Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Thought about doing it for a while - but BBC’s latest behaviour and that of its highest paid presenters are now indefensible. They are despicable.
Feels good to no longer be part of it by funding them.
Feels good to no longer be part of it by funding them.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 64
|
By:
How many did you have ?
|
|
By:
What's Graham Norton done now?
|
|
By:
It's against the law to watch live TV without a licence.
|
|
By:
A lot of things are against the law. Things that many people do, frequently.
I've had one goon visit in five years. Answered as I was expecting a delivery. Told him that at the door, I no longer watch live tv and to do one. He did one. Any letters received to the 'occupier' find their way immediately to the recycling, unopened. |
|
By:
Just got to be confident person, and there will be no issues whatsoever. You don't need to tell them anything, and they have no right to enter your property.
|
|
By:
They can be pretty cute when they call.
They might start with - ''Mr Smith?'' You answer ''yes.'' And they've got your name. ''Lived here long?'' You tell them that as well, and they haven't even told you who they are. So they already know your name and that you’re the resident. Only use three words when greeting any stranger - ''who are you?'' When they tell you, close the door without saying anything else. |
|
By:
Don't be rude, don't be clever.
Just keep your mouth shut. |
|
By:
Yep, the more subtle ones will fish. Ideally, just don't answer the door. It was just complacency on my part as they cam in the same 1 hour window as the delivery was scheduled, and I did not check.
|
|
By:
Always love these occasional threads.
Lads always think they're master criminals on run from the law. *Click cancel direct debit* Tickle me every time. |
|
By:
Nothing to do with that on my part. The license is sustained because of the inferred threat to your finances and eventually your liberty. I'm simply informing people who may be in two minds, that threat is absolutely hollow, as long as a couple of simple rules have followed.
|
|
By:
My stance on it is a principled one, predominately. Altho I'm over a monkey up so far, which is no bad thing, an added bonus.
|
|
By:
Savile’s therapy for BBC
WHEN ITV claimed it made The Long Shadow to put the Yorkshire Ripper’s victims “at the heart of the story”, rather than feed the network’s weird obsession with serial killers and signal its virtue, I thought it was the height of bad television taste. It’s got nothing, though, on the BBC, who’ve used the Jimmy Savile saga as its own therapy session. The result is The Reckoning, starring Steve Coogan, who absolutely nails the Savile impression, which is neither here nor there, frankly. Because this story should’ve been told via a documentary where everyone at the BBC, who enabled this monster for decades, confessed all. Instead of accepting its full share of responsibility though, we get a drama, which allows them to reassert artistic control over the story and piously, shamefully nudge viewers towards those people the BBC clearly believes make more deserving villains, like Margaret Thatcher, the Queen and the Royal Family who, despite there being no evidence they knew what was going on, are always accompanied by sinister music on The Reckoning. While putting others in the frame, of course, the Beeb’s taken one step back and relegated the infamous pulling of Newsnight’s posthumous Savile investigation to a paragraph in the closing credits, where you’ll also hear the simpering voice of Auntie’s HR depart- ment tell us: “If you’re having feelings of despair, details of support are available at the BBC Actionline website.” Which I am, as a matter of fact. The state broadcaster is gaslighting Britain, you see, and charging everyone £159 for the privilege. Any suggestions? |
|
By:
Do you not believe in freedom of expression?
That you don't have to watch every single minute of BBC content. It's not obligatory. I mean I'll see your Saville prog, and raise you Mrs Brown's Boys if we want to really censor content. But some people will like it and some won't. If the manbaby who wrote that wants to watch a Savile doc I'm sure he can find one. And likewise, he can put another channel on at 9pm and not be so constantly upset at his own decisions. |
|
By:
if you don't watch anything on the bbc you shouldn't have to pay for any of it, that's what bothers a lot of people, today especially the younger generation, their viewing habits have simply changed, gone are the days where most people had 4 TV channels and the nation huddled around the TTV to watch the latest despressing episode of Eastenders, advocates of the license basically want those who don't watch the bbc to help pay for their viewing pleasure, it's 2023 and they need to move with the times, you can chose to pay for a subscription to the bbc if you are someone who loves it that much, but they are haning onto the license for dear life. It's time they brough in commercials like everyone else.
|
|
By:
this is the netflix, youtube, social media, on demand generation, BBC have to have their license scrapped now, just a matter of when not if
|
|
By:
Crippen gave you good advice. Cancel and heed.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Cancelled mine donkey’s years ago.
The BBC will survive just fine when the licence fee is abolished, it’s merely the hordes of overpaid administrators and presenters who will lose out… and that reckoning is long overdue. |
|
By:
My prediction is that the licence fee will be scrapped by the next Conservative government.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Well, Mr D, it appears likely we will have a Labour government in the meantime, but I think after that debacle the licence fee probably will be scrapped.
|
|
By:
In light of the recent abhorrent atrocities this latest controversy over the BBC’s refusal to term Hamas as terrorists will be a final straw for many. The risible justification about maintaining impartiality quickly falls apart when one reviews previous reporting on other terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda or the IRA.
The BBC has never been impartial, of course… it used to be very much right wing, now it’s very much left wing and apparently riven with anti-Semites. |
|
By:
Is it only the BBC not calling them terrorists or are ITV and Sky not doing so either?
Pretty sure it's an OFCOM stipulation rather than an editorial choice. |
|
By:
Quite possibly, Mr P, all the mainstream news channels are very similar.
The one difference in this instance, of course, is the OP’s issue with the BBC licence fee. |
|
By:
I don’t know if scrapping the licence fee would be a good thing.
The BBC is the government’s broadcaster, and that won’t change. So no subscription service. And if the cost came out of public money where would that end? They’d end up with more hangers on than the NHS. Only people who choose to pay do these days. Or those that don’t want the hassle. This suits many who take the view – ‘’they can do what they like, because I’m not paying for.’’ |
|
By:
|
|
By:
The BBC committed "significant editorial failings" in its reporting of an antisemitic attack on Jewish students, Ofcom has found.
The media watchdog observed that the BBC failed to follow its editorial guidelines on due impartiality and due accuracy in a 2021 online article. A separate BBC London news broadcast on the same story did not breach due impartiality or accuracy rules. However, Ofcom said the BBC had made a serious editorial misjudgement. The incident occurred on 29 November 2021, when a group of Jewish students were subjected to an antisemitic attack while travelling on a privately-hired bus on Oxford Street, London, where they had been celebrating the festival of Hanukkah. Disputed phrase In its coverage, the BBC reported that an anti-Muslim slur had been heard from inside the bus, but following BBC coverage on 2 December, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Chief Rabbi were among a significant number of groups and individuals who complained to the broadcaster about the accuracy and impartiality of its reporting. The Board of Deputies of British Jews said: "Ofcom's ruling on the BBC's conduct in relation to the antisemitic Oxford Street attack has made it clear that 'the BBC failed to observe its editorial guidelines on due impartiality and due accuracy', and has described the corporation's 'serious editorial misjudgement' in this matter. "This ruling, in response to the board's written complaint, validates our significant concern over the BBC's actions on this issue. We will now consider whether to take this issue to a judicial review." Ofcom to investigate BBC's anti-Semitism report Ofcom said in a statement: "Our investigation uncovered significant editorial failings in the BBC's reporting of an antisemitic attack on Jewish students travelling on board a bus in London. "The BBC's reports claimed that an audio recording made during the incident included anti-Muslim slurs - which it later changed to the singular 'slur' - which came from inside the bus. Shortly afterwards, it received evidence which disputed this interpretation of the audio." Ofcom noted that the BBC received evidence to support an alternative explanation that the words it had heard were in fact a Hebrew phrase, meaning "Call someone, it's urgent". Ergo, they made it up. |
|
By:
BBC BOSSES have been forced into a humiliating climbdown after labelling a dead IRA terrorist a “veteran” and grovelled for the “upset” it caused.
In coverage of the funeral of Eamon “Peggy” McCourt, BBC News described the republican gunman as a “veteran.” But the BBC’s description of the late McCourt as a "veteran" - giving equivalence between criminals and troops - sparked uproar. Defence chiefs, MPs and former soldiers raged against the corporation, accusing it of besmirching the 1,400 British soldiers who laid down their lives during The Troubles. Former Defence Minister Lord Lancaster told The Sun the BBC's choice of words was "bizarre and deeply insulting". |
|
By:
Why was my statement about the Lack of White folks in TV adverts Removed ?
|
|
By:
gonna go for option B) Racism.
|
|
By:
Nothing to do With Racism ? Not on my part ,Perhaps the Racist agenda around TV adverts is what the Problem , TV adverts bear no resemblance to the Population of the UK
Why is that ? We don't all live in rank Over crowded cities |
|
By:
Why was my statement about the Lack of White folks in TV adverts Removed ?
Had you remarked about a lack of black folks, it would still be there. |
|
By:
So its now racist to use the Term White Folks ?
|
|
By:
Betfair needs to boot off all the racists.
|
|
By:
Where I live 95 % of the Population are White , is that a Problem ?
If so , Why ? |
|
By:
If that was the case you would be long Gone NOB
 |
|
By:
Anyone who believes that race representation in tv ads is proportionate to the population needs to be carted off to the funny farm.
|
|
By:
Peckham perhaps, not the wider population.
|