Not particularly interested in the BBC, but I find it interesting that Lineker argues that the government of the day should not choose the BBC chairman. I think that is pretty radical coming from the trendy lefty golden booted footy punter. I find it very difficult not to conceive such an argument as anything but a call for defunding the BBC, and leaving it to its own devices. If it is wrong for the democratically elected government of the day to choose the chairman, then surely it is also wrong for the democratically elected government of the day to fund it? Unless you were going to include BBC leadership with the local or national elections, who else should be choosing the leadership? Except the democratically elected government of the day. I don't entirely dislike Lineker , but this seems to be an expression of stupidity, to me. Unless he does actually think the BBC should be defunded. PS Every time I look at a twitter thread I feel slightly sick, and am very happy only to interact rarely with the place. I don't think I have ever come away from the site without pondering how incredibly dim witted and shallow the place is whilst the twitterati seem to think they are some kind of elitist intelligentsia. Just a poisonous place for pseudo intellects that think posting memes and asinine repetition of what someone else said is really clever.
Defund the BBC is such a weird argument – especially when the people who make it think that the BBC is a hotbed of leFtiEs when actually the hierarchy is all Tories appointed by the Tories. Lineker isn't arguing to defund the BBC. He's saying that the chairman should not be appointed by the Government and that's a valid point. Why should it be an overtly political decision when the BBC is a public service broadcaster, not the media wing of government. Unless, of course, people want it to be the media wing of the Government and are happy for that to be the case if the Government changes. Anyway, people who do argue to 'defund the BBC' are making a pretty daft case because it fundamentally misunderstands three things. 1. The BBC is 71% funded by the public via the licence fee – and no matter which way you slice it, it will still be funded by the public. Or it'll be funded by advertising. Or it'll be funded by a combination of both. 2. The BBC is hugely popular. Despite the noisy minority claiming no one watches it, the viewing figures for BBC programmes speak for themselves and that's without taking into account the vast network of radio output here and abroad, and its value as an instrument of soft power abroad. The BBC makes Britain far, far more influential around the world than politicians do. 3. The BBC is unbelievable value for money for consumers. In a perverse way I look forward to the day the squealing blowhards get their way and the licence fee is scrapped and everyone has to pay £17.99 a month or whatever to watch/listen to a fraction of the current output. However, if you want to withdraw the mandatory licence fee and leave it to market forces, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But all that will happen is that it will cost the consumer more, its output will wither and lots of good content will disappear in the race to generate income, it may start to carry adverts and it's editorial values may be even less to your liking than they currently are. Anyway, let's focus on the BBC, as is right and proper, and let it slide that comedy news channel GB News breaches Ofcom rules daily by allowing Tory MPs to interview other Tory MPs.
Hmm, this seems like a normal article. And look! There is a comment from Toby Young, who looks a bit like a baby with specs on. Full article here. Of course babies use the same joining form as any other person, so the question about trans and non-binary (the surgery is required to understand the protected characteristics of its patient group) is for adults and only hateful people who want to further a culture war would pretend it’s otherwise. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22515783/woke-gp-surgery-baby-trans-non-binary/
LMFAO, do these people really think there should be multiple versions of forms instead of a single standard? Good grief. A gnat flying into their ears would be a space invader. Clearly, critical thinking is dead.
They are simply stirring up hate. They have convinced themselves they are protecting women, but this is the consequence when their hate gets lodged in the brain of someone damaged, ready to act on it. https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/25/irel...en-by-man-who-thought-she-was-trans-18840850/
Question no. 14 is yesterday's "Times Daily Quiz" Luton Town plays which football club in the "M1 Derby"?
That seems a very 20 Century view of a 21 Century corporation. Your argument almost seems lost in a dewy eyed call back to days of empire. The only reason I dislike licence fee funding of the Beeb is because the current system means it is illegal to watch any live TV without contributing to a broadcaster that I neither listen to or watch. You may think it is quality viewing, but I think it is shallow, tabloid and virtually unwatchable, surviving only as the legacy mores of an aging population who cling to vague recollections of better times. All the great things the BBC will ever do were achieved by 2012. Let it die, as far as I am concerned. It is a last bastion of mid 20 Century conservatism. Which is probably why so many modern day lefties (neo tories) cling so desperately to it.
I've gradually changed my opinion about the BBC. I was of the opinion that it should be continued as now, just on the basis of the lack of adverts. But it is so poor now. I agree with Henry that a lot of it is based on misty-eyed nostalgia for when it did have good shows on. All it has now is dubious daytime schlock-horror 'criminals, scams and fraudsters caught on camera and shamed' shows, which frighten and upset the elderly people and give then a bad impression of how the world is. As a carer, I often had to gently explain that outside the front door is the green, leafy tranquility of rural cotswold Oxfordshire - not South Central Bronx - and they were unlikely to be targeted by bloods and crips or blown up by ISIS if we have a little stroll down to the park and back. Then there's the evening shyte. Dull gameshows, horrible soaps, some formulaic drama maybe. Twee middle class 'comedies' almost completely absent of any originality. All about mummies living in big urban houses, with their troubles with sister and mum and the kids - oh what are they like! Special mention too for the super-smug and middle class HIGNIFY. Supposed satire - but of the mildest milksop type. Just right for a chuckle after a hard week at the office. I respect Mr Hislop, but they should just let him make an investigation program each week on his own. A private eye TV. That would be maybe something worth seeing rather than Mr Merton's weekly cringeworthy pre-written 'surrealist' outbursts and the dull taciturn celebrity guests. Or travel shows, always always with that Palestinian scarf-wrapped, floppy-haired, know-nothing Simon Reeve. What a first class terrrr-wat that man is. Worst of all is the news. They talk about 'state-controlled media' when they discuss other countries (like Cuba), but the BBC is obviously and blatantly just as tightly controlled. The fortnight shutdown for the death of Brenda being a good example. I'm not paying for that §hit.
The licence fee system will have to change, so that precious right wing types will be able to live unmolested in their fetid echo chambers, never having to see the diverse peoples and points of view of the nation. Look up ‘Defund the BBC’ on social media and its always a pile on of racists and nationalists complaining that some woke agenda is being foisted on them because a programme was made with black actors or a bloke wore a frock. For the rest of us, the BBC still produces some great stuff and things that wouldn’t get done elsewhere. Its documentaries, science and nature programmes are still great, dramas and comedies more hit and miss, but some great ones still and still does national event TV, like Strictly, better than anyone else. It also feeds the rest of the industry with talent and ideas. It’s certainly in need of improvement. Tory infiltration and a relentless media campaign against it have exerted a cost and trimmed its capabilities. But there is no other media company that documents a nation in quite the same way, describes people like us whoever we are. You don’t throw a pearl like that away, you make it better. And you don’t shut down a media company on the basis that you don’t like some programmes. Other people like them and they count too.
The only problem with BBC TV, imho, is that it has been dumbed down in an attempt, I assume, to gain ratings. The perfect example was the lunchtime news the other day spent the first 11 minutes on the Philip Schofield "story". But there is still plenty of great programmes on TV and radio if you look hard enough. BBC Sounds and iPlayer have absolutely loads of great stuff on demand to satisfy every taste. And their website has loads of indepth articles if you get past the often populist headline articles (Schofield again). Certainly the BBC has a huge soft influence on the world through such things as the World Service and the sale of programmes. Bottom line for me is everyone can find something to moan about when it comes to the BBC. But that is inevitable as it tries to provide something for everyone. On the whole I think it succeeds, especially now you can choose what you want to watch, read, listen to on demand.
I agree wholeheartedly with Clive's view of HIGNFY - well past its sell-by date. I tend to listen to the BBC's radio output more than I watch BBC TV. The way the BBC is funded has to be changed but when I compare what I pay each month for the BBC to the vast amounts I shell out for Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc etc, I think it's good value. Anyway, why are we talking about this when the narcissistic twerp Prince Harry is by all accounts making an arse of himself in his court case against the Daily Mirror?
Aaaaaah the old 'soft projection of power.' Contrary to the popular belief, the BBCWS's 'core' audience isn't Brit ex-pats pining for a taste of 1950's blighty (TBF memories of the early evening parties held to listen to the six nations or the FA cup final are something I will always treasure - extra time was always a problem as it switched to the BBC Russian Service at 7PM EET) but large swathes of our planet's population who are mis-served by their local home-grown media. A group who fully understand the implication of the BBC's mission to Inform, Educate and Entertain (I've meant countless people* worldwide, in very odd locations, whose spoken English and encyclopaedic knowledge) of the EPL was gained from the BBCWS. So important was this role that the BBCWS was entirely funded by the FCO. But the Tories 'saw' that this was a waste of money and withdrew all funding - saying that it had to be paid for by the licence fee (in 2014). In 2016 the Tories then stipulated how much of the licence fee had to be spent on the BBCWS** as part of the licence settlement. Now something very strange happened in 2017 the government 'agreed' to fund broadcasts to certain regions for certain periods of time*** and now they fund 'a lot' of targetted output and skills transfer (the BBCWS was the 'go to' place expertise for EU/UN funded information projects as part of aid packages to disaster zones). Actually, the BBC produces very little content 'in-house' - part of the Thatcher 'market reforms' were it had to increase use the service of commercial production companies. It also has as part of its settlement agreement to produce 'innovative' programming and develop new 'talent' (sic). So it has to take risks in new programming and formats that ITV could and would never do. Don't forget the BBC gets penalised when it's too successful. Remember the early days of the 'net (I do)? The BBC's online presence was massive and exhaustive but that had to go as it was 'stifling' commercial competition. BBC local radio's doing the same and it's distinctive regionalism is doing the same to the local press. So the BBC has to use the licence fee to subsidise commercial companies. What do I mean? Well there's, for example, the Local Democracy Reporting Service. In Hertfordshire, the BBC pays REACH ("We are the UK and Ireland's largest commercial news publisher" operating profit last year £106.1m) for a local democracy reporter one Will Durrant who's been a very busy little boy filing all those reports about the cataclysmic changes in the 'blueness' of our local government since May... Also I get that HIGNFY is getting on (FFS it's the TV version of "The News Quiz" that's been going since 1977) - but axing the country's 17th most popular TV show......... *At an outdoor event (in Vilnius), in the Q and A session, where members of the audience could ask him anything, after his address the Dalai Lama admitted he was a keen listener of the BBCWS and especially liked its new soap opera "Westway". **Around £250m per year. ***Rumours abounded that in this age of 'multiple battlespace environments' the pressure came from 'our' Armed Services and Intelligence Agencies.
Less of a pearl, more of a polished terd now. Entertainment like that I can stream any day, and I preferred documentaries when they were inspirational because of their content, rather than "brilliant" because the presenter told you so. Pointing out that (the never the less entertaining) Strictly is what counts for event TV these days is, IMHO, detracting from your argument more than it is making it. I'm very happy you get to see it, I just resent paying for you to watch it just because I want to watch the Horns live on a stream that uses no BBC infrastructure. And what percentage of the population is represented by social media? 10% is it? You can quote that small section of the population if you like, but please don't tell me it is representative of anything but the troubled, compartmentalised bit of the world that you live in. I don't know a single person, outside of this forum, that uses twitter (at all) or FB to express their opinion on current affairs or politics. If you rely on the angriest and most extreme posters, on the left and the right, for social commentary, you are going to see the worst of society. Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised by some of the views that get expressed on here.
Hooter is the classic, precious, right wing faux rebel, demanding to be adrift of any national conversation. Stewing in his ‘high information’ sources (that’s Telegram and the more bonkers of YouTube folk). He’s the best case possible for a better BBC.
Well I switched from the Telegraph to the Times last year, maybe I wasn't the only one, although, the article says the group's performance is OK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65835312 I bought the Telegraph for decades even though I never agreed with the politics, it used to have some redeeming features. In the end the Brexit nonsense drove me away (to Murdoch ).
I agree. A better BBC where we don't have to pay for their programming so we can watch un-related live sports events. They can do what they like when I'm not paying for them. And I genuinely hope that people who like their output get what they want. But no surprise you are defending yet another bastion of conservative values. If you complain again that I keep calling you a closet conservative, I'll just link to your posts here, then no one can argue with me. Talk about faux rebellion!! Pro EU (the ultimate 'establishment'). Pro free movement (in support of low waged seasonal employment by corporations). Calls people "black and brown". Pro nationalised broadcasting in the 21 Century. Complains when he gets called a gammon (after having called everyone else gammons). Wow.
Calling me a conservative merely demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole you are. Maybe a fully commercial, post licence fee BBC could tempt you in. A few programmes sympathetic to Trump’s white supremacist supporters, that sort of thing.
Nah. I’m not a fan of white supremes mate. I thought you would have gathered that when I criticised you for referring to minorities as “black and brown people”, or when I criticised you for describing Malaysia as third world. Most would agree, I think, that you are more guilty of making white supremacist arguments, of the two of us, and I haven’t even mentioned anyone defending anti-Semitism and outright racism yet. But you keep on suggesting it is me that is the white supreme, despite not having any reason (of my own postings) to justify it. Pure projection. And if something waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’ll not hesitate to describe it as a duck. The BBC is THE most conservative surviving vestige of Empire. If you don’t believe me, trust this guy…
So, what is it about the racist, bordering on fascist, UK projecting its own propaganda around the world that you think is good for every non-Brit that gets to hear it? If anyone were to read your general posts, they would assume that the last thing any johnny foreigner should do is listen to the World Service. Surely you should be calling for the enlightened EU world service to produce content for those unfortunate enough not to live in the EU? Rather than for the Brexit voting UK to maintain its back channels to the rest of the world. Your message, when considered broadly with everything else you say about the UK, appears schizophrenic and contradictory. Why would you have the UK continue its own stream of potential propaganda, when you could be calling for the EU to provide a service that would be much more in keeping with your own stated political views? I know the answer and have eluded to it enough times. I am just not sure that you do. You dewy eyed old Brit nostalgia softy. But clearly not a gammon
When The Daily Hate did 'this' for Stew Lee's "Richard 'The Hamster' Hammond routine" (the one where he repeats the refrain "...it's just a joke"...) the article lasted less than three hours on-line.
I’m glad there’s a newspaper speaking for the common man and prepared to call out Starmer and this rotten Labour government. Tick tock, time to call an election ‘Sir’ Keir, your time in power is over!!
As one wag pointed out on Twitter though, did anyone else miss the point at which all Britain’s problems became the fault of the next Labour government rather than the previous one? A solemn moment in Tory politicking has essentially passed us all by.
Missing the big picture here. Working class hero Nads was deprived of a place in the Lords by ‘sinister’ forces. Just how did Sir Keir manage it?
Important news too. (Note to self: I must start going less to minimise the chances of being in a 2km radius of Vanessa Felz).
