But the BBC have form on this. Alistair Campbell who is probably the vilest human being (along with Blair) to have ever walked the halls of Westminster is treated like a god by the BBC. This man has the blood of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of men, women and children on his hands and yet the BBC thinks he's god.
People need to realise how manipulative the BBC has become with its political agenda.Even worse and so predictable is the fact that they call on and wheel out Dictator Blair and get him into their studios asap to prop up the cause after the UKIP voter backlash.Clear evidence and questioning of the BBC's condescension and politicians telling people how they should think and what is best for them results in having exactly the opposite affect.
I can't wait for a next review of the licence fee and get the unbalanced reporting of the supposedly impartial BBC sorted out once and for all.
People need to realise how manipulative the BBC has become with its political agenda.Even worse and so predictable is the fact that they call on and wheel out Dictator Blair and get him into their studios asap to prop up the cause after the U6KIP voter backlash.Clear evidence and questioning of the BBC's condescension and politicians telling people how they should think and what is best for them results in having exactly the opposite affect.
I can't wait for a next review of the licence fee and get the bias of the supposedly impartial BBC sorted out once and for all.
When the BBC wheels out Blair it could perhaps challenge him on a number of items on behalf of the PEOPLE: weapons of mass destruction; blanket immigration; selling our gold; formula one advertising; and his middle east achievements. Somehow I doubt the BBC would do the right thing. If some spare minutes did in fact became available it would ask him about his support for Newcastle United...
When will the schedule interrupted by the World Cup complaints start?
Probably tonight, with 90 minutes of dross of "The complete guide to penalty shoot outs" I'm surprised I stood it for 30 minutes before I switched stations.
Probably tonight, with 90 minutes of dross of "The complete guide to penalty shoot outs" I'm surprised I stood it for 30 minutes before I switched stations.
But it's during Sport time. I mean the ones who complain about Drive & the late night schedule changing!
The BBC are definitely biased against UKIP and i am not a supporter. Most presenters/reporters think it hugely satisfying to put them down whenever possible. - to gain brownie points. In my opinion they are making themselves look silly..
I am inclined to agree but I think in so doing they they galvanised UKIP support - something they had not bargained for. The double wammy was when they started to take votes of labour as well. I don't think they can grasp that the increase in UKIP support appears to have destroyed Liberal support while Labour has not gained and 51% of the vote is now right of centre.
Do these scumbags pay to appear on BBC (and sell their book and/or get exposure) or does the BBC pay them...?
That's what I wonder often....I'm sure they don't get paid but hey publicity to millions is worth more than its weight in gold (well unless sold at the price Brown and Blair disposed of ours that is) lol at the Newcastle utd remark too still wince remembering them filmed in downing st watching some football championship on tv like "ordinary blokes"
Campbell I totally agree Rodney....this unelected crony is as responsible for the war as his "bosses" he went after the BBC with a vengeance and very nearly caused it's total meltdown.....so do they have nothing to do with him? Do they villify him and ensure he's put under scrutiny....
Errr no.....he's a talking head at every given opportunity & they even commissioned a documentary by him on depression........ ferchrissakes..... it's very wrong....
I knew via a friend that Elvis impersonator who Campbell so cringingly embarrassingly got for Brown's birthday...
the others asked him what it was like to be with them and he said it was strange to be in the room with such powerful people blah blah....
when I asked how on earth he resisted the overwhelming urge to punch them both in the face it didn't go down too well.... ....I got my coat....
Could the crop of UKIP plants please refrain from cluttering up another thread with their rants. People are on to you across many many different forums & it's all a bit dull now & sooo obvious.
Could the crop of UKIP plants please refrain from cluttering up another thread with their rants. People are on to you across many many different forums & it's all a bit dull now & sooo obvious.
I'm not quite sure who you're on about cluttering up the thread _
I actually started it in the first place and Rodney,Cyril,reform5 & r4extra are all regular posters _if that's what we want to discuss its perfectly ok
Could the crop of UKIP plants please refrain from cluttering up another thread with their rants. People are on to you across many many different forums & it's all a bit dull now & sooo obvious.
Talking of plants if the BBC Question Time sudio audience of the last two weeks represented the British public then UKIP wouldn't have won a single seat.:)
Probably tonight, with 90 minutes of dross of "The complete guide to penalty shoot outs" I'm surprised I stood it for 30 minutes before I switched stations.
This dross must be doing the ratings no end of good...
Could the crop of UKIP plants please refrain from cluttering up another thread with their rants. People are on to you across many many different forums & it's all a bit dull now & sooo obvious.
Where are the Ukip references? The BBC SHOULD be unbiased and neutral.
Probably tonight, with 90 minutes of dross of "The complete guide to penalty shoot outs" I'm surprised I stood it for 30 minutes before I switched stations.
I heard that as well, or rather 30 minutes, and was dismayed at how banal the coverage was. It would have been thin stuff for a 30 minute slot, but 90 minutes was waaaay too much - there was some interesting stuff , but they were stretching the material so thin it was transparent.
I really hope this is not the shape of things to come.
Hi. My point about complaints that the BBC was pro UKIP wasn't to say I agree with them but merely to point out that not everyone thinks the bias is one way. Like I said I had no strong feelings one way or the other on this topic. If you are going to dismiss complainers of so called pro UKIP bias as a bunch of Lefties could not the same be said of those of you who support UKIP and have your own political agenda re the BBC?
Cyril you can't wait for the next licence fee review to sort out the BBC's bias. Who is going to do this? The Government? Do you envisage the BBC having to submit every news item to the Department of Media Culture and Sport? There is an argument for ending the licence fee and replacing it with public subscription given the multi media that exists today. However I would suggest ending the fee solely because the Government of the day does not like some of its broadcasts smacks to me of state controlled media. Today the BBC tomorrow Sky News and remember at some point there may be a Left Wing Administration in office(Alistair Campbell anybody?)
In my last post I made reference to the BBC and Tower hamlets. Correct if I am wrong but I seem to remember Panorama(BBC1) did a programme which made a number of serious allegations about the conduct of the Borough's Mayor. The evidence gathered was passed to Eric Pickles who as far as I am aware is still looking into them. So to say the BBC ignores issues which might cast a less than flattering light on people of Asian extraction is a little wide of the mark.
Cyril you can't wait for the next licence fee review to sort out the BBC's bias. Who is going to do this? The Government? Do you envisage the BBC having to submit every news item to the Department of Media Culture and Sport? There is an argument for ending the licence fee and replacing it with public subscription given the multi media that exists today. However I would suggest ending the fee solely because the Government of the day does not like some of its broadcasts smacks to me of state controlled media. Today the BBC tomorrow Sky News and remember at some point there may be a Left Wing Administration in office(Alistair Campbell anybody?)
Why bother asking me when you appear to be supplying answers ( some them patently ridiculous ) to your own questions ?
If a public subscription makes the BBC more independent from government interference and they are not reliant on funding by an outdated mode of tax and as long as I don't have to pay for it, that's fine by me.
If a public subscription makes the BBC more independent from government interference and they are not reliant on funding by an outdated mode of tax and as long as I don't have to pay for it, that's fine by me.
Personally I think 40p a day per household is good value for money for BBC TV and radio. A subscription service would probably cost more and result in a smaller range of channels and programs, reduced quality plus more repeats. I think the SKY model is worse a subscription and adverts, the lack of commercial breaks is one of the best things about the BBC.
Would you stop listening and watching the BBC Cyril if you had to subscribe?
Personally I think 40p a day per household is good value for money for BBC TV and radio. A subscription service would probably cost more and result in a smaller range of channels and programs, reduced quality plus more repeats. I think the SKY model is worse a subscription and adverts, the lack of commercial breaks is one of the best things about the BBC.
Would you stop listening and watching the BBC Cyril if you had to subscribe?
The 40p a day thing is a myth. If everyone HAD to pay for Sky regardless it would be a lot cheaper.
Also, the BBC doesn't pay for much sport these days and personally there's very little outside of the science stuff on the BBC (and there's NOT enough of that) there's little I watch, most of the TV stuff is aimed at kids and women.
If the BBC went subscription and offered a dedicated science/technology/natural history channel along the lines of say the Discovery channel for 10-20 pounds a month, I'd pay it. But I wouldn't pay for the crap served up on BBC 1
Anyone else hear the Radio 5 farce this morning with Livsey and the Koala bear story? He went on and on and on about it, then when they got the bloke on to discuss it, they cut him off about about 30 seconds to go to the news.
The laugh was they cut him off then we got the endless pointless plugs about the Radio 5 website (considering most people are probably listening in a car why both BBC?) before the news.
I really really hate that, it's bloody rude and not needed, they don't have to go to the news at exactly the hour and if they cut out the endless plugs for crap they'd have more time to fit stories in.
I feel sorry for the people they have on the other end of the line.
Hi. My point about complaints that the BBC was pro UKIP wasn't to say I agree with them but merely to point out that not everyone thinks the bias is one way. Like I said I had no strong feelings one way or the other on this topic. If you are going to dismiss complainers of so called pro UKIP bias as a bunch of Lefties could not the same be said of those of you who support UKIP and have your own political agenda re the BBC?
Cyril you can't wait for the next licence fee review to sort out the BBC's bias. Who is going to do this? The Government? Do you envisage the BBC having to submit every news item to the Department of Media Culture and Sport? There is an argument for ending the licence fee and replacing it with public subscription given the multi media that exists today. However I would suggest ending the fee solely because the Government of the day does not like some of its broadcasts smacks to me of state controlled media. Today the BBC tomorrow Sky News and remember at some point there may be a Left Wing Administration in office(Alistair Campbell anybody?)
In my last post I made reference to the BBC and Tower hamlets. Correct if I am wrong but I seem to remember Panorama(BBC1) did a programme which made a number of serious allegations about the conduct of the Borough's Mayor. The evidence gathered was passed to Eric Pickles who as far as I am aware is still looking into them. So to say the BBC ignores issues which might cast a less than flattering light on people of Asian extraction is a little wide of the mark.
You're missing the point, the BBC's coverage of Tower Hamlets was played down and hardly mentioned, compared to some of the 'alleged' thing said by UKIP candidates.
What has gone on in Tower Hamlets is a national disgrace, it's not just Tower Hamlets either and yes the BBC in particular like to play down issues around certain groups of people.
You only have to look at how the BBC went after Lord McAlpine (Nolan's show that Friday night after Newsnight was a total disgrace) yet for some unknown reason the BBC seem not to want to investigate how Stuart Hall got away with his antics at the BBC for decades, never mind Savile.
The 40p a day thing is a myth. If everyone HAD to pay for Sky regardless it would be a lot cheaper.
Also, the BBC doesn't pay for much sport these days and personally there's very little outside of the science stuff on the BBC (and there's NOT enough of that) there's little I watch, most of the TV stuff is aimed at kids and women.
If the BBC went subscription and offered a dedicated science/technology/natural history channel along the lines of say the Discovery channel for 10-20 pounds a month, I'd pay it. But I wouldn't pay for the crap served up on BBC 1
Most of what is on SKY is crap and repeated numerous times.
The licence fee works because it caters for such a broad range of interests and cross subsidises less popular areas. If it adopted a subscription model and people only subscribed to things they liked everybody would end up paying more and many of the things the BBC currently does would no longer be viable. Also you would need a set top box for every TV in the house and presumably like SKY would result in additional charges for multi room packages. It would be difficult to see how scraping the licence fee would result in improved quality and variety, more likely fewer channels, cheaper programs and more repeats. Personally I can't see it happening as it would be such a massive task to provide a set top box for every household / subscriber / TV set in the country ready for the day that the BBC became encrypted.
Also I am quite happy to pay 40p a day not to have adverts.
I don't see how it could work for BBC Radio, how would they encrypt the signal - so would you be happy to hear adverts on 5 live for example? I do moan about 5 live but I stick with it in a big part due to hating the adverts on the likes of LBC and Talksport.
I really really hate that, it's bloody rude and not needed, they don't have to go to the news at exactly the hour and if they cut out the endless plugs for crap they'd have more time to fit stories in.
Apparently they do according to VD, she apologized a few weeks ago and claimed that the on the hour news music is automatic and they have no control over it unlike the 30 min one,I agree about the jingles and going over to reports that are talking about a different subject, they broke off a interview today and went to parliament who weren't banging on about the Queens speech which is why we were told we were going over ,bloody annoying.>:(
Also the 40p a day is BS because of how many pay it, the BBC should be judged on total income and not the 40p argument.
Most of what is on SKY is crap and repeated numerous times.
The licence fee works because it caters for such a broad range of interests and cross subsidises less popular areas. If it adopted a subscription model and people only subscribed to things they liked everybody would end up paying more and many of the things the BBC currently does would no longer be viable. Also you would need a set top box for every TV in the house and presumably like SKY would result in additional charges for multi room packages. It would be difficult to see how scraping the licence fee would result in improved quality and variety, more likely fewer channels, cheaper programs and more repeats. Personally I can't see it happening as it would be such a massive task to provide a set top box for every household / subscriber / TV set in the country ready for the day that the BBC became encrypted.
Also I am quite happy to pay 40p a day not to have adverts.
I don't see how it could work for BBC Radio, how would they encrypt the signal - so would you be happy to hear adverts on 5 live for example? I do moan about 5 live but I stick with it in a big part due to hating the adverts on the likes of LBC and Talksport.
Yes but you're ONLY paying 40p because everyone HAS to pay for the BBC. As for Sky yes most of it is crap, I don't have Sky so it doesn't bother me.
You are correct that there needs to be money for programming that might not otherwise get made but this can be done through either a very reduced licence fee, a tax on the sale of new TV's some lottery money and some money from direct taxation.
As for radio, you're not required to pay to listen to the BBC now, people from all over the world can listen in for free.
What I don't get with your argument is that you claim the BBC is great value for money, so if the BBC went subscription wouldn't most people simply carry on paying it? And those who don't won't be criminalised and won't get free viewing.
i often smile when big supporters of the BBC state on the one hand that 40p a day is great value for money but then think if the BBC set a subscription at that level that people wouldn't pay.
You're missing the point, the BBC's coverage of Tower Hamlets was played down and hardly mentioned, compared to some of the 'alleged' thing said by UKIP candidates.
What has gone on in Tower Hamlets is a national disgrace, it's not just Tower Hamlets either and yes the BBC in particular like to play down issues around certain groups of people.
You only have to look at how the BBC went after Lord McAlpine (Nolan's show that Friday night after Newsnight was a total disgrace) yet for some unknown reason the BBC seem not to want to investigate how Stuart Hall got away with his antics at the BBC for decades, never mind Savile.
Re your last point - if any wizz person could post the McAlpine, Hall and Savill respective 'Nolans' I am sure they would make interesting listens and comparisons.
Apparently they do according to VD, she apologized a few weeks ago and claimed that the on the hour news music is automatic and they have no control over it unlike the 30 min one,I agree about the jingles and going over to reports that are talking about a different subject, they broke off a interview today and went to parliament who weren't banging on about the Queens speech which is why we were told we were going over ,bloody annoying.>:(
Also the 40p a day is BS because of how many pay it, the BBC should be judged on total income and not the 40p argument.
But the on the hour is not automatic as when they have a top level politician on they often go well over without any silly jingles.
I just think it's out and out rude to bring someone on then cut them off after just a few seconds. It would be better to hold them over to after the news.
Comments
People need to realise how manipulative the BBC has become with its political agenda.Even worse and so predictable is the fact that they call on and wheel out Dictator Blair and get him into their studios asap to prop up the cause after the UKIP voter backlash.Clear evidence and questioning of the BBC's condescension and politicians telling people how they should think and what is best for them results in having exactly the opposite affect.
I can't wait for a next review of the licence fee and get the unbalanced reporting of the supposedly impartial BBC sorted out once and for all.
When the BBC wheels out Blair it could perhaps challenge him on a number of items on behalf of the PEOPLE: weapons of mass destruction; blanket immigration; selling our gold; formula one advertising; and his middle east achievements. Somehow I doubt the BBC would do the right thing. If some spare minutes did in fact became available it would ask him about his support for Newcastle United...
Probably tonight, with 90 minutes of dross of "The complete guide to penalty shoot outs" I'm surprised I stood it for 30 minutes before I switched stations.
But it's during Sport time. I mean the ones who complain about Drive & the late night schedule changing!
I am inclined to agree but I think in so doing they they galvanised UKIP support - something they had not bargained for. The double wammy was when they started to take votes of labour as well. I don't think they can grasp that the increase in UKIP support appears to have destroyed Liberal support while Labour has not gained and 51% of the vote is now right of centre.
That's what I wonder often....I'm sure they don't get paid but hey publicity to millions is worth more than its weight in gold (well unless sold at the price Brown and Blair disposed of ours that is) lol at the Newcastle utd remark too
Campbell I totally agree Rodney....this unelected crony is as responsible for the war as his "bosses" he went after the BBC with a vengeance and very nearly caused it's total meltdown.....so do they have nothing to do with him? Do they villify him and ensure he's put under scrutiny....
Errr no.....he's a talking head at every given opportunity & they even commissioned a documentary by him on depression........ ferchrissakes..... it's very wrong....
I knew via a friend that Elvis impersonator who Campbell so cringingly embarrassingly got for Brown's birthday...
the others asked him what it was like to be with them and he said it was strange to be in the room with such powerful people blah blah....
when I asked how on earth he resisted the overwhelming urge to punch them both in the face it didn't go down too well....
I'm not quite sure who you're on about cluttering up the thread _
I actually started it in the first place and Rodney,Cyril,reform5 & r4extra are all regular posters _if that's what we want to discuss its perfectly ok
Talking of plants if the BBC Question Time sudio audience of the last two weeks represented the British public then UKIP wouldn't have won a single seat.:)
This dross must be doing the ratings no end of good...
Where are the Ukip references? The BBC SHOULD be unbiased and neutral.
I heard that as well, or rather 30 minutes, and was dismayed at how banal the coverage was. It would have been thin stuff for a 30 minute slot, but 90 minutes was waaaay too much - there was some interesting stuff , but they were stretching the material so thin it was transparent.
I really hope this is not the shape of things to come.
Cyril you can't wait for the next licence fee review to sort out the BBC's bias. Who is going to do this? The Government? Do you envisage the BBC having to submit every news item to the Department of Media Culture and Sport? There is an argument for ending the licence fee and replacing it with public subscription given the multi media that exists today. However I would suggest ending the fee solely because the Government of the day does not like some of its broadcasts smacks to me of state controlled media. Today the BBC tomorrow Sky News and remember at some point there may be a Left Wing Administration in office(Alistair Campbell anybody?)
In my last post I made reference to the BBC and Tower hamlets. Correct if I am wrong but I seem to remember Panorama(BBC1) did a programme which made a number of serious allegations about the conduct of the Borough's Mayor. The evidence gathered was passed to Eric Pickles who as far as I am aware is still looking into them. So to say the BBC ignores issues which might cast a less than flattering light on people of Asian extraction is a little wide of the mark.
Why bother asking me when you appear to be supplying answers ( some them patently ridiculous ) to your own questions ?
If a public subscription makes the BBC more independent from government interference and they are not reliant on funding by an outdated mode of tax and as long as I don't have to pay for it, that's fine by me.
Personally I think 40p a day per household is good value for money for BBC TV and radio. A subscription service would probably cost more and result in a smaller range of channels and programs, reduced quality plus more repeats. I think the SKY model is worse a subscription and adverts, the lack of commercial breaks is one of the best things about the BBC.
Would you stop listening and watching the BBC Cyril if you had to subscribe?
The 40p a day thing is a myth. If everyone HAD to pay for Sky regardless it would be a lot cheaper.
Also, the BBC doesn't pay for much sport these days and personally there's very little outside of the science stuff on the BBC (and there's NOT enough of that) there's little I watch, most of the TV stuff is aimed at kids and women.
If the BBC went subscription and offered a dedicated science/technology/natural history channel along the lines of say the Discovery channel for 10-20 pounds a month, I'd pay it. But I wouldn't pay for the crap served up on BBC 1
The laugh was they cut him off then we got the endless pointless plugs about the Radio 5 website (considering most people are probably listening in a car why both BBC?) before the news.
I really really hate that, it's bloody rude and not needed, they don't have to go to the news at exactly the hour and if they cut out the endless plugs for crap they'd have more time to fit stories in.
I feel sorry for the people they have on the other end of the line.
You're missing the point, the BBC's coverage of Tower Hamlets was played down and hardly mentioned, compared to some of the 'alleged' thing said by UKIP candidates.
What has gone on in Tower Hamlets is a national disgrace, it's not just Tower Hamlets either and yes the BBC in particular like to play down issues around certain groups of people.
You only have to look at how the BBC went after Lord McAlpine (Nolan's show that Friday night after Newsnight was a total disgrace) yet for some unknown reason the BBC seem not to want to investigate how Stuart Hall got away with his antics at the BBC for decades, never mind Savile.
Most of what is on SKY is crap and repeated numerous times.
The licence fee works because it caters for such a broad range of interests and cross subsidises less popular areas. If it adopted a subscription model and people only subscribed to things they liked everybody would end up paying more and many of the things the BBC currently does would no longer be viable. Also you would need a set top box for every TV in the house and presumably like SKY would result in additional charges for multi room packages. It would be difficult to see how scraping the licence fee would result in improved quality and variety, more likely fewer channels, cheaper programs and more repeats. Personally I can't see it happening as it would be such a massive task to provide a set top box for every household / subscriber / TV set in the country ready for the day that the BBC became encrypted.
Also I am quite happy to pay 40p a day not to have adverts.
I don't see how it could work for BBC Radio, how would they encrypt the signal - so would you be happy to hear adverts on 5 live for example? I do moan about 5 live but I stick with it in a big part due to hating the adverts on the likes of LBC and Talksport.
Apparently they do according to VD, she apologized a few weeks ago and claimed that the on the hour news music is automatic and they have no control over it unlike the 30 min one,I agree about the jingles and going over to reports that are talking about a different subject, they broke off a interview today and went to parliament who weren't banging on about the Queens speech which is why we were told we were going over ,bloody annoying.>:(
Also the 40p a day is BS because of how many pay it, the BBC should be judged on total income and not the 40p argument.
Yes you are right, there are four in our household so it is in fact 10p each per day
Would you subscribe if it was optional, or would you stop watching BBC TV and listening to BBC Radio?
Yes but you're ONLY paying 40p because everyone HAS to pay for the BBC. As for Sky yes most of it is crap, I don't have Sky so it doesn't bother me.
You are correct that there needs to be money for programming that might not otherwise get made but this can be done through either a very reduced licence fee, a tax on the sale of new TV's some lottery money and some money from direct taxation.
As for radio, you're not required to pay to listen to the BBC now, people from all over the world can listen in for free.
What I don't get with your argument is that you claim the BBC is great value for money, so if the BBC went subscription wouldn't most people simply carry on paying it? And those who don't won't be criminalised and won't get free viewing.
i often smile when big supporters of the BBC state on the one hand that 40p a day is great value for money but then think if the BBC set a subscription at that level that people wouldn't pay.
So which is it?
Re your last point - if any wizz person could post the McAlpine, Hall and Savill respective 'Nolans' I am sure they would make interesting listens and comparisons.
But the on the hour is not automatic as when they have a top level politician on they often go well over without any silly jingles.
I just think it's out and out rude to bring someone on then cut them off after just a few seconds. It would be better to hold them over to after the news.