The bbc, again.

[Wisbech Eagle]

How do you know if you don't watch it? Did the BBC say?

That I don’t watch it through regular choice doesn’t mean I never see it, or am unaware of it. I occasionally check how it is responding to a story or catch an emotional headline which demands investigation.

 

[Lombardinho]

That I don’t watch it through regular choice doesn’t mean I never see it, or am unaware of it. I occasionally check how it is responding to a story or catch an emotional headline which demands investigation.

Even though you've plenty to say, I've seen no evidence that you've ever investigated anything at all.
Parroting fact-checkers and regurgitating the BBC are not the same thing.
Anybody who continues to pay their license fee, especially after this week's revelations, can consider themselves a failed human being.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

No need to apologise when it was my misunderstanding.
There's not much doubt the funding model will change and if it means no more need fines of up to £1000 for not having a license then good.

If a funding model is found that means everyone who pays tax also pays for the BBC, whilst ensuring its independence, then yes, it would be good.

It would stop being a political football.

An internet levy looks the most appropriate to me, with non tax payers being granted a government exemption from internet charges so they are able to stay in touch in every way.

I cannot see what people would be fined for. If you watched without having the internet then you wouldn’t be breaking the law. If you refused to pay the internet provider they would cut your service.

Mind you, if tax thresholds get frozen again, which looks increasingly likely there will be very few non tax payers before long.,

 

[McAhuna]

Even though you've plenty to say, I've seen no evidence that you've ever investigated anything at all.
Parroting fact-checkers and regurgitating the BBC are not the same thing.
Anybody who continues to pay their license fee, especially after this week's revelations, can consider themselves a failed human being.

Nailed it.
Someone who loves the sound of their own voice parroting the 'correct' (establishment) view.

But lacking the integrity to properly investigate the facts. Mostly because 'truth' and 'facts' don't mean anything to them, not in in the way they do to you or me.
For someone like that, facts are secondary to dogma, ego and his self-identification as a righteous, upstanding citizen. Completely brainwashed, but not capable of seeing it.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Even though you've plenty to say, I've seen no evidence that you've ever investigated anything at all.
Parroting fact-checkers and regurgitating the BBC are not the same thing.
Anybody who continues to pay their license fee, especially after this week's revelations, can consider themselves a failed human being.

Fact checkers are a useful source. So are reliable, objective, non political broadcasters. The BBC being one.

So to, and increasingly important, is the wealth of information on the internet.

Anyone who dismisses such sources is clearly biased and a failed human being!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

They didn't concede it was the second time they'd shown an edited version and since it's taken three years for the Newsnight story to come out these Wolves are snarling very quietly.

Obviously even the wolves didn’t notice, or thought it irrelevant and unimportant, or they would have been all over it.

It’s like finding a half eaten biscuit in your, now grown up, son’s old bedroom tucked in a secret place you have only just discovered. He was under strict instructions never to eat in his room. Do you now admonish him?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

BBC saying they've apologised to Trump, but won't pay compensation.

Let's see what the lawyers think, because apologising can be taken as an admission of guilt.
BBC just making it worse for themselves

They’ve apologised for the mistaken edit, but not for the programme. They’ve denied, rightly in my opinion, that it could have caused him harm, as he won the election. They have also denied any responsibility because the programme wasn’t broadcast by them in the USA.

So absolutely no admission of guilt. Quite the opposite in fact. A polite but firm denial.

They haven’t made it worse at all. They have boxed Trump in. If he proceeds now, with what will look like a hopeless but vindictive claim, he will just look more like the grifter he is.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Obviously even the wolves didn’t notice, or thought it irrelevant and unimportant, or they would have been all over it.

It’s like finding a half eaten biscuit in your, now grown up, son’s old bedroom tucked in a secret place you have only just discovered. He was under strict instructions never to eat in his room. Do you now admonish him?

Talk about pushing the boundaries. What a rebel.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Trump will view the BBC apology but refusal to pay compensation as "opening negotiations". I expect his lawyers will now build a case much as they did with the American news outlets he threatened to sue.

At some point they will share the dossier with the BBC who will have to decide if it is worth going to court or settling.

The lawyers won’t be allowed to just fold and not risk more.

Publicity for his rewriting of history with him as the victim is what Trump really wants. Even though most sensible observers can see right through it.

The BBC won’t settle. No “dossier” can change the facts and with the high bar that is required to be cleared in the USA for any claim of this kind to succeed this one looks beyond hopeless.

Only political pressure from within the Board could change that and if that was applied there would be a revolution within the BBC.

What’s most likely, in my view, is more nonsense from his sycophantic dolly bird of a press secretary, followed by the BBC being banned from the White House with GBNews, who have already been granted access, being afforded a special status.

Cue a political storm here in how to respond to such a move.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Talk about pushing the boundaries. What a rebel.

Hence the comparison!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The last glacial period ended 11700 years ago. The next one is predicted to be in 10000 years. That puts us roughly in the middle of the warming period.

I’m not sure where you are getting your 10000 years from. It only started 1700 years before that.

The Earth had actually been 10 to 15 degrees hotter on the past. Not that it’s any consolation. Best get some air con installed.

This is off thread but you are talking about something entirely different. That the earth has always gone through very slow cycles of warm and cold periods is understood and accepted. It happens so slowly that adjustments have historically been made just as naturally as the change. It’s presents a different challenge now but one that, because of the slowness, answers will gradually be found.

What’s happening now is the man made climate change that started with the Industrial Revolution. Something happening so fast that the consequences cannot be dealt with over extended time. Positive, aggressive, change is needed.

To deny this is to deny reality.

 

[McAhuna]

Who remembers this rabbit hole?

What about this BBC classic from the day of 9/11. They reported the collapse of building 7. The only problem was that it hadn't collapsed and was visible standing behind the reporter.
It then 'unexpectedly' collapsed 25 minutes after the BBC report!

 

[silvertop]

If a funding model is found that means everyone who pays tax also pays for the BBC, whilst ensuring its independence, then yes, it would be good.

It would stop being a political football.

An internet levy looks the most appropriate to me, with non tax payers being granted a government exemption from internet charges so they are able to stay in touch in every way.

I cannot see what people would be fined for. If you watched without having the internet then you wouldn’t be breaking the law. If you refused to pay the internet provider they would cut your service.

Mind you, if tax thresholds get frozen again, which looks increasingly likely there will be very few non tax payers before long.,

It was designed to be available to all and independent of the government and the license fee was considered the best option to achieve both within the technology of that day.

An internet levy could be a latter day solution.

The BBC would have to alter its mode to be available to all as that is no longer realistic. While it has notable successes like Strictly, the nature stuff, MotD and Night Garden, the bulk of its output is no longer watched by anyone other than pensioners (and their appetite will decrease). Its successes would be best produced by the BBC but aired on subscription streaming platforms.

Much talk of down-sizing; but they would have to retain news at its core as well as certain national radio channels and all the local ones. News may survive in a subscription world, but 6 Music, R4, BBC Radio Orkneys? I would not like to see them doomed to history just because they can't pay for themselves. The British Museum cant pay for itself with free entry but this country is envied for this policy; and would you really put such a national treasure on a wholly profit footing?

The new BBC would be available to all including those who choose not to use it. After all, I have Netflix and Prime but view very little on those platforms that I have paid for. And I bet those now stamping on "Aunty" watch the football highlights on i-Player.

And the World Service? I would happily they funded that from the tax I pay. There are now few cultural beacons promoting the values of this country and this remains one.

What comes out the other end of the sausage machine will mean less produced and less paid per head. However, impartial news must lie at its core; and that must mean putting in more effective safeguarding to protect that value. If you live in Algeria, Cambodia or Nicaragua, it must stand as perhaps the only broadcaster that can really be trusted.

 

[silvertop]

The last glacial period ended 11700 years ago. The next one is predicted to be in 10000 years. That puts us roughly in the middle of the warming period.

I’m not sure where you are getting your 10000 years from. It only started 1700 years before that.

The Earth had actually been 10 to 15 degrees hotter on the past. Not that it’s any consolation. Best get some air con installed.

"The bbc, again" ???​

And you say I am obsessed.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Who remembers this rabbit hole?

What about this BBC classic from the day of 9/11. They reported the collapse of building 7. The only problem was that it hadn't collapsed and was visible standing behind the reporter.
It then 'unexpectedly' collapsed 25 minutes after the BBC report!

Never gone with the 9/11 conspiracy theory, other than Mossad knew that the attack was coming...or at least parts of it did because of those guys arrested afterwards.

 

[McAhuna]

Never gone with the 9/11 conspiracy theory, other than Mossad knew that the attack was coming...or at least parts of it did because of those guys arrested afterwards.

Fair enough. But how would you explain the BBC report then?

Bear in mind, other than on that day, no high rise buildings have ever free-fall collapsed unless by controlled demolition. And Building 7 wasn't even hit by an aircraft, but still free-fall collapsed.
It certainly wasn't predictable, so how did the BBC know in advance?

 

[silvertop]

Fair enough. But how would you explain the BBC report then?

Bear in mind, other than on that day, no high rise buildings have ever free-fall collapsed unless by controlled demolition. And Building 7 wasn't even hit by an aircraft, but still free-fall collapsed.
It certainly wasn't predictable, so how did the BBC know in advance?

The media is controlled by the Jews?
😉

 

[ASCPFC]

The media is controlled by the Jews?
😉

The Chinese

 

[McAhuna]

Whoever controls the media, they are reassuringly incompetent.

It's one cock up after another. They must have skipped a few classes at Criminal Mastermind school.

 

[Spiderman]

That I don’t watch it through regular choice doesn’t mean I never see it, or am unaware of it. I occasionally check how it is responding to a story or catch an emotional headline which demands investigation.

🤣