The one actual difference being that the BBC is not a commercial organisation. It’s owned by us, is independent and required by its charter to be neutral and objective. It doesn’t print misinformation. It exposes it.

That some object to this valuable source of reliable information, which is the trusted bastion of truth around the world and the flag carrier for everything that represents the soul of the integrity that remains our most marketable asset, is shameful.

£3 per week is nothing. It’s a bargain. You cannot put a price on the truth.

Comparing the BBC to the Mail is like comparing a gold nugget to a turd! One is always valuable and can be polished to perfection. The other will always stink no matter how you dress it up.

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.

No, it’s news during an election cycle. The candidate’s explanation about why and how it happened was fully covered with his words quoted. The same would have been reported whatever party he belonged to.

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.

I have previously suggested that Wisbech is an AI Bot, such is his detachment from common sense, otherwise he seems to be a bit too favourable of the unsavoury which I am sure he would not be if he were human. To ease my mind, ‘he’ is definitely an AI Bot; I shall refer to him as TOBIAS so that I can view this site without feeling unwell at ‘his’ comments. I feel that TOBIAS is an appropriate rearranging of the term ‘AI BOTS’. Other opinions of his existence are of course available to the individual reader.

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

If anyone truly cannot afford it then there is a perfectly legal way not to. Everyone has a choice, but the benefit to us of ensuring the BBC continues to provide its services free of the influences of either commercial interests or government is worth far more than the licence fee. Which isn’t a tax! Taxes are paid to the government, which then spends the revenue. The licence fee goes directly to the BBC who do not control how it is spent.

I have no problem in changing the way the BBC is funded provided the basic principles of freedom from outside influence is maintained. I would be content with a broadband levy, with exceptions made for the vulnerable. How we provide support to those suffering the worst impact from the high cost of living, be that having enough to eat, clothe themselves, stay warm and secure or access broadcasting is a separate issue to how we fund national assets.

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.

It's like Groundhog day on here much of the time. You have the same old arguments with the loony left year in year out.

[Link]

The majority of publications are left wing.

I don’t routinely watch ITN, so cannot offer an objective answer. Instinctively I feel they are lighter weight and tend toward show business and tittle tattle more frequently. So delivering what their market wants.

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.