What a great use of license payers money [modified]
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
TV license evasion is the most common cause of female inprisonment in the UK,
They go to PRISON for that ? Brilliant.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Generally for defaulting on the resulting fine, but a few go straight to jail every year. The Beeb exists in a weird world where it is half global corporation and half state entity and criminal law is used to enforce the license fee. We dropped debtors prisons a long time ago as they make a crime out of poverty, but the BBC has an exception.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Fuck 'em. If they want to make themselves a joke like most of the US media, then they will loose the respect of thinking people the world over. As an aside, I wonder if refusing to pay ones license fee has any mileage?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
if refusing to pay ones license fee has any mileage
As you know, having lived in UK, that people get fined and/or imprisoned. BUT ... The system as with any large scale system would be unworkable if nobody paid their TV licence fees, or nobody paid their TAX etc ... The consequences for Government is unthinkable. Governments (through Law courts) would be totally ineffective and the system(s) would collapse and die.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
TV license evasion is the most common cause of female inprisonment in the UK,
They go to PRISON for that ? Brilliant.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
fat_boy wrote:
if refusing to pay ones license fee has any mileage
As you know, having lived in UK, that people get fined and/or imprisoned. BUT ... The system as with any large scale system would be unworkable if nobody paid their TV licence fees, or nobody paid their TAX etc ... The consequences for Government is unthinkable. Governments (through Law courts) would be totally ineffective and the system(s) would collapse and die.
Sky manage to stay alive. Moving to digital delivery in the next decade is the perfect opportunity to make the BBC a voluntary subscription service. Its news and drama output could easily make money on their own, and we could well do without the million pound persenter salaries in god awful light entertainment and competative bidding for sports events.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Sky manage to stay alive. Moving to digital delivery in the next decade is the perfect opportunity to make the BBC a voluntary subscription service. Its news and drama output could easily make money on their own, and we could well do without the million pound persenter salaries in god awful light entertainment and competative bidding for sports events.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
It took Sky many years before they broke even, but then, Murdoch's Sun group was used to subsidize Sky. I'm not sure that Jonathan Ross is worth his money. Sports is big business courtesey of Sky TV.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It took Sky many years before they broke even
Agreed, but there were interstructural issues there.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
For years here in the Soapbox, every time I even hinted that the BBC was just as capable of poor reporting and having an agenda as any other 'news' outlet - I was soundly flamed by BBC supporters. Where are you now?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Mike Mullikin wrote:
For years here in the Soapbox, every time I even hinted that the BBC was just as capable of poor reporting and having an agenda as any other 'news' outlet - I was soundly flamed by BBC supporters. Where are you now?
I've been saying this for years too! Finally, some vindication!!! Let's BURN and DESTROY the BEEB!
-
For years here in the Soapbox, every time I even hinted that the BBC was just as capable of poor reporting and having an agenda as any other 'news' outlet - I was soundly flamed by BBC supporters. Where are you now?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Now now, I seem to recall that you were very specific in claiming that the News and Current Affairs arm ogf the corporation were consistently guilty of poor reporting and having an agenda, when presented with any report which differed with your ideal world views. The fact is that the many parts of the whole express many, many different agendas, and to single out only those that disagree with your own is hypocritcal at best. The BBC is not a news outlet, it is a broadcaster. It is the largest boradcaster in the world, and its news arm is also the largest news broadcaster in the world with BBC News Online one of the most visited web sites in the world. Controversial topics such as Israel (where anything remotely anti-Israel is anti-semitic and anything anti-Palestine is anti-arab) make up a fraction of a single percent of their output. I think you are confusing the BBC's 'free from commercial influence' with 'free from personal influence' of the reporters themselves. You can never achieve the latter, and to be honest why would you want to? That is the purpose of journalism. To end (as I am going to bed now) a recent review (not the Balen report in the FOI request) summarised from Wikipedia: In 2006, an independent inquiry set up to assess the impartiality of BBC news and current affairs coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias has determined that there is no systematic bias, but that coverage sometimes gives an incomplete picture which may mislead viewers and affect their understanding of the situation. The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events. http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews.html[^] Those are not internal reviews as Ryan suggested. Previously, the BBC's news coverage has been accused of 'systematic anti-Israel bias'. The majority of such accusations came from pro-Israeli groups. For instance, http://www.honestreporting.co.uk[^], a leading critic of the BBC is funded by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Similarly, Anglicans for Israel have berated the BBC f
-
Now now, I seem to recall that you were very specific in claiming that the News and Current Affairs arm ogf the corporation were consistently guilty of poor reporting and having an agenda, when presented with any report which differed with your ideal world views. The fact is that the many parts of the whole express many, many different agendas, and to single out only those that disagree with your own is hypocritcal at best. The BBC is not a news outlet, it is a broadcaster. It is the largest boradcaster in the world, and its news arm is also the largest news broadcaster in the world with BBC News Online one of the most visited web sites in the world. Controversial topics such as Israel (where anything remotely anti-Israel is anti-semitic and anything anti-Palestine is anti-arab) make up a fraction of a single percent of their output. I think you are confusing the BBC's 'free from commercial influence' with 'free from personal influence' of the reporters themselves. You can never achieve the latter, and to be honest why would you want to? That is the purpose of journalism. To end (as I am going to bed now) a recent review (not the Balen report in the FOI request) summarised from Wikipedia: In 2006, an independent inquiry set up to assess the impartiality of BBC news and current affairs coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias has determined that there is no systematic bias, but that coverage sometimes gives an incomplete picture which may mislead viewers and affect their understanding of the situation. The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events. http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews.html[^] Those are not internal reviews as Ryan suggested. Previously, the BBC's news coverage has been accused of 'systematic anti-Israel bias'. The majority of such accusations came from pro-Israeli groups. For instance, http://www.honestreporting.co.uk[^], a leading critic of the BBC is funded by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Similarly, Anglicans for Israel have berated the BBC f
David Wulff wrote:
I seem to recall that you were very specific in claiming that the News and Current Affairs arm ogf the corporation were consistently guilty of poor reporting and having an agenda...
While I don't recall the specifics (and I'm far too lazy to search for them), I recall saying only that the BBC news was not much better than any other 'news' outlet and that they showed bias like all the others. I certainly don't hold them to any higher standard. However, I do recall many of their 'supporters' here putting them on a pedastal as compared to other 'news' outlets particularly US 'news' outlets. I freely admit that the vast majority of US 'news' agencies are awful most of the time - IMO the BBC 'news' is only slightly better and headed in the wrong direction. :(
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
-
BBC suppresses report on middle east bias[^]. An actually independent review (as opposed to an internal BBC or OFCOM review) exposes the obvious bias in the BBC's middle east coverage and Auntie Beeb spends public money trying to bury the results and protect itself from further investigation. Remind me again why we are forced to hand over money to this corporation in exchange for an editorial line somewhere between the guardian and the morning star? -- modified at 12:00 Monday 16th October, 2006, Oops, wrong star.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Remind me again why we are forced to hand over money to this corporation in exchange for an editorial line somewhere between the guardian and the morning star?
I try not to think about that and concentrate on all the good stuff, Doctor Who Have I Got News For you Just a Minute Old Harry's Game I'm Sorry I haven't a clue etc
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Now now, I seem to recall that you were very specific in claiming that the News and Current Affairs arm ogf the corporation were consistently guilty of poor reporting and having an agenda, when presented with any report which differed with your ideal world views. The fact is that the many parts of the whole express many, many different agendas, and to single out only those that disagree with your own is hypocritcal at best. The BBC is not a news outlet, it is a broadcaster. It is the largest boradcaster in the world, and its news arm is also the largest news broadcaster in the world with BBC News Online one of the most visited web sites in the world. Controversial topics such as Israel (where anything remotely anti-Israel is anti-semitic and anything anti-Palestine is anti-arab) make up a fraction of a single percent of their output. I think you are confusing the BBC's 'free from commercial influence' with 'free from personal influence' of the reporters themselves. You can never achieve the latter, and to be honest why would you want to? That is the purpose of journalism. To end (as I am going to bed now) a recent review (not the Balen report in the FOI request) summarised from Wikipedia: In 2006, an independent inquiry set up to assess the impartiality of BBC news and current affairs coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias has determined that there is no systematic bias, but that coverage sometimes gives an incomplete picture which may mislead viewers and affect their understanding of the situation. The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events. http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews.html[^] Those are not internal reviews as Ryan suggested. Previously, the BBC's news coverage has been accused of 'systematic anti-Israel bias'. The majority of such accusations came from pro-Israeli groups. For instance, http://www.honestreporting.co.uk[^], a leading critic of the BBC is funded by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Similarly, Anglicans for Israel have berated the BBC f
David Wulff wrote:
You can never achieve the latter, and to be honest why would you want to? That is the purpose of journalism.
Agreed, but anyone who is to the right of anywhere perceives the BBC as a fundamentally left wing organisation. It's not just Israel, though that supplies many of the most egregious examples of bias. Such bias is of course considered perfectly normal within the guardian/independent mindset that is endemic at the BBC. A significant proportion of the population is forced to pay money to support an editorial line that drives them up the wall. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were forced to pay for Daily Express TV or Fox News, no?
David Wulff wrote:
The commission's report suggested that the BBC's news reporting was not sufficiently covering the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and was too focussed on the Israeli perspective of events.
Which demonstrates quite how blind the BBC and the establishment around them is to their own prejudices, because of course, being good lefties they don't have any. Doubtless both Robert Fisk and Osama bin Laden would agree. The BBC still reports that FATAH recognises the state of Israel, despite multiple on the record comments from Abbas and others to the contrary.
David Wulff wrote:
Previously, the BBC's news coverage has been accused of 'systematic anti-Israel bias'. The majority of such accusations came from pro-Israeli groups. For instance, http://www.honestreporting.co.uk[^], a leading critic of the BBC is funded by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Similarly, Anglicans for Israel have berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias.
Oh no, an evil Zionist conspiracy! Why wouldn't pro Israeli groups be critical of BBC coverage? Aish HaTorah doesn't 'fund' honest reporting either, though it did provide start up money.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette