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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 76 of 435 < 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 >

Mstrobez 22 May 21 11.06am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger This just illustrates the limitations of attaching classifications to points of view. Everyone has their own personal set of views but might support a particular political movement in general terms. That doesn't mean that everybody in that number agrees on everything. I didn't attach a classification to anyone. I said that the Tories not abolishing or defunding the BBC has nothing to do with how conservative they are. Because it doesn't. In response, I was accused of being "woke". We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

22 May 21 11.06am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This just illustrates the limitations of attaching classifications to points of view. Everyone has their own personal set of views but might support a particular political movement in general terms. That doesn't mean that everybody in that number agrees on everything.

I didn't attach a classification to anyone. I said that the Tories not abolishing or defunding the BBC has nothing to do with how conservative they are. Because it doesn't. In response, I was accused of being "woke".

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 May 21 11.42am
Originally posted by Mstrobez No they are not. Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism. They are ideologically at odds with each other. Libertarianism was initially a left wing thing before. That's why the new breed of Ben Shapiro style right wing populism I referred to is so silly. You might not like it but I think that's more the reality.....more on that at the end of the post. Yes, libertarianism can be found on the left as well, though far less than in the past. Tim Pool is a modern example and perhaps Bill Maher, however, most more classical libertarians find themselves voting right wing just out of fear of the authoritarianism of the modern 'progressives'. And yes, Libertarianism can also be found separate from both in its own party, which I know exists in the US. What does it matter whether libertarianism started out as on the left or right. Mussolini started out as a socialist....similarly just as what it means to be on the left or right, has evolved. Originally posted by Mstrobez Then that's a problem with the way the BBC is currently operating. You are more than entitled to want to defund the BBC. I'm just pointing out to you that it seems a tad bizarre to complain the Tories are too neoliberal & aren't conservative enough whilst demanding they abolish a nationalised broadcaster that was formed almost 100 years ago... by a conservative government. Once again, I didn't use the word abolish.....and once again, what happened 100 years ago has little relevance to today's situation. Originally posted by Mstrobez The irony of something like this is just how much in common right wing populism has with wokeism. I despise the woke type of left. But both movements are almost identical in their approach & you've just proven it. Instantly throwing cheap jibes & a name at someone to dismiss them simply because they challenged you on something is a perfect example. There is something in what you say about a connection between those who don't support typical neo liberalism on the left and right. Both are far more honest about the problems within society than neo liberals are...who wish to maintain the status quo. They just want to head in different directions. From reading past posts from you I have the impression that you were on the progressive left. If this is inaccurate then you do indeed have my apologies. I do not wish to deliberately mischaracterise. Originally posted by Mstrobez Fine. But I'm merely questioning what the conflation is with not abolishing a nationalised broadcaster & conservatism. They don't have anything to do with eachother, unless, as I said, you're referring to an American style of "conservatism". But, again, American style conservatism isn't very conservative at all. I recognise that a deeper discussion concerning libertarianism can be had supporting the view that it is its s own separate entity. I think though that drawing lines between many libertarian ideals and conservatism is harder to do within the modern world than it would be on the modern left. So I prefer to view these 'isms' in a practical sense. So 'conservatism', 'populism' or many of these other 'isms' can be discussed as separate entities but really are more often found as subsets of more generalised terms of left or right.....because that's where most of their votes go. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 11.46am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 May 21 11.42am

Originally posted by Mstrobez

No they are not. Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism. They are ideologically at odds with each other. Libertarianism was initially a left wing thing before. That's why the new breed of Ben Shapiro style right wing populism I referred to is so silly.

You might not like it but I think that's more the reality.....more on that at the end of the post.

Yes, libertarianism can be found on the left as well, though far less than in the past. Tim Pool is a modern example and perhaps Bill Maher, however, most more classical libertarians find themselves voting right wing just out of fear of the authoritarianism of the modern 'progressives'.

And yes, Libertarianism can also be found separate from both in its own party, which I know exists in the US.

What does it matter whether libertarianism started out as on the left or right. Mussolini started out as a socialist....similarly just as what it means to be on the left or right, has evolved.

Originally posted by Mstrobez

Then that's a problem with the way the BBC is currently operating. You are more than entitled to want to defund the BBC. I'm just pointing out to you that it seems a tad bizarre to complain the Tories are too neoliberal & aren't conservative enough whilst demanding they abolish a nationalised broadcaster that was formed almost 100 years ago... by a conservative government.

Once again, I didn't use the word abolish.....and once again, what happened 100 years ago has little relevance to today's situation.

Originally posted by Mstrobez

The irony of something like this is just how much in common right wing populism has with wokeism. I despise the woke type of left. But both movements are almost identical in their approach & you've just proven it. Instantly throwing cheap jibes & a name at someone to dismiss them simply because they challenged you on something is a perfect example.

There is something in what you say about a connection between those who don't support typical neo liberalism on the left and right. Both are far more honest about the problems within society than neo liberals are...who wish to maintain the status quo. They just want to head in different directions.

From reading past posts from you I have the impression that you were on the progressive left. If this is inaccurate then you do indeed have my apologies. I do not wish to deliberately mischaracterise.

Originally posted by Mstrobez

Fine. But I'm merely questioning what the conflation is with not abolishing a nationalised broadcaster & conservatism. They don't have anything to do with eachother, unless, as I said, you're referring to an American style of "conservatism". But, again, American style conservatism isn't very conservative at all.

I recognise that a deeper discussion concerning libertarianism can be had supporting the view that it is its s own separate entity.

I think though that drawing lines between many libertarian ideals and conservatism is harder to do within the modern world than it would be on the modern left.

So I prefer to view these 'isms' in a practical sense. So 'conservatism', 'populism' or many of these other 'isms' can be discussed as separate entities but really are more often found as subsets of more generalised terms of left or right.....because that's where most of their votes go.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 11.46am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez 22 May 21 12.10pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays What does it matter whether libertarianism started out as on the left or right. Because I'm responding to your assertion that the conservatives aren't conservative enough in relation to the BBC, whilst calling for its abolition, or whatever you are calling for. This "no true Scotsman" stuff seems to be quite prevalent in modern politics & it's tedious. The relevance of libertarianism starting on the left is that conservatism requires the state to have a fairly significant role in national proceedings. Hence the ideological disparity between both isms. Originally posted by Stirlingsays From reading past posts from you I have the impression that you were on the progressive left. Any examples besides me questioning your definition of "actual" conservatism? Because there are people who would find that amusing. I tend to be accused of either being a fascist or a Marxist depending on who I'm talking to. Originally posted by Stirlingsays Once again, I didn't use the word abolish.....and once again, what happened 100 years ago has little relevance to today's situation. So if we put the ism debate to the side, how do we fund the BBC in a way that doesn't involve it ultimately being sold off to the private sector? If we go for a subscription service, the BBC will simply not raise the funds it requires to compete with other broadcasters. It'll be all but wiped out. For me, the BBC is deeply flawed but should be utilised & still better than a toxic Fox News vs CNN alternative I cited to previously. We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

22 May 21 12.10pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

What does it matter whether libertarianism started out as on the left or right.

Because I'm responding to your assertion that the conservatives aren't conservative enough in relation to the BBC, whilst calling for its abolition, or whatever you are calling for.

This "no true Scotsman" stuff seems to be quite prevalent in modern politics & it's tedious.

The relevance of libertarianism starting on the left is that conservatism requires the state to have a fairly significant role in national proceedings. Hence the ideological disparity between both isms.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

From reading past posts from you I have the impression that you were on the progressive left.

Any examples besides me questioning your definition of "actual" conservatism? Because there are people who would find that amusing. I tend to be accused of either being a fascist or a Marxist depending on who I'm talking to.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Once again, I didn't use the word abolish.....and once again, what happened 100 years ago has little relevance to today's situation.

So if we put the ism debate to the side, how do we fund the BBC in a way that doesn't involve it ultimately being sold off to the private sector?

If we go for a subscription service, the BBC will simply not raise the funds it requires to compete with other broadcasters. It'll be all but wiped out.

For me, the BBC is deeply flawed but should be utilised & still better than a toxic Fox News vs CNN alternative I cited to previously.

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

deleted 25 22 May 21 12.22pm
Looking forward to Euro's on the Beeb and the six nations, Wimbledon, Glasto etc
Alert a moderator to this post

deleted 25

22 May 21 12.22pm

Looking forward to Euro's on the Beeb and the six nations, Wimbledon, Glasto etc

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 22 May 21 12.24pm
Originally posted by Mstrobez So if we put the ism debate to the side, how do we fund the BBC in a way that doesn't involve it ultimately being sold off to the private sector? If we go for a subscription service, the BBC will simply not raise the funds it requires to compete with other broadcasters. It'll be all but wiped out. For me, the BBC is deeply flawed but should be utilised & still better than a toxic Fox News vs CNN alternative I cited to previously. Maybe but then if it is deeply unpopular as you imply why should we be forced to pay for it. If it truly is a national broadcaster loved by the public it will survive as a subscription service. Nobody is forced to watch Netflix and they have 400m million customers. Something the BBC should consider, free from the shackles of public responsibility they can reach a global audience if they choose to. Edited by Badger11 (22 May 2021 12.24pm) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 22 May 21 12.24pm

Originally posted by Mstrobez

So if we put the ism debate to the side, how do we fund the BBC in a way that doesn't involve it ultimately being sold off to the private sector?

If we go for a subscription service, the BBC will simply not raise the funds it requires to compete with other broadcasters. It'll be all but wiped out.

For me, the BBC is deeply flawed but should be utilised & still better than a toxic Fox News vs CNN alternative I cited to previously.

Maybe but then if it is deeply unpopular as you imply why should we be forced to pay for it. If it truly is a national broadcaster loved by the public it will survive as a subscription service.

Nobody is forced to watch Netflix and they have 400m million customers. Something the BBC should consider, free from the shackles of public responsibility they can reach a global audience if they choose to.

Edited by Badger11 (22 May 2021 12.24pm)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 May 21 12.26pm
I suspect all terrestrial TV channels and even Sky, CNN, Fox etc, will all be irrelevant to the younger generation anyway. No way are they going to pay a licence fee. Let's get real here - young people do everything on their phone, perhaps Netflix on a laptop, perhaps illegal streaming, mostly get their news on social media. Our debates about the BBC are pointless. Some of its programming I like, but it won't be around in its current form in ten to twenty years at the most. We may as well wave goodbye. We will be the last generation to watch 'normal' TV. The BBC won't change and I'm assuming it will fade away and essentially 'die'. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 May 21 12.26pm

I suspect all terrestrial TV channels and even Sky, CNN, Fox etc, will all be irrelevant to the younger generation anyway. No way are they going to pay a licence fee. Let's get real here - young people do everything on their phone, perhaps Netflix on a laptop, perhaps illegal streaming, mostly get their news on social media.
Our debates about the BBC are pointless. Some of its programming I like, but it won't be around in its current form in ten to twenty years at the most. We may as well wave goodbye. We will be the last generation to watch 'normal' TV. The BBC won't change and I'm assuming it will fade away and essentially 'die'.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez 22 May 21 12.35pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Maybe but then if it is deeply unpopular as you imply why should we be forced to pay for it. If it truly is a national broadcaster loved by the public it will survive as a subscription service. Nobody is forced to watch Netflix and they have 400m million customers. Something the BBC should consider, free from the shackles of public responsibility they can reach a global audience if they choose to. Edited by Badger11 (22 May 2021 12.24pm) Perfectly reasonable argument and I know many support going down that route. But Stirling is suggesting he doesn't want to abolish the thing, I'm suggesting that if we go down the subscription route, that is what we will be doing - in all but name or otherwise. Even if we were to privatise the BBC but seek to maintain it as the national broadcaster - that would invariably involve the government subsidising it. Just like they do with the "privatised" railways. One of the things Corbyn was actually right about was the absurdity of that particular arrangement - some things genuinely just are best kept in house. I'm not here to defend the BBC in its current form, it really does itself no favours as I mentioned before. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of privatising it. It's about what is in the national interest & generally speaking, for me, there is absolutely a place for a national broadcaster. I suspect that if this wasn't funded with a license fee & just through general taxation, there would be less quibble. But then again, perhaps the license fee means the public holds the BBC more to account. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.38pm) We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

22 May 21 12.35pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Maybe but then if it is deeply unpopular as you imply why should we be forced to pay for it. If it truly is a national broadcaster loved by the public it will survive as a subscription service.

Edited by Badger11 (22 May 2021 12.24pm)

Perfectly reasonable argument and I know many support going down that route. But Stirling is suggesting he doesn't want to abolish the thing, I'm suggesting that if we go down the subscription route, that is what we will be doing - in all but name or otherwise.

Even if we were to privatise the BBC but seek to maintain it as the national broadcaster - that would invariably involve the government subsidising it. Just like they do with the "privatised" railways. One of the things Corbyn was actually right about was the absurdity of that particular arrangement - some things genuinely just are best kept in house.

I'm not here to defend the BBC in its current form, it really does itself no favours as I mentioned before. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of privatising it. It's about what is in the national interest & generally speaking, for me, there is absolutely a place for a national broadcaster.

I suspect that if this wasn't funded with a license fee & just through general taxation, there would be less quibble. But then again, perhaps the license fee means the public holds the BBC more to account.

Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.38pm)

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 May 21 12.43pm
Originally posted by Mstrobez Because I'm responding to your assertion that the conservatives aren't conservative enough in relation to the BBC, whilst calling for its abolition, or whatever you are calling for. This "no true Scotsman" stuff seems to be quite prevalent in modern politics & it's tedious. If you use the phrase 'pseudo libertarian' it's surely then difficult to complain about 'no true Scotsman' observations. Originally posted by Mstrobez The relevance of libertarianism starting on the left is that conservatism requires the state to have a fairly significant role in national proceedings. Hence the ideological disparity between both isms. The same could be said of socialism. Originally posted by Mstrobez Any examples besides me questioning your definition of "actual" conservatism? Because there are people who would find that amusing. I tend to be accused of either being a fascist or a Marxist depending on who I'm talking to. Alas, it was more an impression. Originally posted by Mstrobez So if we put the ism debate to the side, how do we fund the BBC in a way that doesn't involve it ultimately being sold off to the private sector? If we go for a subscription service, the BBC will simply not raise the funds it requires to compete with other broadcasters. It'll be all but wiped out. For me, the BBC is deeply flawed but should be utilised & still better than a toxic Fox News vs CNN alternative I cited to previously. I've thought about this in the past and the unfortunate reality is that there can be no objective news organisation. If the organisation actually cared about even trying to be objective it would ensure that its journalists reflected the politics breakdown in the country....but it rejected this idea back in the nineties. Personally, I think the BBC is too far gone, you'd need to sack two thirds of it. You may dislike it....and I probably do share some of that but a Fox and CNN would, at least, represent their different demographics more honestly. Personally, excepting radio, I don't think much of the modern BBC would be missed. As for what should be kept I think a subscription model would certainly preserve some of it and that could be part of a national discussion. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 May 21 12.43pm

Originally posted by Mstrobez

Because I'm responding to your assertion that the conservatives aren't conservative enough in relation to the BBC, whilst calling for its abolition, or whatever you are calling for.

This "no true Scotsman" stuff seems to be quite prevalent in modern politics & it's tedious.

If you use the phrase 'pseudo libertarian' it's surely then difficult to complain about 'no true Scotsman' observations.

Originally posted by Mstrobez

The same could be said of socialism.

Originally posted by Mstrobez

Alas, it was more an impression.

Originally posted by Mstrobez

So if we put the ism debate to the side, how do we fund the BBC in a way that doesn't involve it ultimately being sold off to the private sector?

If we go for a subscription service, the BBC will simply not raise the funds it requires to compete with other broadcasters. It'll be all but wiped out.

For me, the BBC is deeply flawed but should be utilised & still better than a toxic Fox News vs CNN alternative I cited to previously.

I've thought about this in the past and the unfortunate reality is that there can be no objective news organisation. If the organisation actually cared about even trying to be objective it would ensure that its journalists reflected the politics breakdown in the country....but it rejected this idea back in the nineties.

Personally, I think the BBC is too far gone, you'd need to sack two thirds of it.

You may dislike it....and I probably do share some of that but a Fox and CNN would, at least, represent their different demographics more honestly.

Personally, excepting radio, I don't think much of the modern BBC would be missed. As for what should be kept I think a subscription model would certainly preserve some of it and that could be part of a national discussion.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez 22 May 21 12.56pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I've thought about this in the past and the unfortunate reality is that there can be no objective news organisation. If the organisation actually cared about even trying to be objective it would ensure that its journalists reflected the politics breakdown in the country....but it rejected this idea back in the nineties. Personally, I think the BBC is too far gone, you'd need to sack two thirds of it. You may dislike it....and I probably do share some of that but a Fox and CNN would, at least, represent their different demographics more honestly. Personally, excepting radio, I don't think much of the modern BBC would be missed. As for what should be kept I think a subscription model would certainly preserve some of it and that could be part of a national discussion. So you want to abolish the thing. Fine! As for Fox and CNN representing their demographics. How? By calling anyone to the right of Obama a Nazi and anyone to the left of Bush a communist? We got enough of that bulls*** going on over here at the moment. We’re not the flipping yanks. And both left and right have been importing the American culture war into the U.K. for years now despite the fact it has very little relevance to our country. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.58pm) We're the Arthur over ere!
Alert a moderator to this post

Mstrobez

22 May 21 12.56pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Personally, I think the BBC is too far gone, you'd need to sack two thirds of it.

You may dislike it....and I probably do share some of that but a Fox and CNN would, at least, represent their different demographics more honestly.

So you want to abolish the thing. Fine!

As for Fox and CNN representing their demographics. How? By calling anyone to the right of Obama a Nazi and anyone to the left of Bush a communist? We got enough of that bulls*** going on over here at the moment. We’re not the flipping yanks. And both left and right have been importing the American culture war into the U.K. for years now despite the fact it has very little relevance to our country.

Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.58pm)

We're the Arthur over ere!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 May 21 1.38pm
Originally posted by Mstrobez So you want to abolish the thing. Fine! As for Fox and CNN representing their demographics. How? By calling anyone to the right of Obama a Nazi and anyone to the left of Bush a communist? We got enough of that bulls*** going on over here at the moment. We’re not the flipping yanks. And both left and right have been importing the American culture war into the U.K. for years now despite the fact it has very little relevance to our country. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.58pm) I do have some sympathy with your sentiments but I feel that it's like purer libertarianism itself, insomuch as it's unrealistic. The reasons western societies are becoming gradually more polarized is more than the American culture war, which itself is just a symptom.....it's multifactorial and deeper than that. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 1.39pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 May 21 1.38pm

Originally posted by Mstrobez

So you want to abolish the thing. Fine!

Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.58pm)

I do have some sympathy with your sentiments but I feel that it's like purer libertarianism itself, insomuch as it's unrealistic.

The reasons western societies are becoming gradually more polarized is more than the American culture war, which itself is just a symptom.....it's multifactorial and deeper than that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 1.39pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 22 May 21 2.09pm
Originally posted by Mstrobez Perfectly reasonable argument and I know many support going down that route. But Stirling is suggesting he doesn't want to abolish the thing, I'm suggesting that if we go down the subscription route, that is what we will be doing - in all but name or otherwise. Even if we were to privatise the BBC but seek to maintain it as the national broadcaster - that would invariably involve the government subsidising it. Just like they do with the "privatised" railways. One of the things Corbyn was actually right about was the absurdity of that particular arrangement - some things genuinely just are best kept in house. I'm not here to defend the BBC in its current form, it really does itself no favours as I mentioned before. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of privatising it. It's about what is in the national interest & generally speaking, for me, there is absolutely a place for a national broadcaster. I suspect that if this wasn't funded with a license fee & just through general taxation, there would be less quibble. But then again, perhaps the license fee means the public holds the BBC more to account. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.38pm) As you say I think that would be unfair on a privatised BBC being lumbered with public responsibility. I would put the BBC on the same footing as any other commercial broadcaster and overseen by OFCOM. After that the BBC would be free to build whatever model it felt suited it. I would be fine if they became a TV version of the Guardian if they felt that it made sense. As for the public service aspect of the BBC like the World service I would be fine to continue to subside that from general taxation either as part of the BBC or in a new public service unit if the BBC doesn't want it. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 22 May 21 2.09pm

Originally posted by Mstrobez

Even if we were to privatise the BBC but seek to maintain it as the national broadcaster - that would invariably involve the government subsidising it. Just like they do with the "privatised" railways. One of the things Corbyn was actually right about was the absurdity of that particular arrangement - some things genuinely just are best kept in house.

Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 12.38pm)

As you say I think that would be unfair on a privatised BBC being lumbered with public responsibility. I would put the BBC on the same footing as any other commercial broadcaster and overseen by OFCOM.

After that the BBC would be free to build whatever model it felt suited it. I would be fine if they became a TV version of the Guardian if they felt that it made sense.

As for the public service aspect of the BBC like the World service I would be fine to continue to subside that from general taxation either as part of the BBC or in a new public service unit if the BBC doesn't want it.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 May 21 2.17pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Thanks this is what I figured I still want live TV so for now I guess I will just have to pony up. PS I would write a letter to the BBC informing them of your decision and telling them that if they send someone around they do not have permission to be on your property and will be videoed by yourself for your security. There is a great YouTube of a BBC bloke screaming at the homeowner not to video him and the homeowner saying "You have come onto my property uninvited and have the cheek to complain because I am recording you". Most of these guys when challenged this way leave asap. Edited by Badger11 (22 May 2021 10.40am) I will and thanks for the tip. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 May 21 2.17pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Thanks this is what I figured I still want live TV so for now I guess I will just have to pony up.

PS
I would write a letter to the BBC informing them of your decision and telling them that if they send someone around they do not have permission to be on your property and will be videoed by yourself for your security.

There is a great YouTube of a BBC bloke screaming at the homeowner not to video him and the homeowner saying "You have come onto my property uninvited and have the cheek to complain because I am recording you".

Most of these guys when challenged this way leave asap.

Edited by Badger11 (22 May 2021 10.40am)

I will and thanks for the tip.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 76 of 435 < 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors