The bbc, again.

[Wisbech Eagle]

A remarkably evangelical approach.
No comments about the rubbish this fantastic broadcaster is offering over Christmas?

When I was addressing remarks on their news coverage why would I divert onto anything else?

Especially the opinion of a Grinch impersonator on Christmas programming!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

When I was addressing remarks on their news coverage why would I divert onto anything else?

Especially the opinion of a Grinch impersonator on Christmas programming!

Because the BBC is supposedly a broadcaster responsible for entertainment which we have to pay for and not just a news outlet.

 

[Badger11]

A remarkably evangelical approach.
No comments about the rubbish this fantastic broadcaster is offering over Christmas?

One of the many complaints about the BBC is the lack of funding for new programming.

 

[ASCPFC]

One of the many complaints about the BBC is the lack of funding for new programming.

They have to keep money back to pay off all of their staff that are forced to resign and to pay future legal costs.
I wonder will my job pay me off when I f*** up and have to resign? Will anyone else's? No, only the BBC pays off its paedos, weirdos and incompetents. Anyone paying the licence is literally a fool.

 

[Badger11]

They have to keep money back to pay off all of their staff that are forced to resign and to pay future legal costs.
I wonder will my job pay me off when I f*** up and have to resign? Will anyone else's? No, only the BBC pays off its paedos, weirdos and incompetents. Anyone paying the licence is literally a fool.

They employ over 20,000 people but how many are directly involved in programme making?

How many are just middle management paper pushing bureaucrats. I'm not even talking about DEI hires just a bloated organisation with duplication all over the place. Even the last DG recognised that. Then there are the gold plated pensions and 4 staff taking 4 taxis when one shared taxi or the tube would have sufficed.

There are huge savings to be made but all the BBC does is moan that the licence fee is not enough.

 

[ASCPFC]

BBC overhauls editorial committee after Trump speech row

The committee will take a "robust and transparent approach" to tackling editorial concerns, a report says.

www.bbc.com

 

[Badger11]

BBC overhauls editorial committee after Trump speech row

The committee will take a "robust and transparent approach" to tackling editorial concerns, a report says.

www.bbc.com

This aspect should not be overlooked.

The BBC claim they made a mistake but it took them nearly 1 year to admit it. Simply not good enough.

 

[Spiderman]

No news outlet can be held legally responsible for what any individual decides to view via an unregulated third party over the internet. Anyone posting a clip is responsible for that themselves.

It’s different for regulated, licensed streaming services. Apparently there was such a licence holder for the Panorama documentary, based in Canada, but they have said no one in the USA who they relicense to, used it.

So it wasn’t legally seen there.

So no one with a computer could have logged onto BBC IPlayer, whether live or after the event? This is of course possible with a VPN, even if not “legal” ( debatable) it cannot be said no one in the US viewed it, as has been said on here, can it? So are they saying as no one viewed it legally that’s ok then?