This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  22 May 21 8.25pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
I don't think that was the original point but if it was it would be an utterly moronic one. The BBC is not supposed to stand for conservatism. And as I've explained already, selling off national institutions is literally the opposite of conservatism. As stated, the conservatives haven't conserved anything, so getting rid of the BBC would actually fit right in. Besides, no one here is suggesting anything other that this 'Guardian' broadcaster stands on it's own two feet....with perhaps certain ring fenced non controversial elements.
'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 8.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As stated, the conservatives haven't conserved anything, so getting rid of the BBC would actually fit right in. Besides, no one here is suggesting anything other that this 'Guardian' broadcaster stands on it's own two feet....with perhaps certain ring fenced non controversial elements. You've said for about 4 posts in a row that you're not looking to abolish the thing and when we got down to the details that is very clearly what you were advocating for. As stated, you're the one throwing all these labels about. And if you're upset the conservatives are "too neoliberal" and "not conservative enough" on the grounds that they haven't privatised the BBC (which is what you yourself said), then that doesn't make any sense. The only way the BBC survives is through state subsidies. Standing on its own two feet is merely privatisation. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 8.38pm)
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Henry of Peckham  Eton Mess 22 May 21 8.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'd agree that the BBC is an institution, however I don't think it deserves the trust nor protections it has benefited from. Charles married Diana as a Royal breeding machine and that's no different to many marriages before her. You characterise it in modern individualistic terms as her being treated poorly....yet she could have said no but from what I saw she plainly wanted the fame and importance....just like Harry's bimbo....She also had affairs like they were going out of fashion. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 4.51pm) A bit harsh on Diana because she was very young and naive when she was singled out for breeding. Her family clearly wanted the fame and fortune and made out of it. However, "Migraine Markle" is a mature opportunist who wasn't up to the job she married into and used every opportunity to excuse her shortcomings. As a B category soap actress I wonder how she became so well connected to former US presidents and mega media owner/ stars but I still don't know how our 'establishment' didn't see her coming? Edited by Henry of Peckham (22 May 2021 8.44pm)
Denial is not just a river in Egypt |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 21 8.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
You've said for about 4 posts in a row that you're not looking to abolish the thing and when we got down to the details that is very clearly what you were advocating for. Stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I stated that the BBC should be abolished. I am not mealy mouthed, if I wished to 'abolish' the BBC I would say that. If you wish to view necessary changes as 'abolishing', that's for you. Originally posted by Mstrobez
As stated, you're the one throwing all these labels about. And if you're upset the conservatives are "too neoliberal" and "not conservative enough" on the grounds that they haven't privatised the BBC (which is what you yourself said), then that doesn't make any sense. The only way the BBC survives is through state subsidies. Standing on its own two feet is merely privatisation. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 8.38pm) I've spoken about ring fenced elements, however the BBC no longer has a use outside of these. The BBC has failed to reflect its nation and it has had many opportunities to address its failings. It isn't reformable and controversial parts need to go. As I've stated, I very much doubt any significant changes will occur. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 8.51pm)
'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 |
|
| DanH SW2 22 May 21 8.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Keep it down, lads. Eurovision is on BBC1.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 21 8.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Henry of Peckham
A bit harsh on Diana because she was very young and naive when she was singled out for breeding. Her family clearly wanted the fame and fortune and made out of it. However, "Migraine Markle" is a mature opportunist who wasn't up to the job she married into and used every opportunity to excuse her shortcomings. As a B category soap actress I wonder how she became so well connected to former US presidents and mega media owner/ stars but I still don't know how our 'establishment' didn't see her coming? Edited by Henry of Peckham (22 May 2021 8.44pm) Life is certainly harsh for some. However, Diana lived a life of relative luxury all the way through it. Personally I don't think she was so thick that she didn't understand her role. The reason her path ended was in part the fault of the media and its parasites. I also agree that the BBC acted unethically...but that's not surprising. However, I also agree that what the BBC did played one part in many bad choices Diana made. Ultimately, Diana threw herself about and into the paths of shoddy people like the Al Fayeds and that was her choice. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 9.02pm)
'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 9.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I stated that the BBC should be abolished. I am not mealy mouthed, if I wished to 'abolish' the BBC I would say that. If you wish to view necessary changes as 'abolishing', that's for you.
The BBC has failed to reflect its nation and it has had many opportunities to address its failings. It isn't reformable and controversial parts need to go. As I've stated, I very much doubt any significant changes will occur. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2021 8.51pm) Semantics. Selling off the BBC to the private sector whilst ring fencing certain elements that you personally like is the definition of abolishing the BBC. The point is, you were wrong about the Tories relationship with the BBC having anything to do with conservatism. Why not just admit it? Debating with you is like having an argument with a toddler.
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 21 9.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
Semantics. Selling off the BBC to the private sector whilst ring fencing certain elements that you personally like is the definition of abolishing the BBC. The point is, you were wrong about the Tories relationship with the BBC having anything to do with conservatism. Why not just admit it? Debating with you is like having an argument with a toddler. I'm the toddler? You don't even seem to understand what the word, 'abolish' means. I'll show an image for you so you can refine your understanding. By its very definition, ring fencing aspects of the BBC cannot mean that I have abolished the BBC. Why should I admit what I don't mean.
'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 |
|
Attachment: | Mstrobez 22 May 21 9.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm the toddler? You don't even seem to understand what the word, 'abolish' means. I'll show an image for you so you can refine your understanding. By its very definition, ring fencing aspects of the BBC cannot mean that I have abolished the BBC. Why should I admit what I don't mean. Exactly what I mean by semantics. And you engage in them as you don't want to engage in the broader point or accept that your initial conflation between conservatism & the BBC was false. You want to ring fence some fringe elements of the BBC whilst privatising the rest. That will all but "do away" with the BBC. You can pretend that keeping radio 4 & BBC World is not bringing down the BBC for the sake of an infantile argument, but it is. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 10.01pm)
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 21 10.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
Exactly what I mean by semantics. And you engage in them as you don't want to engage in the broader point or accept that your initial conflation between conservatism & the BBC was false. You want to ring fence some fringe elements of the BBC whilst privatising the rest. That will all but "do away" with the BBC. You can pretend that keeping radio 4 & BBC World is not bringing down the BBC for the sake of an infantile argument, but it is. Edited by Mstrobez (22 May 2021 10.01pm) You could say I agree with a significant downsizing of the BBC certainly. I have stated this previously. However, it isn't 'semantics' to say that I want to abolish the BBC, that is simply your hyperbolic interpretation and not what I've said.
'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 |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 21 12.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
Semantics. Selling off the BBC to the private sector whilst ring fencing certain elements that you personally like is the definition of abolishing the BBC. The point is, you were wrong about the Tories relationship with the BBC having anything to do with conservatism. Why not just admit it? Debating with you is like having an argument with a toddler. What are you on about? It's clear that the BBC pushes an agenda while claiming to be an honest and neutral broadcaster. That has to stop. The fact that we are bound to pay for it by law is also completely out of touch with the 21st century. Certainly the BBC has elements that are outstanding, but they could run a commercial channel for news and fiction and an optional licence fee channel which shows only documentaries and other non political, non fiction programmes. That latter is what the BBC does best.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 23 May 21 1.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
to save me retyping Originally posted by HKOwen
More hand wringing, something must be done, we must look at ourselves, etc etc. ENOUGH I am not interested in the BBC continuing to be a golden goose for people in the club. Strip it back to a purely public service broadcaster in terms of what the taxpayer funds. For the rest, make it a commercial enterprise and see how it gets on in the real world. For me it is not an institution or an intrinsic part of British life.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.