But that is how they are funded, its a bit different for the BBC

The BBC owns or has a major stake in several commercial TV channels which do show adverts,
Allibi
Blighty
Dave
Eden
G.O.L.D
Really
Watch
Yesterday
Community Channel

I have no beef with the BBC in general, and believe thy are probably the best TV station in the world for drama, comedy and documentaries,

I once greatly admired their news coverage too, but alas not any longer.

The BBC are anti-Brexit anti-Russian pro immigration gay promoting paedophile harbouring and totally corrupt.

Er .... what brought that on? You seem to have some sort of grudge against them.

And he says "gay promoting" like somehow being homosexual is a bad thing.

If the OP only wants headlines saying "Brexit is great, and it's all going swimmingly", why do they need to switch on the news at all? Just write it on a big piece of paper and leave it by your bed, and you can read it each morning and save yourself a lot of grief.

Whether or not the rest of the Brexit voters want to know what's going on, or just to be told they are right, is up to them, surely? The OP shouldn't presume they are all equally vain.


RussiaToday told him.

?? Why should a public organisation 'promote' homosexuality??? - One wouldn't expect any public organisation to promote either homosexuality or hetrosexuality.

And no public organisation does.

Erm.....I never said that it does........but if you could read, you might have noticed that somebody did suggest that! Perhaps you should have addressed your post to someone else.

The BBC doesn't "promote" homosexuality or heterosexuality - in the sense that it doesn't set out to encourage people to behave one way or the other. What it tries to do is treat everyone fairly and equally.

Here's a section from their editorial guidelines:

"We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom's people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in societies worldwide but we should not perpetuate it."

As I said previously - I never claimed that they did!! - but, nevertheless, according to people who have worked for the BBC, the BBC are not completely free of partisanship - no matter what their charter, or editorial guidelines say.......

Are you perhaps confusing 'promotion' with the requirement to deal with social attitudes on an egalitarian basis?

Would either of you classify the Established Church in GB as a "public organisation"

That body 'promotes' heterosexuality ......

Everyone has their own individual interpretation of the partisanship of the BBC and it will depend a lot on their personal beliefs.

Using the earlier argument of homosexuality as an example, some people (see above) clearly think that because the BBC tries to portray everyone fairly regardless of their sexual orientation proves the BBC is left wing.

I've no doubt this view is held by some people who actually work for the BBC - just as I assume there are others who work there that think the BBC is too right wing.

Bit confused and hoping you are referring to
"The BBC are anti-Brexit anti-Russian pro immigration gay promoting paedophile harbouring and totally corrupt."
rather than me.

Where's the left-wing bit coming from?
Its the 'totally corrupt' bit bothers me; but then its just a badly punctuated rant!

It's fairly obvious what's meant by the posters when they say "pro-gay"- they mean they hate the fact the BBC doesn't treat being gay as being disgusting, abnormal, a "crime against god" etc. By "pro-homosexual" I simply meant treating gays as normal people, which I'm sure most sensible people here know I meant- the BBC don't "promote" homosexuality (or hetrosexuality for that matter), but they don't denounce it either.

No, I wasn't referring to you. Your post wasn't even there when I started writing mine. Perhaps I should have said "see way above".


People normally equate equality and diversity with being left-wing, don't they? You don't often hear people accuse gay rights supporters of being too right wing.

You're quite right in saying the earlier post was a badly punctuated rant.

It's only the one poster isn't it?

I was BBC staff 1969 - 1993,
I acted for much of that time as a Trade Union representative and negotiator,
I have usually voted Labour, but occasionally Liberal and once Communist
I am a bearded, sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading, gay man.

In my last years I worked closely with others pursuing a Directorate equality and diversity policy,
I was invited to do so because of my activities within the Union, so I fit a stereotype

but

those I worked with were from across the political spectrum, that is everywhere on the left/right axis,
but they were all at the one end of the bigoted/caring axis.

Its the 'totally corrupt' bit bothers me; a slight against hundreds of well-intentioned people, with no actual reason to say it.

No you've misunderstood, I was disagreeing with the poster I quoted. My point being that portraying gay people as normal human beings doesn't equate to "promoting homosexuality". In fact the same can be said about those episodes of Silent Witness last week, where people were crying BBC bias because they didn't show all refugees to be serial rapists and murderers.

The BBC is a public body in all senses of the word.....and whilst it is true that some religions receive government grants, they are not public institutions as such....they don't exist because of a governmental edict.
Incidentally - the Church promotes 'hetrosexuality' via marriage ..... not per se.

Really?? So, endeavouring to portray people 'fairly' is a somewhat 'left wing' icharacteristic is it???
Interesting viewpoint

It's an appalling viewpoint and certainly not what I think. Sadly - and this was the point I was making - some people do criticise the BBC for fairly reflecting minority groups.

I think I started to lose trust in BBC news after the troops pulled out of Iraq. Not what they were reporting on but the lack of news on the daily car bombings and other sorts of bombings.
It was like there had to be a certain number of deaths before it would get a mention at all and I'd put that figure at 40-50. They would have it on the website if you searched but not on the TV. When 50-100 people were killed it would be on the news for a minute or two, maybe it was happening so much it wasn't news any more ?

You can't watch only the BBC news and think you know whats going on in the world because you only get what they deem you should be aware of.