The bbc, again.

Spiderman said:
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?
Click to expand...
I cannot see a claim that someone watched something illegally being accepted as a basis for legal action in any Court. Add to that that the numbers, if any, would be minuscule. Add to them that he won the election and the whole enterprise falls apart. It looks what it is. An opportunity to try to play the victim, again, extract some money, divert attention away from the stupidity being done every day and embarrass the BBC.
 
ASCPFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think those payments, even when lumped together, make any kind of significant difference?

People get separation payments in many organisations in return for signing a NDA. It’s what the lawyers demand. I have personal experience of negotiating these. They are budgeted.

With the attitude on display here about the licence seemingly becoming more prevalent it must be the case that it will be replaced with something else, that both cannot be avoided and hopefully is less directly attributable to the BBC, thus avoiding this nonsense.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The difference is obvious. It has no connection to the points being made and is therefore just a diversionary distraction. If you have no more to say about news coverage then don’t respond to me. Just leave it and make a new comment.
Click to expand...
And say the same thing. It was addressed to you as the keenest defender of the BBC on here but you clearly don't have an answer.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I cannot see a claim that someone watched something illegally being accepted as a basis for legal action in any Court. Add to that that the numbers, if any, would be minuscule. Add to them that he won the election and the whole enterprise falls apart. It looks what it is. An opportunity to try to play the victim, again, extract some money, divert attention away from the stupidity being done every day and embarrass the BBC.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t it been said in the media and by you that, NO ONE in the US saw it? My point was, that there is every possibility that they did. Numbers unknown but to categorically say none, is a brave sweeping statement and I suspect is completely wrong
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Do you seriously think those payments, even when lumped together, make any kind of significant difference?

People get separation payments in many organisations in return for signing a NDA. It’s what the lawyers demand. I have personal experience of negotiating these. They are budgeted.

With the attitude on display here about the licence seemingly becoming more prevalent it must be the case that it will be replaced with something else, that both cannot be avoided and hopefully is less directly attributable to the BBC, thus avoiding this nonsense.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it will be the removal of the licence fee. I wouldn’t care less if they continued their biased reporting, woke nonsense and funding dross like Eurovision, providing the tax payer isn’t funding it. Make it a commercial channel
 
Spiderman said:
Hasn’t it been said in the media and by you that, NO ONE in the US saw it? My point was, that there is every possibility that they did. Numbers unknown but to categorically say none, is a brave sweeping statement and I suspect is completely wrong
Click to expand...
Where do people thing these social media clips of politi8cans come from? They are all over the internet and I don't mean Joe Public's shaky cam.

They are borrowed from MSM the entire programme may not have been shown but I would be surprised if the key clips weren't shared at some point.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
But not in a new comment! It was in an answer on another subject! You open the subject and I might answer, but probably wouldn’t as it’s not interesting for me. News is.
Click to expand...
An answer in itself. The news is only a small part of the BBCs output and we have to pay for their programming in it's entirety and yet they're palming the public off with fifty year old repeats as usual. If their £6 bn budget isn't enough to make new programmes they need to review their spending plans.
 
Spiderman said:
Hasn’t it been said in the media and by you that, NO ONE in the US saw it? My point was, that there is every possibility that they did. Numbers unknown but to categorically say none, is a brave sweeping statement and I suspect is completely wrong
Click to expand...
If you insist on being pedantic and strictly accurate then that’s possibly true, but when Trump is involved it hardly matters does it? Nothing he says is true! Which is another sweeping and inaccurate statement which nevertheless makes the point.

I cannot see how an action based on its showing in the USA could possibly establish defamation. If it did then thousands of people around the world could sue Trump for the same thing. Would he pay?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Evolution involves incremental steps. Not giant leaps. I cannot stop you trying to divert discussions by switching the focus. I can only point it out, request you not to do it and suggest a better way.
Click to expand...
It's an attempt to broaden the conversation rather than concentrate one aspect but nevertheless the nation thanks you for this selfless attitude.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
An answer in itself. The news is only a small part of the BBCs output and we have to pay for their programming in it's entirety and yet they're palming the public off with fifty year old repeats as usual. If their £6 bn budget isn't enough to make new programmes they need to review their spending plans.
Click to expand...
There is huge wastage and duplication within the BBC empire with many departments having overlapping news teams.

It is not unheard of for multiple BBC news teams to turn up to the same press conferences when the other channels just send one team and then disseminate to whoever needs it.

The DG has recognised this and about time. Around 50 years ago ITN was set up by the multiple ITV franchises as a cost effective solution. Today ITN sells it's services to other channels. That could have been the BBC.

I worked for a major corporation for more than 20 years, one thing I noticed about our organisation and the many major customers I dealt with is the impact of empire building. The BBC is not different.

Senior managers are rewarded based on the size of their department so rather than say "let's pool our resources" each department head becomes precious and insists on having their own people.

The BBC is not unique in that as I say it is common trait amongst all large organisations private and public sector. This is where good management comes in and says no way you will share resources for efficiency.

Last I heard the DG was trying this with the news quite how successful he has been I don't know. Anyway it's not just the news, a family member worked for the BBC recently (at a low level) and I was amazed at the amount of stuff that was duplicated across the different departments.

It doesn't appear that anyone is strong enough to take on the unions and the empire builders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top