The bbc, again.

Wisbech Eagle said:
The licence fee is not a tax and nor would anything that replaced it be.

Taxes are raised by governments to pay for those things we ask them to do.

The BBC has always been deliberately kept separate from any government influence.

Whatever you think of its output its independence is precious. It is free both of government and commercial pressure to tell the truth as it sees it. That matters and it’s worth paying for. By all of us. No opt outs just because you find the analysis annoying.

A broadcasting levy on everyone supplying content, whether streamed, delivered by satellite, cable or aerial who do so commercially, makes sense. The funds raised to pay for non commercial public broadcasters, like the BBC.
Click to expand...
By this logic anyone who drives everywhere should also have to buy a train ticket. Let those who want to watch the BBC pay for it.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The licence fee is not a tax and nor would anything that replaced it be.

Taxes are raised by governments to pay for those things we ask them to do.

The BBC has always been deliberately kept separate from any government influence.

Whatever you think of its output its independence is precious. It is free both of government and commercial pressure to tell the truth as it sees it. That matters and it’s worth paying for. By all of us. No opt outs just because you find the analysis annoying.

A broadcasting levy on everyone supplying content, whether streamed, delivered by satellite, cable or aerial who do so commercially, makes sense. The funds raised to pay for non commercial public broadcasters, like the BBC.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it is more like extortion.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The licence fee is not a tax and nor would anything that replaced it be.

Taxes are raised by governments to pay for those things we ask them to do.

The BBC has always been deliberately kept separate from any government influence.

Whatever you think of its output its independence is precious. It is free both of government and commercial pressure to tell the truth as it sees it. That matters and it’s worth paying for. By all of us. No opt outs just because you find the analysis annoying.

A broadcasting levy on everyone supplying content, whether streamed, delivered by satellite, cable or aerial who do so commercially, makes sense. The funds raised to pay for non commercial public broadcasters, like the BBC.
Click to expand...
😂😂
 
Teddy Eagle said:
The Guardian quoted an American estimate of between $50 m and $100 m.
Click to expand...
Wow, no idea how accurate that figure is.

Trump sued the BBC not the other way around. The BBC gave a mealy mouthed apology through gritted teeth. If it is found later that a proper apology would have stopped all this then people at the beeb need to be fired.

Trump sued other broadcasters and then settled. Again if it turns out that this case could have been settled for significantly less money than the BBC is spending defending itself then people need to be fired.

Has the judge ruled on whether this case should even be heard? I thought the "experts" on here said it would be thrown out? It seems odds that the judge is allowing the BBC to continue building their case by trawling through Trump's finances if that ruling hasn't been made yet (cart before horse).
 
Teddy Eagle said:
By this logic anyone who drives everywhere should also have to buy a train ticket. Let those who want to watch the BBC pay for it.
Click to expand...
TV should be a paywall platform.

There should then be a free channel with all the BBC4 type stuff that has low audiences but is cheap and considered culturally important.

The radio should not be touched - save R1 and R2 which can go commercial - we cannot lose e.g. R4 or the World Service.

What remains needs an alternative form of funding. Perhaps a proportionately reduced license.

On that I don't buy the "Don't use, don't pay" argument. That covers rather a lot of the public sector. My life is not remotely impacted by the state of rivers in Scotland but I will happily pay tax to keep them clean and full of life.
 
Badger11 said:
Wow, no idea how accurate that figure is.

Trump sued the BBC not the other way around. The BBC gave a mealy mouthed apology through gritted teeth. If it is found later that a proper apology would have stopped all this then people at the beeb need to be fired.

Trump sued other broadcasters and then settled. Again if it turns out that this case could have been settled for significantly less money than the BBC is spending defending itself then people need to be fired.

Has the judge ruled on whether this case should even be heard? I thought the "experts" on here said it would be thrown out? It seems odds that the judge is allowing the BBC to continue building their case by trawling through Trump's finances if that ruling hasn't been made yet (cart before horse).
Click to expand...
I am trying to work out of this post is informed by pro Trump bias or anti BBC bias. I suspect the latter.

If the merits were against them, the BBC would have settled some time ago.

That they are going hell for leather suggests the merits are the other way.

If Trump loses, he gets an enormous bill for a significant part of the BBCs costs, which he can pay.

There will be a lost irrecoverable element of those costs which comes from the British public. The debate will then be whether it was good value to bear those costs as against the cost of an early compromise combined with the chilling impact on the 4th estate.

Trump gets what he wants and has eroded accountability in government and - through the real threat of lawsuit - the media. The numbers you cite are why networks settle, not becuase they have necessarily done anything wrong.

You need to decide whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that this particular media outlet has stood up to him.
 
silvertop said:
I am trying to work out of this post is informed by pro Trump bias or anti BBC bias. I suspect the latter.

If the merits were against them, the BBC would have settled some time ago.

That they are going hell for leather suggests the merits are the other way.

If Trump loses, he gets an enormous bill for a significant part of the BBCs costs, which he can pay.

There will be a lost irrecoverable element of those costs which comes from the British public. The debate will then be whether it was good value to bear those costs as against the cost of an early compromise combined with the chilling impact on the 4th estate.

Trump gets what he wants and has eroded accountability in government and - through the real threat of lawsuit - the media. The numbers you cite are why networks settle, not becuase they have necessarily done anything wrong.

You need to decide whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that this particular media outlet has stood up to him.
Click to expand...
I make no secret that I am anti BBC.

By the way the BBC settles lawsuits all the time with it's staff rather than risk going to court. So they are not adverse to the principle.

I am not pro Trump and clearly there are always behind the scene negotiations the point I am trying to make is that if this could have been settled (for a reasonable amount) and the BBC chose not to after admitting it's "error" then that is just plain stupidity.

I guess the die is cast so we shall have to see what happens.
 
Badger11 said:
I make no secret that I am anti BBC.

By the way the BBC settles lawsuits all the time with it's staff rather than risk going to court. So they are not adverse to the principle.

I am not pro Trump and clearly there are always behind the scene negotiations the point I am trying to make is that if this could have been settled (for a reasonable amount) and the BBC chose not to after admitting it's "error" then that is just plain stupidity.

I guess the die is cast so we shall have to see what happens.
Click to expand...
That is not comparing apples.

The BBC settles employment claims because it was wrong, the merits are finely balanced and the litigation risk too great etc. Even if it was on the side of the angels, there are always reputation issues and absolutely always a huge cost bill it usually can't pass on to an applicant who lacks the money.

But there are never issues of the Employment Tribunal being used as a political stick to keep the press in line, as in this case. This case has more parallels with the court's role in dismantling McCarthy and the House Unamerican.
 
silvertop said:
That is not comparing apples.

The BBC settles employment claims because it was wrong, the merits are finely balanced and the litigation risk too great etc. Even if it was on the side of the angels, there are always reputation issues and absolutely always a huge cost bill it usually can't pass on to an applicant who lacks the money.

But there are never issues of the Employment Tribunal being used as a political stick to keep the press in line, as in this case. This case has more parallels with the court's role in dismantling McCarthy and the House Unamerican.
Click to expand...
Still doesn't address anything about how they shouldn't have incorrectly edited their content in the first place. Paying for their own mistakes. The programme makers thought they were some kind of social justice warriors against the evil empire. But the empire has fought back.
And it's not that unusual for no one to really win these cases except for the lawyers.
If they edited anybody's speech like that, there would be a legal problem. I watched the programme and thought that Trump deserved the criticism and legal threats he faced. Then I watched the actual speech and the difference was frankly outrageous.
And the court will see that.
 
ASCPFC said:
Still doesn't address anything about how they shouldn't have incorrectly edited their content in the first place. Paying for their own mistakes. The programme makers thought they were some kind of social justice warriors against the evil empire. But the empire has fought back.
And it's not that unusual for no one to really win these cases except for the lawyers.
If they edited anybody's speech like that, there would be a legal problem. I watched the programme and thought that Trump deserved the criticism and legal threats he faced. Then I watched the actual speech and the difference was frankly outrageous.
And the court will see that.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The BBC has admitted it's error and Trump is entitled to go after them for damages, whether he wins is another matter.

Trump likes to see himself as a dealmaker and has a history of publicly demanding huge sums but then settling for a lot less. All I am saying is that if the BBC has not tried to resolve this matter and they end up with a huge bill then heads should roll.

I can actually see a no win situation here for both sides. It would not surprise me if the judge finds for Trump but doesn't award what he wants as he cannot prove the financial impact he is claiming. The BBC will ignore that they lost and spent millions of taxpayers money by claiming victory as they didn't have to pay his huge claim. All conjecture I know.
 
silvertop said:
That is not comparing apples.

The BBC settles employment claims because it was wrong, the merits are finely balanced and the litigation risk too great etc. Even if it was on the side of the angels, there are always reputation issues and absolutely always a huge cost bill it usually can't pass on to an applicant who lacks the money.

But there are never issues of the Employment Tribunal being used as a political stick to keep the press in line, as in this case. This case has more parallels with the court's role in dismantling McCarthy and the House Unamerican.
Click to expand...
That was just one example. They settled with Cliff Richard after losing a court case.
 
Badger11 said:
That was just one example. They settled with Cliff Richard after losing a court case.
Click to expand...
Again hardly comparable. Where was cliff seeking to suppress free press?

The BBC screwed up, made apologies and it caused the heads of top people to fall. However, that appears unlikely to establish a causative link between the alleged harm he suffered and the loss he claims.

His lawyers will have advised him on merits. He likely ignored that advice as he followed his proven tactic of suppression through the courts. I hope he gets battered.

If you value democracy and the free press you must surely support the BBC on this. I can't help feeling your comments are biased due to inherent hatred of Auntie Beeb.
 
silvertop said:
Again hardly comparable. Where was cliff seeking to suppress free press?

The BBC screwed up, made apologies and it caused the heads of top people to fall. However, that appears unlikely to establish a causative link between the alleged harm he suffered and the loss he claims.

His lawyers will have advised him on merits. He likely ignored that advice as he followed his proven tactic of suppression through the courts. I hope he gets battered.

If you value democracy and the free press you must surely support the BBC on this. I can't help feeling your comments are biased due to inherent hatred of Auntie Beeb.
Click to expand...
I don't hate the BBC I dislike it.

You seem to think it's okay for the BBC to libel someone and if they use the courts to fight back you are affronted. Trump has every right to take them to court whether he wins is another matter.
 
Bassak said:
This is only nine hours old and still mentions the 13 arrested but nothing about being released


www.bbc.co.uk

South prepares for Britain's largest Muslim festival in Alton

More than 50,000 Muslims from around the world are expected at the Jalsa Salana at the weekend.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Nerd point.

They were arrested for flying a drone over the area. Anyone who owns a drone knows there is restricted airspace e.g. near airports. Apart from that there are no restrictions. I have no idea if this festival airspace was restricted but if it wasn't then tough. We do not own the airspace above our property. It may piss off your neighbour but he cannot stop you flying a drone over his garden.

As I said nerd point.
 
Bassak said:
This is only nine hours old and still mentions the 13 arrested but nothing about being released


www.bbc.co.uk

South prepares for Britain's largest Muslim festival in Alton

More than 50,000 Muslims from around the world are expected at the Jalsa Salana at the weekend.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
This festival is totally different. If you know anything about Islam, you could quite easily point out that the biggest threat to this festival is disagreeing Muslims. Hard line Islam views these as an undesirable sect. They are routinely attacked by other sects of Islam.
 
ASCPFC said:
This festival is totally different. If you know anything about Islam, you could quite easily point out that the biggest threat to this festival is disagreeing Muslims. Hard line Islam views these as an undesirable sect. They are routinely attacked by other sects of Islam.
Click to expand...
I’m pointing out that the BBC is putting out misinformation re the arrests not about the festival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top