very similar dangerous ideas. You think that the Guardian is dangerous? We have witnessed a Brexit referendum and General Election being won by lies spread by newspapers including the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Look like they got you... Hilarious ...... the election and Brexit was won by the daily mail and daily express spreading all those lies about dianne Abbott , Corbyn and McDonnell , telling lies anti semitism being rife and commonplace in the Labour Party ( it’s all fake news don’t you know), and about Corbyn kicking up a storm when someone had the temerity to take down an outrageous anti semetic mural that he saw nothing wrong with. Fake news ?. Bye bye Corbyn, Abbott McDonnell and welcome to next batch if Marxist anti semetic IRA/ Hamas supporters. This says it all. You're so indoctrinated that you already believe the next people are Marxist, anti-Semitic, etc without even knowing who they are. Some people are beyond all hope for any rational thinking. " You cannot reason with the unreasonable - Dale Carnegie | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
