Split Topic BBC

[srb7677]

Whether we support the BBC or not, the license fee as a concept is morally indefensible.

We are forced by it to pay for the BBC regardless of whether we want to watch it or not just for possessing a TV, and perhaps using it to watch non-BBC channels. Paying the BBC to watch non-BBC channels is somewhat akin to having to pay Sainsburys to shop in Tesco. And we ought to have the moral right to opt out of funding it at the price of not viewing it, without having to throw the TV anyway. If it were not legally mandatory I would no longer choose to pay for it, certainly not it's heavily biased news content.

[Thomas]

I acknowledged i have that choice in that scenario

Tbh that's the only bit I was concerned with, so I'm glad it's been clarified from the first post I quoted.

i think you are merely arguing semantics.

I stand by what i said in my original quote...

It takes away freedom of choice , and forces everyone to pay for their biased content wether they like it or not.

and the subsequent explanations i have given further down the thread.

Seems im not the only one who has that view , both in scotland and without.

BBC audience study shows Scottish viewers are most critical of all
Major surveys of BBC audiences across the UK for the charter review found users in Scotland are consistently the most unhappy, raising challenging questions for corporation executives.

https://archive.is/7ETVM

Apparently he'll tell attendees that "the BBC should respond by adopting a mission to engage with those who do not treat news bulletins as 'appointments to view', those who don't trust what they're told; and those who crave the tools to separate what is true and what is important from the torrent of half-facts and opinion, prejudice and propaganda, which risks overwhelming us all."

And it's hard to argue with that. The state broadcaster does indeed have a big trust problem amid large sections of the electorate – most notably Scottish nationalists and Jeremy Corbyn supporters – and for good reason

[Nalaar]

I acknowledged i have that choice in that scenario

Tbh that's the only bit I was concerned with, so I'm glad it's been clarified from the first post I quoted.

[Thomas]

I mean, my position is that it's all choice. So i don't see how any of what you said changes that.

No what you are saying is i can choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I acknowledged i have that choice in that scenario , but i also point out if i want a tv in my house i am forced to buy a licence.

The point is in the modern world the bbc tax is an outdated mode of paying for this service. I should have the choice not to pay for  the bbc if i want , and still subscribe to the channels i want to.

Im not allowed to do that though  ,so your point is chuck the tv out and dont pay the licence fee.

Why should i have to do that?

Why not drag the bbc into the 21 st century and force them to compete with the other broadcasters by chasing subscription fees which folk are free to sign up to or not as they wish? Or as i said earlier what they wil probably do is change it to something like a transmissinon tax.

[Nalaar]

Okay, so you are not forced, you do have a choice.

Ok lets meet halfway.

Will you accept its a criminal offence to not have a tv licence if someone ( of which there are at present ususal one member of a household) watches TV , meaning families are forced , and i will accept i do have a choice to say to my wife no eastenders , no tv , and suffer the earache as payment for my moral stance?

I mean, my position is that it's all choice. So i don't see how any of what you said changes that.

[Thomas]

Okay, so you are not forced, you do have a choice.

Ok lets meet halfway.

Will you accept its a criminal offence to not have a tv licence if someone ( of which there are at present ususal one member of a household) watches TV , meaning families are forced , and i will accept i do have a choice to say to my wife no eastenders , no tv , and suffer the earache as payment for my moral stance?

[Nalaar]

where ? link please , not sure what you are talking about?

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,773.0.html

ok right got you. Apologies see what you mean.

I dont actually watch tv , neither do the children , but unfortunately the wife does , and it would worry her to bits if we didnt get a licence , so have to keep her happy .

Otherwise no i wouldnt be paying for one , and i have made the point before i think the licence fee is doomed as it stands.

Okay, so you are not forced, you do have a choice.

[Thomas]

where ? link please , not sure what you are talking about?

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,773.0.html

ok right got you. Apologies see what you mean.

I dont actually watch tv , neither do the children , but unfortunately the wife does , and it would worry her to bits if we didnt get a licence , so have to keep her happy .

Otherwise no i wouldnt be paying for one , and i have made the point before i think the licence fee is doomed as it stands.

[Nalaar]

where ? link please , not sure what you are talking about?

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,773.0.html

[Thomas]

And I repeat the fact that all the examples of bias against the Labour left that I gave are a matter of public record. Shit like that shouldn't happen - for or against any political persuasion. That it does is blatant bias.

is this what you are talking about steve?

It's the BBC's rightwing bias that is the threat to democracy and journalism

The truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers. The chairman of the BBC Trust is Chris Patten, a former Conservative cabinet minister. The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, was once chairman of the Young Conservatives. His former senior political producer, Thea Rogers, became George Osborne's special advisor in 2012. Andrew Neil, the presenter of the BBC's flagship political programmes Daily Politics and This Week, is chairman of the conservative Spectator magazine. His editor is Robbie Gibb, former chief of staff to the Tory Francis Maude. After the BBC's economics editor Stephanie Flanders left for a £400,000-a-year job at that notorious leftwing hotbed, JP Morgan, she was replaced by its business editor Robert Peston. His position was taken by Kamal Ahmed from the rightwing Sunday Telegraph, a journalist damned by the Guardian's Nick Davies for spinning government propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war.

BBC stalwart John Humphrys last week joined the chorus of voices alleging "liberal bias" at the BBC. Here is a man who was slapped down by the BBC's own trust last year for violating impartiality and accuracy guidelines in BBC2's The Future State of Welfare. It was an extraordinarily biased piece of TV that fuelled widespread myths about social security. With such coverage, this "liberal-biased" BBC shares the blame for leaving the public completely ill-informed, with, for example, voters estimating that 34 times more money is lost through benefit fraud than is actually the case.

Tory politicians favour the BBC as a useful recruitment service too. After Andy Coulson was driven from No 10, David Cameron replaced him with the then BBC news controller Craig Oliver. Boris Johnson's former communications supremo was the former BBC political correspondent Guto Harri; after moving to News International in 2012, he was replaced by the BBC's Westminster news editor, Will Walden.

Rather than having a leftwing bias, research actually suggests the BBC's output is biased towards establishment and rightwing sources. A study by Cardiff University academics found that while there is always a bias towards political incumbents, the ratio in favour of Conservative politicians appearing on BBC news is far greater than it was in favour of Labour figures when Gordon Brown was prime minister. Business representatives appear much more than they do on commercial news, and appear 19 times more frequently than trade union voices on the BBC Six O'Clock News.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth

i would say its an estalishment mouthpiece.  He who pays the piper calls the tune ( or in aunties case he who forces others to pay the piper calls the tune)

[Thomas]

And if you think Blairism is the guaranteed route to the new nirvanna you are kidding yourself. Besides which, most of the "infighting" these past five years has come from you lot! It is a bit rich to start bleating about unity now!

yep , remember this srb?

Labour Pressure Group In Bid To 'Stop Corbyn'

A Labour pressure group is asking supporters of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall to help each other to ensure leftwinger Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win.
The Huffington Post UK has been passed an email from the 'Labour First' campaign setting out how party members should transfer votes between Kendall, Cooper and Burnham to prevent the Islington North MP from winning Constituency Labour Party nominations.

https://archive.is/syy4k

The beginning of a long long war with the blairites who constantly stabbed corbyn in the back at every turn , now calling for peace is hilarious!!!

Mindbogglingly, the UK Labour leadership contest has been characterised by a quite extraordinary public assault from within the party on left candidate Jeremy Corbyn. Seemingly untroubled by Tories and the right-wing press joining in the attacks with great mocking enthusiasm, the other three candidates and their supporters have rubbished Corbyn relentlessly, culminating in a pressure group urging Labour members to vote tactically to ensure he doesn't win.

Nor is anyone seemingly too perturbed by the fact that Corbyn appears to have very significant grassroots support, currently running a strong second place in nominations from constituency parties and being enthusiastically received at hustings events while the others are booed. (Almost as if the public don't care what pundits think.)

Instead, demented lunatics among the commentariat are urging Labour to pick the arch-Blairite Liz Kendall, in the seeming belief that faced with a choice between actual bona-fide Tories hardened by ten years of experience in government and ersatz ones making up what amounts to an end-of-the-pier tribute act in a decaying seaside town ("All the way from Clackerthorpe, ladies and gentlemen, it's the Simply Red Tories!"), voters will plump for the version that looks like a roomful of half-melted waxworks.

Now, it's one thing to just dismiss that view as the screaming Stockholm-Syndrome madness that it so obviously is, but it's quite another to try to explain it.

[srb7677]

@srb7677 #36
The use of "ites", "arians" and "isms" come across as a wordy reasoning as to why the BBC should only give air time to those espousing your views.

That is indeed an utter travesty of a distortion of my words. I don't want a BBC that only gives one view. I want a BBC that allows all views but reports on them in an unbiased way. And I want the news unvarnished, not doctored with negative shit edited out or edited in.

And I repeat the fact that all the examples of bias against the Labour left that I gave are a matter of public record. Shit like that shouldn't happen - for or against any political persuasion. That it does is blatant bias.

[srb7677]

Surely , essentially the BBC suffers mostly from the need everyone has to shoot the messenger . The beauty of the BBC is it will go both ways . And  not always half hearted. Both sides seem sure it's got it in for them. That's all you need to know ,that unless someone shuts its mouth £3 a week is a price worth paying for being its own woman, and not trying to impress one side or the other.

Essentially the BBC is biased towards you. Totally socially libertarian, pro-EU, pro Thatcherite consensus, though preferably with a slightly nicer face. No wonder a Blairite like you sees no bias. It totally trumpets your line.

[srb7677]

What you say there is exactly why the right, as opposed directly to your version of left, can rest assured that it will only ever be threatened by a loose alliance . The genuine left, You refer to act as a protest group, that pose no real threat to the right ,if they think they can remove Tory governments on their own.
The real winning cards for the left of all its shades, are somewhat bored individuals who wouldn't go to a left wing meeting if you paid them. If the left can only consider in fighting , then the Tories should seriously consider paying all Labour members sub,s for them.

And if you think Blairism is the guaranteed route to the new nirvanna you are kidding yourself. Besides which, most of the "infighting" these past five years has come from you lot! It is a bit rich to start bleating about unity now!

[Thomas]

Indeed there was a topic on this forum about people you are getting by just fine without it.

where ? link please , not sure what you are talking about?

You're not forced to pay?

In the UK the non-payment of the licence fee is a criminal offence. The television licence fee and whether or not evasion of it is a criminal offence is a matter reserved to the UK Government. The prosecutorial function is, however, devolved and in Scotland we have placed a greater emphasis on alternatives to prosecution.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-201900001045/

Not sure wht you mean nalaar. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Although you are correct in terms of the fact a higher percentage of scots dont pay the fee compared to elswhere in the disunited kingdom.

Scots explain why they don't pay BBC licence fee

RESEARCH published earlier today suggest that Scots are more likely than those in other parts of the UK to not pay for a licence fee.

It found that the "evasion rate" north of the Border was 10%, while the figure sat at 6% in England and Wales.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17377061.scots-explain-why-they-dont-pay-bbc-licence-fee/