The BBC are " supposed " to be impartial, but we know they are not.
The BBC are " supposed " to put the viewers first, we know they only put themselves first.
The BBC take our money, when they should be FORCED by law to advertise for it's money. They take our money and spend it how they like, as they do not come under the same regulations as the other tv companies......... a law unto themselves.
I find the money we pay to the BBC for, what is most of the time bad tv, should be scrapped. If they had to advertise for their revenue, it would not be run the same way as it is now.
There is no accountability at all. So this snippet from Mr Gaunt, as usual makes so much sense.
Jonathan Woss takes a £4 million pound a year pay cut? Really? Who really gives a toss, about this useless over rated monkey anyway?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
The BBC ( British bloated corporation )
last reply
85 replies
4.4k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Thanks! Now at least I know who this Gaunty person is. :thumbup:
Sex God
The BBC take our money, when they should be FORCED by law to advertise for it's money.
If they had to advertise for their revenue, it would not be run the same way as it is now.
Nope, I agree, it wouldn't be run in anything like the same way. It would instead be subject to the same kind of commercial pressures that sees the same kind of generic dross all too frequently output by Sky, ITV and local commercial radio stations to satisfy the whims of their advertisers. For all it's faults ((( and yes, Johnathon Ross is an overpaid bore IMO. ))) you could probably kiss goodbye to Radios 3, 4 and the World Service, because they are probably too expensive to run when compared to the revenue they would generate if opened up to advertising. You would lose many of the BBC's flagship programmes, and a good chunk of their more specialist output, which has small audience ratings, but remains an important part of their programming nevertheless. The World Service alone is widely held to be one of the most important impartial sources of news anywhere in the world for those in countries whose regimes are somewhat less liberal than ours, and it no doubt serves our national interests immeasurably.
You get rid of the licence fee, and make them dependent on advertising, you would lose everything about the BBC that still makes it one of the highest quality broadcasters anywhere in the world. It's an old fashioned idea these days, but there is still a role I think for public service broadcasting immune to an extent from the commercial pressures which would, in the end, force them to produce only the same kinds of lowest common denominator TV and radio put out by all the other commercial broadcasters out there.
Neil x x x ;)
The charter of the BBC is :-
To Inform, To Educate, To Entertain.
It does all three but is slowly going down the slippery raod to making a fourth :- To Rob the public.
In saying that I agree 100% with what Neil has said.
Oh !!! one more thing:- the moto of the BBC is >>>
"Nations shall speak peace unto nations"
Does it still do that
: :?:
To Inform, To Educate, To Entertain.
It does all three but is slowly going down the slippery raod to making a fourth :- To Rob the public.
In saying that I agree 100% with what Neil has said.
Oh !!! one more thing:- the moto of the BBC is >>>
"Nations shall speak peace unto nations"
Does it still do that
: :?: 
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Oh to dream this guy was PM, now it would put the GREAT back into Great Britain.
Or the c*nt into Scunthorpe.
Oh God, I hate that word with a passion and very little drives me to use it... I do apologise.
I agree with almost everything you say about the BBC Mr Kent, you are right to question their impartiality, the way the corporation is funded, how best it uses that money to fulfil it's primary obligations to its broad spectrum of multicultural listeners and I particularly agree with your assessment of Mr Ross, who is sadly making questionable calls of judgement with a worrying frequency and is salaried way in excess of his actual abilities as a presenter. All wise and salient points that merit salient, sensible examination, questioning and answers.
But I'm afraid I can't really comment on your chosen link towards the evidence to support this without probably offending the sensibilities of the teeming hoards of Mr Gaunt's fans on SH, and I shall refrain for the sake of continued Forum accord and bonhomie.
It is never good to mock the afflicted.
Interesting post though!
(Please don't think my opinions are a critique of your salient points or in any way politically based. I think almost all politicians, regardless of party affiliation are a bunch of self-serving ego-maniacal bores with the moral fortitude of a dog turd and the social awareness of a water lily. My ire is raised not by Mr Gaunt's political persuasion, but his total lack of sensitivity, inherent prejudice, moralistic finger wagging, absurd jingoism, refusal to accept any other point other than his may be correct, blatant self-promotion and the fact he seems to genuinely believe that there exists a blindingly simple answer to every problem we face in the world today, if only we'd ignore everyone else and just do what he wants and believes. In some other parts of the world, that's call that fundamentalism and I often find people who proclaim to know all the answers, actually contribute more to the problem, than providing tangible ways to ensure its resolution)
But hey, that's what is great about Britain, it is a free country and everybody is allowed a voice, which is the way it should be.)
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Thanks! Now at least I know who this Gaunty person is. :thumbup:
Some love him and some hate him Girly.
Most on here think I love him( and they would be right )
Oh to dream this guy was PM, now it would put the GREAT back into Great Britain.
How do you work that out then? I wouldn't pay money to own a Sun newspaper far less read it! :mrgreen:
I do however think the TV licence is an absolute rip off but by the same token I hate adverts on the telly! I'm not sure what bothers me more. :wink:
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
The BBC take our money, when they should be FORCED by law to advertise for it's money.
If they had to advertise for their revenue, it would not be run the same way as it is now.
Nope, I agree, it wouldn't be run in anything like the same way. It would instead be subject to the same kind of commercial pressures that sees the same kind of generic dross all too frequently output by Sky, ITV and local commercial radio stations to satisfy the whims of their advertisers. For all it's faults ((( and yes, Johnathon Ross is an overpaid bore IMO. ))) you could probably kiss goodbye to Radios 3, 4 and the World Service, because they are probably too expensive to run when compared to the revenue they would generate if opened up to advertising. You would lose many of the BBC's flagship programmes, and a good chunk of their more specialist output, which has small audience ratings, but remains an important part of their programming nevertheless. The World Service alone is widely held to be one of the most important impartial sources of news anywhere in the world for those in countries whose regimes are somewhat less liberal than ours, and it no doubt serves our national interests immeasurably.
You get rid of the licence fee, and make them dependent on advertising, you would lose everything about the BBC that still makes it one of the highest quality broadcasters anywhere in the world. It's an old fashioned idea these days, but there is still a role I think for public service broadcasting immune to an extent from the commercial pressures which would, in the end, force them to produce only the same kinds of lowest common denominator TV and radio put out by all the other commercial broadcasters out there.
Neil x x x ;)
neil is right...... if you think about it all the bits that don't make money would go........ so say goodbye to most of the BBC local radio input, also you would probably slash the news budget....and the factual documentry output..... most of the bbc's digital output would go, radio 6 music, radio 7... which is brilliant for comedy, BBC 1 xtra and the BBC asian network.....the welsh and scottish regional output would go
bbc 3 would go....... bbc 4 would go (should have a look at some of the documentries on there)...... cbbc would be slashed..... the educational stuff would go...the news division would be slashed
The BBC website is one of the best in the world, and people from all around the globe look at it.... that would go
but yes... as per normal only look at the headline stuff and don't look at the stuff that would really goes on behind.... all well and good being populist
you would end up with a generic copy of ITV and Channel 4... is that what you want?? because I would have a look at the figures... ITV are struggling commercially... and channel 4 may well end up being propped by the the license fee.......
let me give you an example of what is happening....
I listen to detroit radio for my sins on the internet, the station I listened to ended up letting go of ALL the on air staff..... and instead of having any local input now just plays a feed of a national radio station
in fact if you take away the fees, it makes the likes of jonathon ross more powerful.... more viewers equals higher commerical rates... equals more revenue......... and you would have people paying more money to keep them... i.e ant and dec
just because gaunty doesn't like it... doesn't mean the rest of us don't
Sexlightened
My penneth worth.
If you have ever been subjected to watching TV in any other country for more than 15 minutes then you will surely understand the value of a quality public service broadcasting network like the BBC.
Without doubt, the corporation has the highest quality threesholds and strives for creative excellence. Love it or loathe it - you cant argue with that.
The finacing however is a matter for some debate. I cannot watch some of the commercial channels because of the ad breaks and the repeating of promo spots for weeks on end so I am happy to pay my license fee.
I do question the need for the extended world service which boasts that it broadcasts globally in over 30 diffferent languages. Why?
Also, didn't the beloved Gaunty start out on the BBC?
Steve
If you have ever been subjected to watching TV in any other country for more than 15 minutes then you will surely understand the value of a quality public service broadcasting network like the BBC.
Without doubt, the corporation has the highest quality threesholds and strives for creative excellence. Love it or loathe it - you cant argue with that.
The finacing however is a matter for some debate. I cannot watch some of the commercial channels because of the ad breaks and the repeating of promo spots for weeks on end so I am happy to pay my license fee.
I do question the need for the extended world service which boasts that it broadcasts globally in over 30 diffferent languages. Why?
Also, didn't the beloved Gaunty start out on the BBC?
Steve
Quote by fabio
The BBC take our money, when they should be FORCED by law to advertise for it's money.
If they had to advertise for their revenue, it would not be run the same way as it is now.
Nope, I agree, it wouldn't be run in anything like the same way. It would instead be subject to the same kind of commercial pressures that sees the same kind of generic dross all too frequently output by Sky, ITV and local commercial radio stations to satisfy the whims of their advertisers. For all it's faults ((( and yes, Johnathon Ross is an overpaid bore IMO. ))) you could probably kiss goodbye to Radios 3, 4 and the World Service, because they are probably too expensive to run when compared to the revenue they would generate if opened up to advertising. You would lose many of the BBC's flagship programmes, and a good chunk of their more specialist output, which has small audience ratings, but remains an important part of their programming nevertheless. The World Service alone is widely held to be one of the most important impartial sources of news anywhere in the world for those in countries whose regimes are somewhat less liberal than ours, and it no doubt serves our national interests immeasurably.
You get rid of the licence fee, and make them dependent on advertising, you would lose everything about the BBC that still makes it one of the highest quality broadcasters anywhere in the world. It's an old fashioned idea these days, but there is still a role I think for public service broadcasting immune to an extent from the commercial pressures which would, in the end, force them to produce only the same kinds of lowest common denominator TV and radio put out by all the other commercial broadcasters out there.
Neil x x x ;)
neil is right...... if you think about it all the bits that don't make money would go........ so say goodbye to most of the BBC local radio input, also you would probably slash the news budget....and the factual documentry output..... most of the bbc's digital output would go, radio 6 music, radio 7... which is brilliant for comedy, BBC 1 xtra and the BBC asian network.....the welsh and scottish regional output would go
bbc 3 would go....... bbc 4 would go (should have a look at some of the documentries on there)...... cbbc would be slashed..... the educational stuff would go...the news division would be slashed
The BBC website is one of the best in the world, and people from all around the globe look at it.... that would go
but yes... as per normal only look at the headline stuff and don't look at the stuff that would really goes on behind.... all well and good being populist
you would end up with a generic copy of ITV and Channel 4... is that what you want?? because I would have a look at the figures... ITV are struggling commercially... and channel 4 may well end up being propped by the the license fee.......
let me give you an example of what is happening....
I listen to detroit radio for my sins on the internet, the station I listened to ended up letting go of ALL the on air staff..... and instead of having any local input now just plays a feed of a national radio station
in fact if you take away the fees, it makes the likes of jonathon ross more powerful.... more viewers equals higher commerical rates... equals more revenue......... and you would have people paying more money to keep them... i.e ant and dec
just because gaunty doesn't like it... doesn't mean the rest of us don't
In 2009 why should a company funded by public money, operate a system where part of it's organisation loses money? Just so it can satisfy a few people who listen to or watch BBC 3? Or a few that listen to some obscure local radio station rubbish?
Oh yes of course must pander to the few, to the detriment of the majority I suppose.
On the point that Neil raised about " sees the same kind of generic dross all too frequently output by Sky, ITV and local commercial radio stations " did he not watch the BBC programmes over Xmas? The same old generic boring dross, and oh yes loads and loads of repeats.
As for the last comment about Gaunty, no he does not like the way the BBC are allowed to roughshod over everything, with no accountability, and take vast sums of our money, to fund it's extrangance.
Anyone who thinks the way it is run and the way it is funded is good then, have they never moaned about the constant repeats, or the dross it serves up most nights? ASt a cost of how much a year now?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Most on here think I love him ( and they would be right )
Can I just ask what you base this opinion on? Because I don't love him, far from it. And I'd also be surprised if many of my friends do :wink:
As far as your post about the Beeb, I'm with Neil. No point me adding anything because his post sums up my opinion perfectly
Sex God
Quote by Kazsc
Also, didn't the beloved Gaunty start out on the BBC?
Steve
started out and has worked at 5 different BBC local radio stations.....mind you, he was also sacked from 2 of those.....
:lol: :shock: so they didn't mind giving him 2nd and 3rd chancesbeing sacked for being controvsial.... hmmm.... that sounds like an ongoing occurance for JG, you'd think he'd learn
are you suggesting he has some sort of agenda against them... surely not!!!!..... apparently the sun shines out of his arse and he can do no wrong.... hmmmmmm
the only time i was will say he was really good as a radio presenter was the day of the london bombing... but that day he kept quiet and let the people on the phones actually talked
maybe if he did that more often and thought about what his said.....rather than just loving the sound of his own voice..... he'd still be in a job
Quote by Angel Chat
Most on here think I love him ( and they would be right )
Can I just ask what you base this opinion on? Because I don't love him, far from it. And I'd also be surprised if many of my friends do :wink:
As far as your post about the Beeb, I'm with Neil. No point me adding anything because his post sums up my opinion perfectly
Base my opinion on what? That I said I love him? I never said anything about anyone else loving or hating him.
Of course Gaunty is way too against political correctness to be popular, well openly anyway.
You see Gaunties views do not follow the line, that you must adopt nowadays. It's all about you can't say this, and you can't say that....rubbish. We still have a great tradition in this country " free speech ", and long may that rule.
All because he thinks political correctness is bollox. Which the vast majority of it is. Oh well I love his views and if that puts ME in the minority, then I should be ok. :wink:
Sexlightened
The fact that everyone seems to be getting 'out of their pram' over Gaunty shows what a good broadcaster he really is.
You cannot listen to him without becoming involved and you either agree with him or your blood boils with rage at what he says.
He is a shock jock and is bloody good at it.
By the way, I hate him.
Steve
You cannot listen to him without becoming involved and you either agree with him or your blood boils with rage at what he says.
He is a shock jock and is bloody good at it.
By the way, I hate him.
Steve
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
In 2009 why should a company funded by public money, operate a system where part of it's organisation loses money? Just so it can satisfy a few people who listen to or watch BBC 3? Or a few that listen to some obscure local radio station rubbish?
Oh yes of course must pander to the few, to the detriment of the majority I suppose.
No Kent... the Remit of the BBC is to Public Service Broadcasting....... not to be commerically viable
you may not care about local broadcasting in kent... But I can tell you that for a Corperation that is already very london-centric as it is (which is a different discussion) local broadcasting is viewed differently up here....
ITV if you want to use them as a comparison, now have very little Local programming on there networks at all.... and have cut their local news rooms (Tyne Tees where I live lost about half there news staff in the last "reshuffle") I suggest you find out the figures for your local ITV region
why... because local televison doesn't make money..... ITV's remit is profit..... THAT is the difference
Quote by fabio
In 2009 why should a company funded by public money, operate a system where part of it's organisation loses money? Just so it can satisfy a few people who listen to or watch BBC 3? Or a few that listen to some obscure local radio station rubbish?
Oh yes of course must pander to the few, to the detriment of the majority I suppose.
No Kent... the Remit of the BBC is to Public Service Broadcasting....... not to be commerically viable
you may not care about local broadcasting in kent... But I can tell you that for a Corperation that is already very london-centric as it is (which is a different discussion) local broadcasting is viewed differently up here....
ITV if you want to use them as a comparison, now have very little Local programming on there networks at all.... and have cut their local news rooms (Tyne Tees where I live lost about half there news staff in the last "reshuffle") I suggest you find out the figures for your local ITV region
why... because local televison doesn't make money..... ITV's remit is profit..... THAT is the difference
There lies the main problem with the BBC. It is not run as a business but a corporation that subscribes to it's own many other companies could run their business in that way?
It is rubbish if you think the people on the " big bucks " really give a toss about you or me. They only care about their bank accounts.
It gets GIVEN large sums of money and should be held accountable as to what it spends it on. They are not. They use programmes to pursue their own agendas, but with public money.
They are quick enough to use advertising, to further their needs. To get a decent choice I have to pay £46 per month for another service.....Sky.
I like many others love to watch sport but....the BBC has a small selection to choose from. They over the years have lost a massive ammount on sport, and their coverage is second rate at best.
I am not knocking ALL of the BBC, just the overpaid twats, who really think they are worth the money they are paid.....they are not, certainly not out of a " public purse ".
There for me lies the biggest scandal of the BBC.
Sex God
Quote by Angel Chat
Most on here think I love him ( and they would be right )
Can I just ask what you base this opinion on? Because I don't love him, far from it. And I'd also be surprised if many of my friends do :wink:
Clearly you're in my head again cause I read that exactly the same way you did wifey! :giggle:
Sorry Kenty!
*puts specs on* :silly:
Quote by kentswingers777
In 2009 why should a company funded by public money, operate a system where part of it's organisation loses money? Just so it can satisfy a few people who listen to or watch BBC 3? Or a few that listen to some obscure local radio station rubbish?
Oh yes of course must pander to the few, to the detriment of the majority I suppose.
No Kent... the Remit of the BBC is to Public Service Broadcasting....... not to be commerically viable
you may not care about local broadcasting in kent... But I can tell you that for a Corperation that is already very london-centric as it is (which is a different discussion) local broadcasting is viewed differently up here....
ITV if you want to use them as a comparison, now have very little Local programming on there networks at all.... and have cut their local news rooms (Tyne Tees where I live lost about half there news staff in the last "reshuffle") I suggest you find out the figures for your local ITV region
why... because local televison doesn't make money..... ITV's remit is profit..... THAT is the difference
There lies the main problem with the BBC. It is not run as a business but a corporation that subscribes to it's own many other companies could run their business in that way?
It is rubbish if you think the people on the " big bucks " really give a toss about you or me. They only care about their bank accounts.
It gets GIVEN large sums of money and should be held accountable as to what it spends it on. They are not. They use programmes to pursue their own agendas, but with public money.
They are quick enough to use advertising, to further their needs. To get a decent choice I have to pay £46 per month for another service.....Sky.
I like many others love to watch sport but....the BBC has a small selection to choose from. They over the years have lost a massive ammount on sport, and their coverage is second rate at best.
I am not knocking ALL of the BBC, just the overpaid twats, who really think they are worth the money they are paid.....they are not, certainly not out of a " public purse ".
There for me lies the biggest scandal of the BBC.
I bet you think all the Post Offices should be shut too, as they fail to make a profit.
I could be wrong here but the BBC took on board people’s opinion with complaint with Jonathon Ross for example. If it were a commercial run business paid for by advertising would they really care if people complained?
It does go to show that people can get changes to happen if we are unhappy, surely that is better than being lead by businesses.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong!
It does go to show that people can get changes to happen if we are unhappy, surely that is better than being lead by businesses.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong!
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
There lies the main problem with the BBC. It is not run as a business but a corporation that subscribes to it's own many other companies could run their business in that way?
It is rubbish if you think the people on the " big bucks " really give a toss about you or me. They only care about their bank accounts.
It gets GIVEN large sums of money and should be held accountable as to what it spends it on. They are not. They use programmes to pursue their own agendas, but with public money.
They are quick enough to use advertising, to further their needs. To get a decent choice I have to pay £46 per month for another service.....Sky.
I like many others love to watch sport but....the BBC has a small selection to choose from. They over the years have lost a massive ammount on sport, and their coverage is second rate at best.
I am not knocking ALL of the BBC, just the overpaid twats, who really think they are worth the money they are paid.....they are not, certainly not out of a " public purse ".
There for me lies the biggest scandal of the BBC.
but like neil and I have said... you run it as a business you lose all the bit that make the BBC what it is.... all of the non-profit bits would go!!! that is the bit that you don't seem to understand...
but they do justify all the spending....
have a read....
and with regards to sky....do you know what... so do i... and what sky have done is outbid the networks to get all the biggest shows to make sure they can justify that money...
remember when 24 started out on BBC2 all those years ago... and Lost started out on Channel 4.... and the simpson was also on 4, and ER was also on 4...Friends was on channel 4, prison Break.. channel 5 and ect ect ect............
I like many others love to watch sport but....the BBC has a small selection to choose from. They over the years have lost a massive ammount on sport, and their coverage is second rate at best.
and again sky have paid to get the sport on there channels.... they outbid BBC for football, BBC and Channel 4 for cricket, BBC for england autumn internation rugby, BBC for the Lions Rugby, Channel 4 for the NFL, ect ect ect.....
Sky have done some great things for sports that were on there knees, for rugby league, for darts, they show stuff that wasn't on before... like club rugby, but if none of this stuff was making them money... they would ditch it for something that wasn't!
for example.... where do you know watch british basketball... the answer is you don't since sky dropped it......
where do you now watch british ice hockey... the answer is you don't since sky dropped it
and on sky they have a million and one channels where they can cater to niche audiences... people can pick and choose the bits they want...
for example, I don't have the movies, the arts stuff and the childrens stuff because they dont appeal to me
but I suppose those bits may appeal to others..
sky can cater to there audiences a lot better than the BBC can....because they pay for the bits that people want...
for example back to gaunt...
if a bbc station were to employ him again..... would i be right in saying... I don't like that bit, I'll have my money back?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Most on here think I love him ( and they would be right )
Can I just ask what you base this opinion on? Because I don't love him, far from it. And I'd also be surprised if many of my friends do :wink:
As far as your post about the Beeb, I'm with Neil. No point me adding anything because his post sums up my opinion perfectly
Base my opinion on what? That I said I love him? I never said anything about anyone else loving or hating him.
My apologies. I read it initially as "Most I think, love him" which has an entirely different meaning ;) My mistake
Quote by Mrsgoggins
In 2009 why should a company funded by public money, operate a system where part of it's organisation loses money? Just so it can satisfy a few people who listen to or watch BBC 3? Or a few that listen to some obscure local radio station rubbish?
Oh yes of course must pander to the few, to the detriment of the majority I suppose.
No Kent... the Remit of the BBC is to Public Service Broadcasting....... not to be commerically viable
you may not care about local broadcasting in kent... But I can tell you that for a Corperation that is already very london-centric as it is (which is a different discussion) local broadcasting is viewed differently up here....
ITV if you want to use them as a comparison, now have very little Local programming on there networks at all.... and have cut their local news rooms (Tyne Tees where I live lost about half there news staff in the last "reshuffle") I suggest you find out the figures for your local ITV region
why... because local televison doesn't make money..... ITV's remit is profit..... THAT is the difference
There lies the main problem with the BBC. It is not run as a business but a corporation that subscribes to it's own many other companies could run their business in that way?
It is rubbish if you think the people on the " big bucks " really give a toss about you or me. They only care about their bank accounts.
It gets GIVEN large sums of money and should be held accountable as to what it spends it on. They are not. They use programmes to pursue their own agendas, but with public money.
They are quick enough to use advertising, to further their needs. To get a decent choice I have to pay £46 per month for another service.....Sky.
I like many others love to watch sport but....the BBC has a small selection to choose from. They over the years have lost a massive ammount on sport, and their coverage is second rate at best.
I am not knocking ALL of the BBC, just the overpaid twats, who really think they are worth the money they are paid.....they are not, certainly not out of a " public purse ".
There for me lies the biggest scandal of the BBC.
I bet you think all the Post Offices should be shut too, as they fail to make a profit.
No I don't think ALL post offices should shut. They serve the communities well. One of the reasons the post office loses money, is that they are one of the big unions left, who still operate in the 70's.
Most post office workers I know ( I dont mean the ones that work in sub post offices ), won't do anymore than they have too. Our postie at work says most feel that way.
Most posties only work on average 6 hours a day. My postie gets in and runs to do his round and is finished by 1pm. They still hold dear the old union ways, whatever that union is, and like most massive organisations, the wastage and time wasting is huge.
But that is another story for another day.
Sex God
Quote by Dirtygirly
Most on here think I love him ( and they would be right )
Can I just ask what you base this opinion on? Because I don't love him, far from it. And I'd also be surprised if many of my friends do :wink:
Clearly you're in my head again cause I read that exactly the same way you did wifey! :giggle:
Sorry Kenty!
*puts specs on* :silly:
No specs needed DG, it's entirely ambiguous.
"Most on here think THAT I love him" would presume most people think I have my own loving designs for the aforementioned person whereas:
"Most on here think, "I love him!" would suggest that most other people on SH share those same feelings. The lack of punctuation or diction renders the sentence entirely ambiguous.
Sorry, don't want to bandy semantics like a tenth rate English Language tit. My own grammar is so bad I can hardly criticise.
I can't quite get my head around the criticism of the BBC though? I was ok in the original post as it seemingly questioned the way the corporation was spending the money it raised through the licence fee. I felt that had a degree of validity. However now we seem to have moved on into questioning the very raison d'etre for the BBC's existence, how it should function and indeed whether it should function at all, with all kinds of rather absurd, and entirely contradictory, arguments being put forth against it.
As Fabio has rightly said, the BBC has never been a profit making organisation. It's remit is entirely to serve the people as best it can, which it does by producing the programmes it does each year. You can argue until you are blue in the face whether this is right or wrong based on your own ideas of capitalism, but those are the facts. The prime tenet of the BBC has been that it is unbiased. Again this can be argued against, or for, but the principles are there to ensure equality, fairness and equal representation for all. Standards which I feel are particularly British and represent the true meaning of Free Speech, the very thing you advocate so passionately (and which I totally agree with).
Sky TV is then paraded as a "decent" alternative for the BBC. However while the BBC are criticised for their increased licence fee, it seems Sky are applauded for their £46 (and in many cases much more) a month subscription fee. You argue Sky has more choice. It certainly has more channels, and the vast majority of them show nothing but repeats every single day of the week almost non-stop. The very criticism that is made against giving your money to the BBC. You then say the BBC Sports package is dismal, I agree. The reason is not some scurrilous communistic leaning to deprive the populace of Sports programmes, but rather the fact that the cost of winning the rights to these events has been pushed up ludicrously high by the likes of Sky Television! Who then pass that fee onto the public in the form of increased subscription fees. Why is this ok to do, and yet the BBC put up their licence fee by a far smaller amount and yet this is wrong? Surely if you wanted better sport on the BBC then you would not mind paying the extra £500 - £600 a year that you'd pay in Sky subscriptions to the BBC and having the Sport on there?
However this is not the argument. It never is. As usual with writers of Mr Gaunt's ilk (and I wish to make it clear that I do not include Mr Kent in this at all, his posts are always free from such nonsense), the hidden meaning is the one we are meant to take away from the article and it is this baffling notion of "political correctness" and "equality". I particularly took offence at the idea of getting rid of all the "fringe and minority" programmes. Who watches BBC Asia? Who indeed, apart from a great many in the Asian world, and a great many British Asians in this country who work damned hard, contribute greatly to society, pay their taxes and their licence fee, and who may wish to, on occasion, celebrate an aspect of their culture. That's who. It seems some people in the media feel that every British Asian, or indeed whoever the en vogue minority is to pick on that week, are all part of the problem. Tell that to your heart surgeon, or your specialist, or the pilot.
But because they are not Sun reading, angry white middle class male, we should eradicate their wishes so we can watch the football or more Eastenders?
It does him no credit to hide behind the rebuttal of his arguments by claiming everyone who does so, does so because they are cowards, politically incorrect or somehow afraid to speak the truth. That is far from the case. It is easy to espouse the language of fear, cowardice, prejudice, bigotry and try to wrap it up in clever words. However many people see through it, which is why I am guessing he has been fired from so many jobs in the past.
If you do not recognise the importance of an impartial BBC then you only need to look at the rants of Gaunt to understand why balance is needed. Especially if he garners so many supporters.
In that sense, I really do hope his ardent followers are in the minority, because if that is the case, despite all the misery and crap that has happened in recent times in this country, we may actually have a future after all.
But to get back to the original point. I would like to see a review of how the BBC spends its money, I would like to see them spend a good deal less on its "stars". I do feel money could be spent on better things and on better programmes. However that is just my opinion and I am sure you ask 100 people that question, you would get 100 different answers. To suggest that "fringe" or "minority" programmes should be got rid of to cater for the true Brit is a way of thinking that went out with Alf Garnett. While it may not appeal to some, we are a multicultural society. We are a flawed society. However those two terms are mutually exclusive. One is not the direct cause of the other and often those in society with the loudest mouths, doing the most finger pointing, regardless of what your religious, political, social, racial beliefs, are entirely the ones creating and contributing to these flaws in the first place.
In such situations impartiality, however flawed, is vital. Fortunately we have one great British institution of free speech that may occasionally allow it. The BBC.
Err.. So No... I think we should still have the licence fee... and if you read all that well done... I'll get my head out my arse in a second...
Quote by kentswingers777
In 2009 why should a company funded by public money, operate a system where part of it's organisation loses money? Just so it can satisfy a few people who listen to or watch BBC 3? Or a few that listen to some obscure local radio station rubbish?
Oh yes of course must pander to the few, to the detriment of the majority I suppose.
No Kent... the Remit of the BBC is to Public Service Broadcasting....... not to be commerically viable
you may not care about local broadcasting in kent... But I can tell you that for a Corperation that is already very london-centric as it is (which is a different discussion) local broadcasting is viewed differently up here....
ITV if you want to use them as a comparison, now have very little Local programming on there networks at all.... and have cut their local news rooms (Tyne Tees where I live lost about half there news staff in the last "reshuffle") I suggest you find out the figures for your local ITV region
why... because local televison doesn't make money..... ITV's remit is profit..... THAT is the difference
There lies the main problem with the BBC. It is not run as a business but a corporation that subscribes to it's own many other companies could run their business in that way?
It is rubbish if you think the people on the " big bucks " really give a toss about you or me. They only care about their bank accounts.
It gets GIVEN large sums of money and should be held accountable as to what it spends it on. They are not. They use programmes to pursue their own agendas, but with public money.
They are quick enough to use advertising, to further their needs. To get a decent choice I have to pay £46 per month for another service.....Sky.
I like many others love to watch sport but....the BBC has a small selection to choose from. They over the years have lost a massive ammount on sport, and their coverage is second rate at best.
I am not knocking ALL of the BBC, just the overpaid twats, who really think they are worth the money they are paid.....they are not, certainly not out of a " public purse ".
There for me lies the biggest scandal of the BBC.
I bet you think all the Post Offices should be shut too, as they fail to make a profit.
No I don't think ALL post offices should shut. They serve the communities well. One of the reasons the post office loses money, is that they are one of the big unions left, who still operate in the 70's.
Most post office workers I know ( I dont mean the ones that work in sub post offices ), won't do anymore than they have too. Our postie at work says most feel that way.
Most posties only work on average 6 hours a day. My postie gets in and runs to do his round and is finished by 1pm. They still hold dear the old union ways, whatever that union is, and like most massive organisations, the wastage and time wasting is huge.
But that is another story for another day.
royal mail's losses have nothing to do with "old union ways"...but the fact royal mail have to deliver by law the mail that other companies like TNT give them at a loss....your also find most posties are working on average 8 hours aday.
Quote by Resonance
Most on here think I love him ( and they would be right )
Can I just ask what you base this opinion on? Because I don't love him, far from it. And I'd also be surprised if many of my friends do :wink:
Clearly you're in my head again cause I read that exactly the same way you did wifey! :giggle:
Sorry Kenty!
*puts specs on* :silly:
No specs needed DG, it's entirely ambiguous.
"Most on here think THAT I love him" would presume most people think I have my own loving designs for the aforementioned person whereas:
"Most on here think, "I love him!" would suggest that most other people on SH share those same feelings. The lack of punctuation or diction renders the sentence entirely ambiguous.
Sorry, don't want to bandy semantics like a tenth rate English Language tit. My own grammar is so bad I can hardly criticise.
I can't quite get my head around the criticism of the BBC though? I was ok in the original post as it seemingly questioned the way the corporation was spending the money it raised through the licence fee. I felt that had a degree of validity. However now we seem to have moved on into questioning the very raison d'etre for the BBC's existence, how it should function and indeed whether it should function at all, with all kinds of rather absurd, and entirely contradictory, arguments being put forth against it.
As Fabio has rightly said, the BBC has never been a profit making organisation. It's remit is entirely to serve the people as best it can, which it does by producing the programmes it does each year. You can argue until you are blue in the face whether this is right or wrong based on your own ideas of capitalism, but those are the facts. The prime tenet of the BBC has been that it is unbiased. Again this can be argued against, or for, but the principles are there to ensure equality, fairness and equal representation for all. Standards which I feel are particularly British and represent the true meaning of Free Speech, the very thing you advocate so passionately (and which I totally agree with).
Sky TV is then paraded as a "decent" alternative for the BBC. However while the BBC are criticised for their increased licence fee, it seems Sky are applauded for their £46 (and in many cases much more) a month subscription fee. You argue Sky has more choice. It certainly has more channels, and the vast majority of them show nothing but repeats every single day of the week almost non-stop. The very criticism that is made against giving your money to the BBC. You then say the BBC Sports package is dismal, I agree. The reason is not some scurrilous communistic leaning to deprive the populace of Sports programmes, but rather the fact that the cost of winning the rights to these events has been pushed up ludicrously high by the likes of Sky Television! Who then pass that fee onto the public in the form of increased subscription fees. Why is this ok to do, and yet the BBC put up their licence fee by a far smaller amount and yet this is wrong? Surely if you wanted better sport on the BBC then you would not mind paying the extra £500 - £600 a year that you'd pay in Sky subscriptions to the BBC and having the Sport on there?
However this is not the argument. It never is. As usual with writers of Mr Gaunt's ilk (and I wish to make it clear that I do not include Mr Kent in this at all, his posts are always free from such nonsense), the hidden meaning is the one we are meant to take away from the article and it is this baffling notion of "political correctness" and "equality". I particularly took offence at the idea of getting rid of all the "fringe and minority" programmes. Who watches BBC Asia? Who indeed, apart from a great many in the Asian world, and a great many British Asians in this country who work damned hard, contribute greatly to society, pay their taxes and their licence fee, and who may wish to, on occasion, celebrate an aspect of their culture. That's who. It seems some people in the media feel that every British Asian, or indeed whoever the en vogue minority is to pick on that week, are all part of the problem. Tell that to your heart surgeon, or your specialist, or the pilot.
But because they are not Sun reading, angry white middle class male, we should eradicate their wishes so we can watch the football or more Eastenders?
It does him no credit to hide behind the rebuttal of his arguments by claiming everyone who does so, does so because they are cowards, politically incorrect or somehow afraid to speak the truth. That is far from the case. It is easy to espouse the language of fear, cowardice, prejudice, bigotry and try to wrap it up in clever words. However many people see through it, which is why I am guessing he has been fired from so many jobs in the past.
If you do not recognise the importance of an impartial BBC then you only need to look at the rants of Gaunt to understand why balance is needed. Especially if he garners so many supporters.
In that sense, I really do hope his ardent followers are in the minority, because if that is the case, despite all the misery and crap that has happened in recent times in this country, we may actually have a future after all.
But to get back to the original point. I would like to see a review of how the BBC spends its money, I would like to see them spend a good deal less on its "stars". I do feel money could be spent on better things and on better programmes. However that is just my opinion and I am sure you ask 100 people that question, you would get 100 different answers. To suggest that "fringe" or "minority" programmes should be got rid of to cater for the true Brit is a way of thinking that went out with Alf Garnett. While it may not appeal to some, we are a multicultural society. We are a flawed society. However those two terms are mutually exclusive. One is not the direct cause of the other and often those in society with the loudest mouths, doing the most finger pointing, regardless of what your religious, political, social, racial beliefs, are entirely the ones creating and contributing to these flaws in the first place.
In such situations impartiality, however flawed, is vital. Fortunately we have one great British institution of free speech that may occasionally allow it. The BBC.
Err.. So No... I think we should still have the licence fee... and if you read all that well done... I'll get my head out my arse in a second...
:thumbup:
Quote by Resonance
As usual with writers of Mr Gaunt's ilk (and I wish to make it clear that I do not include Mr Kent in this at all, his posts are always free from such nonsense)
Free from such nonsense, or laziness on his part, by posting a link to a John Gaunt article from the Sun newspaper, and then saying "I agree with Gaunty"?
You say that Kentswingers posts are free from such nonsense, but I have yet to read anything from Kentswingers where he feels John Gaunt's opinion is wrong, his support for John Gaunt is unswerving, to the point of being totally blinkered, almost brainwashed.
It is like throwing a hand grenade whilst squatting down in a trench, watching the effects of the explosion, whilst hiding behind the trench (or in this case, the writings of John Gaunt)
The one think nobody can say about kent is that you don’t know you stand with him, he is a man that has his own opinions and brings a good debate to the forums, without such people, others would be less likely to air their views, we need people like kent here, we may not agree but at least it opens up a lively debate without personally insulting each other.
I admire him as he stands by what he believes in even if I don’t agree with what he says most of the time, He will never beat about the bush.
I admire him as he stands by what he believes in even if I don’t agree with what he says most of the time, He will never beat about the bush.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
The one think nobody can say about kent is that you don’t know you stand with him, he is a man that has his own opinions and brings a good debate to the forums, without such people, others would be less likely to air their views, we need people like kent here, we may not agree but at least it opens up a lively debate without personally insulting each other.
I admire him as he stands by what he believes in even if I don’t agree with what he says most of the time, He will never beat about the bush.
I agree that I do like reading his postings in any debate that he enters, whether I agree with what he says or not.
Sex God
Quote by essex34m
As usual with writers of Mr Gaunt's ilk (and I wish to make it clear that I do not include Mr Kent in this at all, his posts are always free from such nonsense)
Free from such nonsense, or laziness on his part, by posting a link to a John Gaunt article from the Sun newspaper, and then saying "I agree with Gaunty"?
You say that Kentswingers posts are free from such nonsense, but I have yet to read anything from Kentswingers where he feels John Gaunt's opinion is wrong, his support for John Gaunt is unswerving, to the point of being totally blinkered, almost brainwashed.
It is like throwing a hand grenade whilst squatting down in a trench, watching the effects of the explosion, whilst hiding behind the trench (or in this case, the writings of John Gaunt)
I'll explain this and apologies for hijacking the thread for one moment.
What I meant is that the posts made by Kentswingers are not wholly made up of the kind of writing and hidden meaning that Gaunt uses in his.
Mr Kent has every right to believe in whomever he likes, in just the same way that every other member has a right to form an opinion on what he posts or believe in whatever they choose.
What I didn't like was the undercurrent of Gaunts writing which, I felt, promoted certain issues that are against the sites AUP. That is my perception and I wished to make it clear, my argument in this case was with the link, Mr Gaunt, rather than the postee, Mr Kent. If I did not explain that well enough, apologies.
His links to Gaunt's writings, or similar, may well provoke a response, sometimes angry. However posting them in itself is not wrong. Not at all. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, we may not want to read it. However you can choose to ignore it, or you can look at the argument and make your point, as many people have eruditely done so today. If people genuinely do not want such posts to appear then the best method of recourse is to ignore them.
Which is what I have done since joining until today.
However, I shall soon be returning to the realms of the stupid, silly and inane posts very soon as this was only a short foray into this world. I prefer tits and laughs to be honest.
Quote by essex34m
The one think nobody can say about kent is that you don’t know you stand with him, he is a man that has his own opinions and brings a good debate to the forums, without such people, others would be less likely to air their views, we need people like kent here, we may not agree but at least it opens up a lively debate without personally insulting each other.
I admire him as he stands by what he believes in even if I don’t agree with what he says most of the time, He will never beat about the bush.
I agree that I do like reading his postings in any debate that he enters, whether I agree with what he says or not.
I believe he makes others stand up and say things that perhaps they wouldn't if we all agreed, that is what I love about these forums you can aways listen to all opinions which help form you own.
