BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 223 of 435 < 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 >

Teddy Eagle 13 Mar 23 11.57pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Not for the first time I give thanks that your views are only held by a noisy but tiny minority. Apparently a poll today found more than 75% of those asked supported Lineker, In fact, your comment contains, with a little creative editing a pretty good summary of itself:- "What it has done is to expose what many of us already knew. It comes from someone who talks out of his arse on most subjects." Should the right of the Tory party ever manage to persuade the government to mess with the licence fee it would more likely signal the end of the Tory party than the end of the BBC. I cannot imagine a bigger vote loser. It would completely destroy my hope that Sunak has begun the work of turning the party back towards policies that can capture the middle-ground voter and give it a reasonable chance of coming back into power after a period out of it. Hasn't it already been decided? [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

13 Mar 23 11.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Not for the first time I give thanks that your views are only held by a noisy but tiny minority. Apparently a poll today found more than 75% of those asked supported Lineker, In fact, your comment contains, with a little creative editing a pretty good summary of itself:-

"What it has done is to expose what many of us already knew. It comes from someone who talks out of his arse on most subjects."

Should the right of the Tory party ever manage to persuade the government to mess with the licence fee it would more likely signal the end of the Tory party than the end of the BBC.

I cannot imagine a bigger vote loser. It would completely destroy
my hope that Sunak has begun the work of turning the party back towards policies that can capture the middle-ground voter and give it a reasonable chance of coming back into power after a period out of it.

Hasn't it already been decided?

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 14 Mar 23 7.14am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Not for the first time I give thanks that your views are only held by a noisy but tiny minority. Apparently a poll today found more than 75% of those asked supported Lineker, In fact, your comment contains, with a little creative editing a pretty good summary of itself:- "What it has done is to expose what many of us already knew. It comes from someone who talks out of his arse on most subjects." Should the right of the Tory party ever manage to persuade the government to mess with the licence fee it would more likely signal the end of the Tory party than the end of the BBC. I cannot imagine a bigger vote loser. It would completely destroy my hope that Sunak has begun the work of turning the party back towards policies that can capture the middle-ground voter and give it a reasonable chance of coming back into power after a period out of it. It's very simple, if you break the rules that you signed in your contract of employment, then you are in trouble. It doesn't matter at all what 75% of those asked think. It is your usual hypocrisy when you support him while cheering on the persecution of people standing silently in streets or businesses declining to engage in campaigns to support dubious causes. In any case the BBC will cease to be funded by tax-payers money within the next five years - good job too.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

14 Mar 23 7.14am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

"What it has done is to expose what many of us already knew. It comes from someone who talks out of his arse on most subjects."

Should the right of the Tory party ever manage to persuade the government to mess with the licence fee it would more likely signal the end of the Tory party than the end of the BBC.

It's very simple, if you break the rules that you signed in your contract of employment, then you are in trouble. It doesn't matter at all what 75% of those asked think.

It is your usual hypocrisy when you support him while cheering on the persecution of people standing silently in streets or businesses declining to engage in campaigns to support dubious causes.

In any case the BBC will cease to be funded by tax-payers money within the next five years - good job too.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 8.10am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Hasn't it already been decided? [Link] There's been quite a lot of water under the bridge since the odious Dorries was culture secretary and allowed allowed to throw this kind of red meat to the rabid right. The pushback followed immediately as it was exactly the kind of stupidity I mean. Do things like this and the Tories are finished. The Tories are very unlikely to be in power in 2027 and should they pull off a miracle it won't be because they have adopted hard right politics again. Those days are over, hopefully for ever. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 8.10am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Hasn't it already been decided?

[Link]

There's been quite a lot of water under the bridge since the odious Dorries was culture secretary and allowed allowed to throw this kind of red meat to the rabid right. The pushback followed immediately as it was exactly the kind of stupidity I mean. Do things like this and the Tories are finished.

The Tories are very unlikely to be in power in 2027 and should they pull off a miracle it won't be because they have adopted hard right politics again. Those days are over, hopefully for ever.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 9.12am
Originally posted by georgenorman It's very simple, if you break the rules that you signed in your contract of employment, then you are in trouble. It doesn't matter at all what 75% of those asked think. It is your usual hypocrisy when you support him while cheering on the persecution of people standing silently in streets or businesses declining to engage in campaigns to support dubious causes. In any case the BBC will cease to be funded by tax-payers money within the next five years - good job too. It isn’t that simple! He is not an employee so has no contract of employment. He is a freelancer and although has a contract none of us knows what it says. Unless and until any contract is tested in court whether its restrictions are enforceable remains in doubt. Doubly so because of the doubt about how deep and wide the requirements go. I support anyone’s right to be heard. That doesn’t imply I agree with all they say, where or how they say it and that’s as true with Lineker as anyone else. Repeating your errors again over the lady who broke an order in a designated area and describing those who faced justifiable condemnation for allowing personal beliefs to mix with commercial responsibility, doesn’t make you right. It makes you of the right! The BBC will continue to be funded by us, unless we decide to go even further backwards than we have since 2016. Along with the NHS the BBC remains one of the few things that the UK has that the rest of the world admires. We won’t be that stupid! Hopefully! For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 9.12am

Originally posted by georgenorman

It's very simple, if you break the rules that you signed in your contract of employment, then you are in trouble. It doesn't matter at all what 75% of those asked think.

It is your usual hypocrisy when you support him while cheering on the persecution of people standing silently in streets or businesses declining to engage in campaigns to support dubious causes.

In any case the BBC will cease to be funded by tax-payers money within the next five years - good job too.

It isn’t that simple! He is not an employee so has no contract of employment. He is a freelancer and although has a contract none of us knows what it says. Unless and until any contract is tested in court whether its restrictions are enforceable remains in doubt. Doubly so because of the doubt about how deep and wide the requirements go.

I support anyone’s right to be heard. That doesn’t imply I agree with all they say, where or how they say it and that’s as true with Lineker as anyone else.

Repeating your errors again over the lady who broke an order in a designated area and
describing those who faced justifiable condemnation for allowing personal beliefs to mix with commercial responsibility, doesn’t make you right. It makes you of the right!

The BBC will continue to be funded by us, unless we decide to go even further backwards than we have since 2016. Along with the NHS the BBC remains one of the few things that the UK has that the rest of the world admires. We won’t be that stupid! Hopefully!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 14 Mar 23 9.18am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There's been quite a lot of water under the bridge since the odious Dorries was culture secretary and allowed allowed to throw this kind of red meat to the rabid right. The pushback followed immediately as it was exactly the kind of stupidity I mean. Do things like this and the Tories are finished. The Tories are very unlikely to be in power in 2027 and should they pull off a miracle it won't be because they have adopted hard right politics again. Those days are over, hopefully for ever. I'm not so sure;the argument being that fewer and fewer young people watch or listen to the BBC, don't have any emotional attachment to it and don't see why they should pay for something they don't use. If it carries on in it's current form it's more likely to become a subscription service. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

14 Mar 23 9.18am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The Tories are very unlikely to be in power in 2027 and should they pull off a miracle it won't be because they have adopted hard right politics again. Those days are over, hopefully for ever.

I'm not so sure;the argument being that fewer and fewer young people watch or listen to the BBC, don't have any emotional attachment to it and don't see why they should pay for something they don't use.
If it carries on in it's current form it's more likely to become a subscription service.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 14 Mar 23 9.26am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It isn’t that simple! He is not an employee so has no contract of employment. He is a freelancer and although has a contract none of us knows what it says. Unless and until any contract is tested in court whether its restrictions are enforceable remains in doubt. Doubly so because of the doubt about how deep and wide the requirements go. I support anyone’s right to be heard. That doesn’t imply I agree with all they say, where or how they say it and that’s as true with Lineker as anyone else. Repeating your errors again over the lady who broke an order in a designated area and describing those who faced justifiable condemnation for allowing personal beliefs to mix with commercial responsibility, doesn’t make you right. It makes you of the right! The BBC will continue to be funded by us, unless we decide to go even further backwards than we have since 2016. Along with the NHS the BBC remains one of the few things that the UK has that the rest of the world admires. We won’t be that stupid! Hopefully! It is that simple. You clearly do not support everyone’s right to be heard. She did not break any order, she was standing silently in a public street that she was not banned from. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” [Orwell] The bakers did not break any law in refusing to refusing to get put the political slogan on the cake. There is no logical reason to have the BBC funded by tax-payers, many of whom don’t use it.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

14 Mar 23 9.26am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I support anyone’s right to be heard. That doesn’t imply I agree with all they say, where or how they say it and that’s as true with Lineker as anyone else.

It is that simple.

You clearly do not support everyone’s right to be heard.

She did not break any order, she was standing silently in a public street that she was not banned from.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” [Orwell]

The bakers did not break any law in refusing to refusing to get put the political slogan on the cake.

There is no logical reason to have the BBC funded by tax-payers, many of whom don’t use it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 14 Mar 23 10.05am
I am not exactly sure why Gary Lineker related the language The Home Office used when rolling out the latest immigration proposals to 1930’s Germany, nor exactly what part of it he is opposed to, but I will assume that he is unhappy about processing asylum claims offshore. I presume the restrictions placed around him prevent him from elaborating further. So processing offshore is likely his main gripe. Processing offshore is often used by the wealthy to avoid paying tax that would otherwise be due; rather like when a famous ex-footballer sells their Barbadian house using an offshore company… hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 14 Mar 23 10.05am

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

I am not exactly sure why Gary Lineker related the language The Home Office used when rolling out the latest immigration proposals to 1930’s Germany, nor exactly what part of it he is opposed to, but I will assume that he is unhappy about processing asylum claims offshore. I presume the restrictions placed around him prevent him from elaborating further. So processing offshore is likely his main gripe.
Processing offshore is often used by the wealthy to avoid paying tax that would otherwise be due; rather like when a famous ex-footballer sells their Barbadian house using an offshore company…

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 14 Mar 23 10.25am
Originally posted by georgenorman There is no logical reason to have the BBC funded by tax-payers, many of whom don’t use it. maybe not a LOGICAL reason. But it is politically advantageous for any Ruler to have an ideological-propaganda mouthpiece. formerly it was the Church, now it is the BBC. Now remind me again why british boys should be dying in the trenches of Ukraine ? remind me what proportion of people in West NI call the city Londonderry ? the BBC will be re-jigged and reborn. Probably every country on earth has a propaganda mouthpiece. The BBC just pushed their luck too far and there has been a backlash. It often happens. Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 14 Mar 23 10.25am

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by georgenorman

There is no logical reason to have the BBC funded by tax-payers, many of whom don’t use it.

maybe not a LOGICAL reason. But it is politically advantageous for any Ruler to have an ideological-propaganda mouthpiece.

formerly it was the Church, now it is the BBC. Now remind me again why british boys should be dying in the trenches of Ukraine ?

remind me what proportion of people in West NI call the city Londonderry ?

the BBC will be re-jigged and reborn. Probably every country on earth has a propaganda mouthpiece. The BBC just pushed their luck too far and there has been a backlash. It often happens.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Mar 23 10.50am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Not for the first time I give thanks that your views are only held by a noisy but tiny minority. Apparently a poll today found more than 75% of those asked supported Lineker, In fact, your comment contains, with a little creative editing a pretty good summary of itself:- "What it has done is to expose what many of us already knew. It comes from someone who talks out of his arse on most subjects." Should the right of the Tory party ever manage to persuade the government to mess with the licence fee it would more likely signal the end of the Tory party than the end of the BBC. I cannot imagine a bigger vote loser. It would completely destroy my hope that Sunak has begun the work of turning the party back towards policies that can capture the middle-ground voter and give it a reasonable chance of coming back into power after a period out of it. You make this sound so simple. Free speech is to be supported at all costs. Free speech for celebrities, particularly working for the BBC, is another matter. That has to be limited. Free speech cannot be and has never been unlimited for anyone. You have made this very argument yourself. When it comes to illegal immigration. The idea that we can just continue as things are now is insanity. The majority of people support halting illegal immigration. The Tories are going hard on this firstly because it is essential, and second because it is a vote winner. This is when democracy actually works. Meanwhile, the BBC is funded by all of us and cannot be seen to be Left bias, as it surely is. We can now see who really runs the BBC, and In the light of this, it cannot continue to be law that one has to pay for a service that pushes ideals that they consider to be fundamentally wrong. If the BBC wants to be funded by law, then it has to get its house in order.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Mar 23 10.50am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

"What it has done is to expose what many of us already knew. It comes from someone who talks out of his arse on most subjects."

Should the right of the Tory party ever manage to persuade the government to mess with the licence fee it would more likely signal the end of the Tory party than the end of the BBC.

You make this sound so simple.

Free speech is to be supported at all costs.

Free speech for celebrities, particularly working for the BBC, is another matter. That has to be limited.

Free speech cannot be and has never been unlimited for anyone. You have made this very argument yourself.

When it comes to illegal immigration. The idea that we can just continue as things are now is insanity.

The majority of people support halting illegal immigration.

The Tories are going hard on this firstly because it is essential, and second because it is a vote winner. This is when democracy actually works.

Meanwhile, the BBC is funded by all of us and cannot be seen to be Left bias, as it surely is.
We can now see who really runs the BBC, and In the light of this, it cannot continue to be law that one has to pay for a service that pushes ideals that they consider to be fundamentally wrong.

If the BBC wants to be funded by law, then it has to get its house in order.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 12.31pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle I'm not so sure;the argument being that fewer and fewer young people watch or listen to the BBC, don't have any emotional attachment to it and don't see why they should pay for something they don't use. If it carries on in it's current form it's more likely to become a subscription service. [Link] I don't believe any government would allow that to happen. It would kill the BBC as we know it, reducing our standing in the world in the process and turn the UK broadcasting scene into an ever more tedious tide of repetition and US imports. It wouldn't be quite such a stupid self-inflicted disaster as Brexit, but not far short. The government needs to sell the benefits of the BBC with triumphant support to the cynical rather than indulge in this right wing sniping which is all we see now. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 12.31pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

[Link]

I don't believe any government would allow that to happen. It would kill the BBC as we know it, reducing our standing in the world in the process and turn the UK broadcasting scene into an ever more tedious tide of repetition and US imports. It wouldn't be quite such a stupid self-inflicted disaster as Brexit, but not far short.

The government needs to sell the benefits of the BBC with triumphant support to the cynical rather than indulge in this right wing sniping which is all we see now.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 14 Mar 23 12.41pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I don't believe any government would allow that to happen. It would kill the BBC as we know it, reducing our standing in the world in the process and turn the UK broadcasting scene into an ever more tedious tide of repetition and US imports. It wouldn't be quite such a stupid self-inflicted disaster as Brexit, but not far short. The government needs to sell the benefits of the BBC with triumphant support to the cynical rather than indulge in this right wing sniping which is all we see now. More repeats? They're already showing BBC 1 34% BBC 2 52% BBC 4 87%
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

14 Mar 23 12.41pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The government needs to sell the benefits of the BBC with triumphant support to the cynical rather than indulge in this right wing sniping which is all we see now.

More repeats?
They're already showing
BBC 1 34%
BBC 2 52%
BBC 4 87%

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 14 Mar 23 12.41pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There's been quite a lot of water under the bridge since the odious Dorries was culture secretary and allowed allowed to throw this kind of red meat to the rabid right. The pushback followed immediately as it was exactly the kind of stupidity I mean. Do things like this and the Tories are finished. The Tories are very unlikely to be in power in 2027 and should they pull off a miracle it won't be because they have adopted hard right politics again. Those days are over, hopefully for ever. You know full well that isn’t true, because it returns pushing back against whatever is happening, especially if it was never voted for, ever. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 14 Mar 23 12.41pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The Tories are very unlikely to be in power in 2027 and should they pull off a miracle it won't be because they have adopted hard right politics again. Those days are over, hopefully for ever.

You know full well that isn’t true, because it returns pushing back against whatever is happening, especially if it was never voted for, ever.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 223 of 435 < 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors