In an open forum with endless threads on countless topics what makes you think the broadcasting section of Digital Spy and threads with an 'ant/critical. BBC opinion are closed off to discussion and debate. This isnt a nodding dog site, its an open forum. If people do not want their opinions openly discussed, be that agreeing or disagreeing, then an open forum is probaly not the ideal place.
Why do you think someone with a different opinion to your own must have an ulterior motive. Its quite a bizarre notion really wouldn't you say?
In this forum the response to licence fee changes is met by a completely disproportionate response. To me this suggests some incredibly invested in the funding but they wrap the service and funding together to suggest they are one and the same thing. Myself being cynical i just try to guess who would be the most invested!!
Not sure why you think my reading of this is bizarre, anyone with sufficient intellect viewing this forum on a regular basis would arrive at the same conclusions.
It depends how you define channel. A channel is a conduit for something, a television or broadcast channel defines that conduit as over RF.
So basically, this is an English language problem
BIB Agreed.
RF - not necessarily , it can be. But pre wireless was also used to describe a communication channel via, for example, the telegraph, where it was though of as a steam. No different to streaming radio waves - or digits.
In this forum the response to licence fee changes is met by a completely disproportionate response. To me this suggests some incredibly invested in the funding but they wrap the service and funding together to suggest they are one and the same thing. Myself being cynical i just try to guess who would be the most invested!!
Not sure why you think my reading of this is bizarre, anyone with sufficient intellect viewing this forum on a regular basis would arrive at the same conclusions.
Are you sure it's disproportionate? You must remember that ALL threads (well, pretty much all) are started by the anti-side of the debate - and quite a few are coordinated from a certain website.
Could it just be that the those who reply have thought about it and can see negatives behind ending the fee?
In this forum the response to licence fee changes is met by a completely disproportionate response. To me this suggests some incredibly invested in the funding but they wrap the service and funding together to suggest they are one and the same thing. Myself being cynical i just try to guess who would be the most invested!!
Not sure why you think my reading of this is bizarre, anyone with sufficient intellect viewing this forum on a regular basis would arrive at the same conclusions.
The most over the top responses are from those against the licence fee, who lump the licence fee and the BBC together just as you accuse the 'pro-BBC' side of doing. This little clique have even started their own little website where they can discuss their BBC-hatred free from any comment by anyone who disagrees because they ban anyone who doesn't share the same attitude as them.
Do you consider everyone who supports the NHS to be a paid stooge or secret employee of the NHS? Do you accept that people can strongly support the NHS, the armed forces, libraries, the arts etc without having ulterior motives? If so, why is the BBC an exception? Why is it so hard to understand that many people support the BBC and recognise that the method of funding is key to it's quality?
Start a thread in General Discussion saying "The NHS is rubbish and should be scrapped" and see what replies you get. Are they all paid stooges of the NHS? Is that the only logical reason anyone could disagree with such a statement?
That doesn't mean that no other method is suitable, I myself support following Ireland and Germany in scrapping the licence fee and replacing it with a mandatory fee for every household and business. (Save millions in admin, eliminate inspectors and threats of prosecution and introduce progressiveness into the fee that is fairer to the low paid) but at the same time advertising and subscription are impossible without destroying the BBC, just as funding the NHS with private insurance would destroy what the NHS is.
I would say the BBC is biased. For example, today I saw an article about why A&E struggling. It didn't mention anywhere that part of this is due to immigration! We all know immigration is high, so to not mention it is just absurd.
No. Not to mention it if it was found to be factually relevant to the story would be wrong.
RF - not necessarily , it can be. But pre wireless was also used to describe a communication channel via, for example, the telegraph, where it was though of as a steam. No different to streaming radio waves - or digits.
*The dated TV licence they refuse to change or adopt adverts or subscription.
*The Clarkson incident they probably never expected the large support there has been.
*BBC Three which has improved in the past few years, a recuse package was mentioned and they are not interested in selling the brand ect..the channel looks set to be axed regardless.
What will be next? It's high time a commercial broadcaster took over the BBC.
I reckon if it keeps up BBC will be a shadow of it's former self within a couple of years with only news and BBC 1/2 left.
Having dipped into a lot of threads started by you, it's not the BBC who is out of touch. Harsh but true, sorry.
No it isn't. In your socialist luvvy type circle of mates, two left wing and pro- your point of view links might count as citation, but quite frankly, it just shows why the average person now just feels totally alienated by the BBC, and the people who promote it.
800,000 people signed a petition to keep Clarkson, and his show, which happens to be by far the most popular thing produced by this broadcaster has been pulled. Where is the evidence he hit anyone. If indeed he did, I would have expected very public police involvement.
No it isn't. In your socialist luvvy type circle of mates, two left wing and pro- your point of view links might count as citation, but quite frankly, it just shows why the average person now just feels totally alienated by the BBC, and the people who promote it.
800,000 people signed a petition to keep Clarkson, and his show, which happens to be by far the most popular thing produced by this broadcaster has been pulled. Where is the evidence he hit anyone. If indeed he did, I would have expected very public police involvement.
The most popular thing the BBC produces? The Top 9 shows on BBC One all rated higher than Top Gear did for the w/e 1 March 2015, and seeing as four of those were episodes of Eastenders, that would probably be the BBC's most popular show.
You suspend someone whilst you investigate, then you make a judgement. As an employer you don't want him to continue to have access to the producer, because then if he does anything you're on the hook. Would you let an alleged paedophile continue to work on a children's programme? No, well the same principle applies here.
Where the BBC went wrong is that the suspension happened publicly, if it had happened behind closed doors, as it should have done, they'd be fine.
Just because somebody feels it's a matter for their boss, doesn't mean it's a matter for the police.
The most popular thing the BBC produces? The Top 9 shows on BBC One all rated higher than Top Gear did for the w/e 1 March 2015, and seeing as four of those were episodes of Eastenders, that would probably be the BBC's most popular show.
And yet, we have witnessed a never before seen reaction to this fracas. They kick the occasional Eastenders actor off every now and then, and most of the time it sits on the headlines of the tabloids for what? A day at most? This reaction has been so much more widespread. And, it seems to be also aimed at the fact that they scrapped the episodes already ready to go out. I'm sure there are reasons as to why they done this, but most people don't understand it.
You suspend someone whilst you investigate, then you make a judgement. As an employer you don't want him to continue to have access to the producer, because then if he does anything you're on the hook.
Absolutely right. But in the real world, any physical assault would result in police involvement immediately as the first action. An investigation internally would naturally take place, but physical assault - a breach of the law, would always take precedent over internal rules. We have yet to see any police involvement, and if I were the producer, who was struck by Clarkson or any other person, the first thing I'd to is ring the police.
Err, it is. The poster stated of the LF that the BBC "refuse to change", well I have provided evidence that they are accepting that change is indeed necessary.
Now this is not a LF/BBC funding thread (there's plenty of 'em around) so I'm not going to engage you further on this matter.
800,000 people signed a petition to keep Clarkson, and his show, which happens to be by far the most popular thing produced by this broadcaster has been pulled. Where is the evidence he hit anyone. If indeed he did, I would have expected very public police involvement.
The BBC have disciplinary procedures, and I expect that they are dealing with this issue according to those procedures. And if those procedures state that the person concerned should be suspended whilst an investigation takes place, then so be it. And I would expect any sanctions (if deemed necessary)( to be in accordance with those same procedures.
Yes, the BBC could have handled this better, making the suspension public knowledge did not help, but the delay in getting the disciplinary hearing going has, I feel, added to the constant drip,drip,drip of negative stories and leaked versions of events. All good fodder for the tabloids of course.
No it isn't. In your socialist luvvy type circle of mates, two left wing and pro- your point of view links might count as citation
You know how we can tell you're losing the argument? You are dragging out the tired old routine of bringing up people's political viewpoints as a desperate, vain way of trying to get some sort of one-upmanship over people you know would hammer your argument on every point.
This is especially true when you consider that most Tory MPs support the BBC, and most people on the left I've met despise the BBC as an Establishment organisation.
So that's one bit of your frankly pathetic and not very well organized argument torn to shreds and blown into the weeds.
Both of those sources aren't "socialist sources of information" - since the Torygraph gave up its' role of media industry expertise back in about 2001, only The Grauniad has held this role. A newspaper dedicated to media professionals, not because of its political leanings, but because the other papers don't cover the subject of the media industry other than which zelebrity slept with which zelebrity..
but quite frankly, it just shows why the average person now just feels totally alienated by the BBC, and the people who promote it.
No, it actually shows how alienated you are from how the average person feels towards the BBC. If they were so alienated from the BBC, why do the BBC consistently get more of an audience percentage than other channels in most instances? Surely if they were so alienated, then they wouldn't watch it in droves? *THAT'S* being alienated!
800,000 people signed a petition to keep Clarkson, and his show, which happens to be by far the most popular thing produced by this broadcaster has been pulled. Where is the evidence he hit anyone. If indeed he did, I would have expected very public police involvement.
Doesn't matter if he actually thumped someone. Even if he tried or merely threatened, then that's behaviour unacceptable enough to bring him into disciplinary action.
Not really "by far" the most popular. EastEnders, Doctor Who and Strictly are almost, if not equally or more popular than Top Gear. Doctor Who is probably just as popular as Top Gear on the international arena, too.
The police can only get involved if the victim wishes the police to do anything about it.
You know how we can tell you're losing the argument? You are dragging out the tired old routine of bringing up people's political viewpoints as a desperate, vain way of trying to get some sort of one-upmanship over people you know would hammer your argument on every point.
And you know why I am doing this, and why you feel so insecure, up to the point where you feel that pathetic insulting and laughable attempts to sound sneering and intimidating is the best course to take?
It's because I am absolutely right. It's because when it comes to support from the BBC, it very much IS a partisan matter.
This is especially true when you consider that most Tory MPs support the BBC, and most people on the left I've met despise the BBC as an Establishment organisation.
No, it really isn't. Simply saying that "most Tory MP's support the BBC" is rubbish. It's an empty statement pulled out of a magicians top hat, for want of a more civilised phrase.
Those who hate the BBC on the left have their own reasons, but this only suggests that more could be done to improve the output to appeal towards more tastes.
So that's one bit of your frankly pathetic and not very well organized argument torn to shreds and blown into the weeds.
Ooops! We've slipped back into the mental lowest common denominator of abuse, and, quite honestly fantasy. I think you might be getting confused. You have yet to provide any challenge or argument. Keep trying though.
since the Torygraph gave up its' role of media industry expertise back in about 2001, only The Grauniad has held this role. A newspaper dedicated to media professionals, not because of its political leanings, but because the other papers don't cover the subject of the media industry other than which zelebrity slept with which zelebrity..
And yet, since 2010, the Guardian has lost 100,000 thousand readers or more according to the Audit Bureaux of Circulations . So much for all that hard work
If they were so alienated from the BBC, why do the BBC consistently get more of an audience percentage than other channels in most instances?
Because UK audiences appreciate good quality British made output. But you know as well as I do that it is not fair to blame the creative people behind what we watch for what management do and editors demand.
Doesn't matter if he actually thumped someone. Even if he tried or merely threatened, then that's behaviour unacceptable enough to bring him into disciplinary action.
Not really "by far" the most popular. EastEnders, Doctor Who and Strictly are almost, if not equally or more popular than Top Gear. Doctor Who is probably just as popular as Top Gear on the international arena, too.
No, really by far the most popular, as indicated by peoples reactions to this. As I stated earlier, when the BBC dump EastEnders celebrities, nobody cares save for the tabloids for a day. This is a different thing altogether.
The police can only get involved if the victim wishes the police to do anything about it.
And again, as I stated earlier, if it were you or I, we'd probably wish for the police to do something if we were physically assaulted at work. I can't see the producer being any different.
And yet, we have witnessed a never before seen reaction to this fracas. They kick the occasional Eastenders actor off every now and then, and most of the time it sits on the headlines of the tabloids for what? A day at most? This reaction has been so much more widespread. And, it seems to be also aimed at the fact that they scrapped the episodes already ready to go out. I'm sure there are reasons as to why they done this, but most people don't understand it..
But that's because most EastEnders actors aren't very well known and aren't celebrities to the same extent as Clarkson. If someone were to talk about Shona McGarty, most people would stare at you with a blank face and ask "who?"
Absolutely right. But in the real world, any physical assault would result in police involvement immediately as the first action. An investigation internally would naturally take place, but physical assault - a breach of the law, would always take precedent over internal rules. We have yet to see any police involvement, and if I were the producer, who was struck by Clarkson or any other person, the first thing I'd to is ring the police...
Only if it takes place in a public place. If it happens in a private place, then it's not up to the police to take any further action other than to break up the "fracas" - the onus is on either the victim or the other party to bring it forward for police action.
Something the BBC are becoming increasingly publicly guilty of.
Stick to the point, please. Cheap jibes get us nowhere, nor is it the subject for making cheap smartarse comments. Would you allow an accused paedophile to present a children's TV programme?
And you know why I am doing this, and why you feel so insecure, up to the point where you feel that pathetic insulting and laughable attempts to sound sneering and intimidating is the best course to take?
It's because I am absolutely right. It's because when it comes to support from the BBC, it very much IS a partisan matter.
But... you're not right though.
It's not that I'm "sounding" sneering, it's that I am sneering. I always sneer at people who don't do the absolute most basic level of research which is:
Ignore absolutely everything that the tabloids say, especially those sections of the media who have commercial interests to damage the organisation or subject in discussion, in this case, the BBC.
And yet, since 2010, the Guardian has lost 100,000 thousand readers or more according to the Audit Bureaux of Circulations . So much for all that hard work
With nearly a billion pounds in the bank (from the sale of assets), the Grauniad hardly needs to worry about income from readers.
But that's because most EastEnders actors aren't very well known and aren't celebrities to the same extent as Clarkson. If someone were to talk about Shona McGarty, most people would stare at you with a blank face and ask "who?"
Funny that, I keep hearing fthat EastEnders and other shows are equally as popular. I believe people would recognise the actors off screen enough to care when they are sacked. But they seemingly don't.
Only if it takes place in a public place. If it happens in a private place, then it's not up to the police to take any further action other than to break up the "fracas" - the onus is on either the victim or the other party to bring it forward for police action.
Abuse is only abuse in a public place? Interesting interpretation of the law.
Stick to the point, please. Cheap jibes get us nowhere, nor is it the subject for making cheap smartarse comments. Would you allow an accused paedophile to present a children's TV programme?
I had to laugh at this paragraph. Really sums up all my privately held opinions of those who wield the controls at the BBC and those who support it.
Once again, you ask me this question in defence of an organisation who did do exactly what you state. Only it went further, to more depraved depths, so I very genuinely do not see why you would use this analogy.
It's not that I'm "sounding" sneering, it's that I am sneering. I always sneer at people who don't do the absolute most basic level of research which is:
And that really is very sweet for you. Now if only you were as dedicated to actually being right as you are to your one man privately held cult of personality, you might actually add something.
Ignore absolutely everything that the tabloids say, especially those sections of the media who have commercial interests to damage the organisation or subject in discussion, in this case, the BBC.
What you basically just said was this:
"The only sources anyone should read are the ones that support my point of view".
Funny that, I keep hearing fthat EastEnders and other shows are equally as popular. I believe people would recognise the actors off screen enough to care when they are sacked. But they seemingly don't.
I actually brought up Shona McGarty as she was an example of one who was suspended for bad behaviour (sloppy punctuality as well as bad behaviour in public - I recall some kind of incident with her and her boyfriend in a supermarket?) Her suspension was made quite public, yet barely a whisper was made by the public in protest.
I think the level of protests against Clarkson's suspension is because he is the last bastion of bigotry on TV since Alf Garnett went west, so his supporters, typically sharing the same opinions as him, are protesting against his suspension.
Add to that he's a 50-something yob who acts as a poor male role model to lads aged 17/18, especially loved by that demographic because of his d**kheadish, loutish behaviour.
Comments
So basically, this is an English language problem
In this forum the response to licence fee changes is met by a completely disproportionate response. To me this suggests some incredibly invested in the funding but they wrap the service and funding together to suggest they are one and the same thing. Myself being cynical i just try to guess who would be the most invested!!
Not sure why you think my reading of this is bizarre, anyone with sufficient intellect viewing this forum on a regular basis would arrive at the same conclusions.
BIB Agreed.
RF - not necessarily , it can be. But pre wireless was also used to describe a communication channel via, for example, the telegraph, where it was though of as a steam. No different to streaming radio waves - or digits.
Are you sure it's disproportionate? You must remember that ALL threads (well, pretty much all) are started by the anti-side of the debate - and quite a few are coordinated from a certain website.
Could it just be that the those who reply have thought about it and can see negatives behind ending the fee?
The most over the top responses are from those against the licence fee, who lump the licence fee and the BBC together just as you accuse the 'pro-BBC' side of doing. This little clique have even started their own little website where they can discuss their BBC-hatred free from any comment by anyone who disagrees because they ban anyone who doesn't share the same attitude as them.
Do you consider everyone who supports the NHS to be a paid stooge or secret employee of the NHS? Do you accept that people can strongly support the NHS, the armed forces, libraries, the arts etc without having ulterior motives? If so, why is the BBC an exception? Why is it so hard to understand that many people support the BBC and recognise that the method of funding is key to it's quality?
Start a thread in General Discussion saying "The NHS is rubbish and should be scrapped" and see what replies you get. Are they all paid stooges of the NHS? Is that the only logical reason anyone could disagree with such a statement?
That doesn't mean that no other method is suitable, I myself support following Ireland and Germany in scrapping the licence fee and replacing it with a mandatory fee for every household and business. (Save millions in admin, eliminate inspectors and threats of prosecution and introduce progressiveness into the fee that is fairer to the low paid) but at the same time advertising and subscription are impossible without destroying the BBC, just as funding the NHS with private insurance would destroy what the NHS is.
What you have written is simply your opinion.
aye fair enough
Having dipped into a lot of threads started by you, it's not the BBC who is out of touch. Harsh but true, sorry.
No it isn't. In your socialist luvvy type circle of mates, two left wing and pro- your point of view links might count as citation, but quite frankly, it just shows why the average person now just feels totally alienated by the BBC, and the people who promote it.
800,000 people signed a petition to keep Clarkson, and his show, which happens to be by far the most popular thing produced by this broadcaster has been pulled. Where is the evidence he hit anyone. If indeed he did, I would have expected very public police involvement.
No, because we continue to live within a free society, and your support for the BBC and it's tax is neither gospel nor the only acceptable stance.
The most popular thing the BBC produces? The Top 9 shows on BBC One all rated higher than Top Gear did for the w/e 1 March 2015, and seeing as four of those were episodes of Eastenders, that would probably be the BBC's most popular show.
You suspend someone whilst you investigate, then you make a judgement. As an employer you don't want him to continue to have access to the producer, because then if he does anything you're on the hook. Would you let an alleged paedophile continue to work on a children's programme? No, well the same principle applies here.
Where the BBC went wrong is that the suspension happened publicly, if it had happened behind closed doors, as it should have done, they'd be fine.
Just because somebody feels it's a matter for their boss, doesn't mean it's a matter for the police.
And yet, we have witnessed a never before seen reaction to this fracas. They kick the occasional Eastenders actor off every now and then, and most of the time it sits on the headlines of the tabloids for what? A day at most? This reaction has been so much more widespread. And, it seems to be also aimed at the fact that they scrapped the episodes already ready to go out. I'm sure there are reasons as to why they done this, but most people don't understand it.
Absolutely right. But in the real world, any physical assault would result in police involvement immediately as the first action. An investigation internally would naturally take place, but physical assault - a breach of the law, would always take precedent over internal rules. We have yet to see any police involvement, and if I were the producer, who was struck by Clarkson or any other person, the first thing I'd to is ring the police.
Something the BBC are becoming increasingly publicly guilty of.
And that I completely concur with.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in the real world.
Now this is not a LF/BBC funding thread (there's plenty of 'em around) so I'm not going to engage you further on this matter.
The BBC have disciplinary procedures, and I expect that they are dealing with this issue according to those procedures. And if those procedures state that the person concerned should be suspended whilst an investigation takes place, then so be it. And I would expect any sanctions (if deemed necessary)( to be in accordance with those same procedures.
Yes, the BBC could have handled this better, making the suspension public knowledge did not help, but the delay in getting the disciplinary hearing going has, I feel, added to the constant drip,drip,drip of negative stories and leaked versions of events. All good fodder for the tabloids of course.
You know how we can tell you're losing the argument? You are dragging out the tired old routine of bringing up people's political viewpoints as a desperate, vain way of trying to get some sort of one-upmanship over people you know would hammer your argument on every point.
This is especially true when you consider that most Tory MPs support the BBC, and most people on the left I've met despise the BBC as an Establishment organisation.
So that's one bit of your frankly pathetic and not very well organized argument torn to shreds and blown into the weeds.
Both of those sources aren't "socialist sources of information" - since the Torygraph gave up its' role of media industry expertise back in about 2001, only The Grauniad has held this role. A newspaper dedicated to media professionals, not because of its political leanings, but because the other papers don't cover the subject of the media industry other than which zelebrity slept with which zelebrity..
No, it actually shows how alienated you are from how the average person feels towards the BBC. If they were so alienated from the BBC, why do the BBC consistently get more of an audience percentage than other channels in most instances? Surely if they were so alienated, then they wouldn't watch it in droves? *THAT'S* being alienated!
Doesn't matter if he actually thumped someone. Even if he tried or merely threatened, then that's behaviour unacceptable enough to bring him into disciplinary action.
Not really "by far" the most popular. EastEnders, Doctor Who and Strictly are almost, if not equally or more popular than Top Gear. Doctor Who is probably just as popular as Top Gear on the international arena, too.
The police can only get involved if the victim wishes the police to do anything about it.
Actually, it's a tax imposed by the Treasury and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The BBC have not one iota of influence over the issue.
I dunno what the BBC can do about that but if someone whos 25 says that BBC1 is out of touch with them maybe they have a point?
Wonder what the age of people in the Clarkson petition are?
"It's tax", no!
If you people could get your facts right your opinions might actually be listened to, rather than being dismissed as the ignorant rubbish it is!
And you know why I am doing this, and why you feel so insecure, up to the point where you feel that pathetic insulting and laughable attempts to sound sneering and intimidating is the best course to take?
It's because I am absolutely right. It's because when it comes to support from the BBC, it very much IS a partisan matter.
No, it really isn't. Simply saying that "most Tory MP's support the BBC" is rubbish. It's an empty statement pulled out of a magicians top hat, for want of a more civilised phrase.
Those who hate the BBC on the left have their own reasons, but this only suggests that more could be done to improve the output to appeal towards more tastes.
Ooops! We've slipped back into the mental lowest common denominator of abuse, and, quite honestly fantasy. I think you might be getting confused. You have yet to provide any challenge or argument. Keep trying though.
Could have fooled me.
And yet, since 2010, the Guardian has lost 100,000 thousand readers or more according to the Audit Bureaux of Circulations . So much for all that hard work
Reading lofty but niche and increasingly declining newspapers might give you that opinion, but I assure you, you're wrong.
Because UK audiences appreciate good quality British made output. But you know as well as I do that it is not fair to blame the creative people behind what we watch for what management do and editors demand.
When BBC 3 goes digital, and more services are cut, I'm sure we will see this reaction to an extent.
And nobody is disputing this.
No, really by far the most popular, as indicated by peoples reactions to this. As I stated earlier, when the BBC dump EastEnders celebrities, nobody cares save for the tabloids for a day. This is a different thing altogether.
And again, as I stated earlier, if it were you or I, we'd probably wish for the police to do something if we were physically assaulted at work. I can't see the producer being any different.
But that's because most EastEnders actors aren't very well known and aren't celebrities to the same extent as Clarkson. If someone were to talk about Shona McGarty, most people would stare at you with a blank face and ask "who?"
Only if it takes place in a public place. If it happens in a private place, then it's not up to the police to take any further action other than to break up the "fracas" - the onus is on either the victim or the other party to bring it forward for police action.
Stick to the point, please. Cheap jibes get us nowhere, nor is it the subject for making cheap smartarse comments. Would you allow an accused paedophile to present a children's TV programme?
As I said, the police are under no obligation to make a prosecution unless either party reports the incident to them officially.
That's what BBC3 is for.
But... you're not right though.
It's not that I'm "sounding" sneering, it's that I am sneering. I always sneer at people who don't do the absolute most basic level of research which is:
Ignore absolutely everything that the tabloids say, especially those sections of the media who have commercial interests to damage the organisation or subject in discussion, in this case, the BBC.
With nearly a billion pounds in the bank (from the sale of assets), the Grauniad hardly needs to worry about income from readers.
Funny that, I keep hearing fthat EastEnders and other shows are equally as popular. I believe people would recognise the actors off screen enough to care when they are sacked. But they seemingly don't.
Abuse is only abuse in a public place? Interesting interpretation of the law.
I had to laugh at this paragraph. Really sums up all my privately held opinions of those who wield the controls at the BBC and those who support it.
Once again, you ask me this question in defence of an organisation who did do exactly what you state. Only it went further, to more depraved depths, so I very genuinely do not see why you would use this analogy.
And as I repeatedly state, anyone, you, me, the producer, would likely report a colleague assaulting them physically to the police.
And yet, I am.
And that really is very sweet for you. Now if only you were as dedicated to actually being right as you are to your one man privately held cult of personality, you might actually add something.
What you basically just said was this:
"The only sources anyone should read are the ones that support my point of view".
Yep.
I actually brought up Shona McGarty as she was an example of one who was suspended for bad behaviour (sloppy punctuality as well as bad behaviour in public - I recall some kind of incident with her and her boyfriend in a supermarket?) Her suspension was made quite public, yet barely a whisper was made by the public in protest.
I think the level of protests against Clarkson's suspension is because he is the last bastion of bigotry on TV since Alf Garnett went west, so his supporters, typically sharing the same opinions as him, are protesting against his suspension.
Add to that he's a 50-something yob who acts as a poor male role model to lads aged 17/18, especially loved by that demographic because of his d**kheadish, loutish behaviour.