The BBC

Totally agree with Stubear on this ,go to work ,go home in your state controlled electric car ,<breathaliser,speed controller and radio fixed to what aunty produces > watch Pap such as eastnation street or emmerdumwhats a farm and go to bed ,repeat .Bow to your masters in Parliament and do as your told .
The new retirement age for worker proles to provide more taxes for them M,P,s to claim on expense,s to be raised to receipt of death certificate and no concessionary licences for any.BBc licence fee raised annually without consent to cover all staff salary raises and chocolate hobs for the board
 
No, my problem is with "subversion". Or rather, I don't have a problem with subversion. It's a bit like sedition, it's fine to be seditious. They're both terms usually reserved for use in totalitarian states.

I don't support things being London bubble centric anymore than I'm in favour of rural bubbles or any bubbles. I go to some lengths to experience the world outside the bubble. I am massively pro remain though, fair enough. I mean, I was a huge Europhile back when most people didn't care much either way. Back in the olden days. 3 years ago.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I do notice no effort to answer my points about people who are elected on a manifesto to follow the results of the referendum and turn their coats immediately nor the point about the very undemocratic LibDems and the BBC's resolute refusal to open any debate on these matters. They are a publicly funded body with a remit that surely encompasses both sides of the Leave/Remain divide.

David.
 
Completely agree with this - the modern trend from the start of school upwards is to tell people what to think, not how to think.

And personally (being a massive cynic) I think the reason for this is that what the government really want is a population of obedient conformist little tax slaves who dont dont do anything contentious (like own guns for example...), say anything contentious and dont look to closely or question what the politicians are doing.
Head of nail smacked good & hard
 
So none of you like the BBC (Pine Marten excepted) well neither do I, the difference is you all seems to be fully up to date with what the BBC has to say
while I decided many years ago that they had nothing interesting to say. So for years now I had no idea what they were saying, up until you lot decided to
keep me informed, thanks for nothing :mad:

Neil.
 
I remember when I was a kid, the news was exactly that - it reported things that had already happened.
I find it odd that in a lot of current news programs, they say things like ' the PM will tell Brussels....' rather than 'the PM HAS told Brussels...'
Seems to me, the PM (for example) has no need to tell anybody anything, he only has to leave it to the news broadcaster.
 
"Subversive"? Really? What do you mean by "subversive"? Subverting what? Who decides what can't be subject to subversion? Frightening choice of words, frankly. Irrespective of your view of the BBC.

OK PM, seriously, I'm interested, what exactly frightened you about that statement? I can't see what's frightening, not unless you're now a BBC employee and worry that the days of the TV licence fee might be numbered? No one has said anything truly frightening from what I can see, but maybe I'm missing something?

And, if there's nothing wrong with subversion then why is it frightening for someone who doesn't think the way you do to use the word subversive? I assume it's OK for you to call others subversive and for you to actually be subversive though? If i understood your post correctly.....
If so, as your tagline is "Wishy washy hand-wringing diversified all encompassing liberal" I also take that as another shred of evidence which proves the old saw "a liberal is someone who says your free to hold or espouse any opinion which they approve of"

"Who decides what can't be subject to subversion?" The Law perhaps - reached by consensus, lead by the majority but not ignoring the minority
Which has been turned arse-about-face recently - ie, the minority dictates and tramples over the majority
A standpoint endlessly aided/abetted/supported by the BBC - hence it's growing unpopularity with the masses, who have a right to be annoyed as they pay piper but the piper plays whatever tune it feels like, and often badly too
 
So none of you like the BBC (Pine Marten excepted) well neither do I.
Neil.
I'll have you know PM is only their 2nd biggest fan after me!

I can still say that while accepting Aunty is not without bias but as I've oft' said the Corporation offers a great deal more than many commentators either realise or are prepared to acknowledge.

K
 
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I do notice no effort to answer my points about people who are elected on a manifesto to follow the results of the referendum and turn their coats immediately nor the point about the very undemocratic LibDems and the BBC's resolute refusal to open any debate on these matters. They are a publicly funded body with a remit that surely encompasses both sides of the Leave/Remain divide.

David.
Yes, but that's because I'm massively jet lagged in Korea, sorry....
 
I find it odd that in a lot of current news programs, they say things like ' the PM will tell Brussels....' rather than 'the PM HAS told Brussels...'

Normal press release by the person involved ahead of the event ( I will agree it is a change).

Given the strange boundaries of truth that politicians play with, the BBC having commentators is a good thing. The "More or Less" is a must listen to get into the false figures. Leave Auntie alone, she's doing OK!
 
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I do notice no effort to answer my points about people who are elected on a manifesto to follow the results of the referendum and turn their coats immediately nor the point about the very undemocratic LibDems and the BBC's resolute refusal to open any debate on these matters. They are a publicly funded body with a remit that surely encompasses both sides of the Leave/Remain divide.

David.
Quite!

A (generously oversubscribed) crowdfunded judicial review is being organised by ordinary people, weary of the bias that BBC display and continue to produce for our consumption.

 
Completely agree with this - the modern trend from the start of school upwards is to tell people what to think, not how to think.

And personally (being a massive cynic) I think the reason for this is that what the government really want is a population of obedient conformist little tax slaves who dont dont do anything contentious (like own guns for example...), say anything contentious and dont look to closely or question what the politicians are doing.
Trouble is that if the average reading age of the population is said to be 11, then its a bit of a stretch to ask the average person to be able to think critically at a high enough level to grasp advanced concepts like the economy, current affairs, global geopolitics, the environment, etc. Now I don't know if that is actually true, but the point is that balanced commentary serves a purpose in society - so long as it is balanced, and that is the key issue.
 
, also never asked the Lib Dems how they can call themselves democrats when they have openly said that even if a second referendum voted to leave they would ignore it.

David.

About 3 years a go, Ken Clarke made a speech in Parliament explaining why he remained pro-EU (to jeers from his own Tory benches). He explained that four forty years, he'd campaigned to have Tory governments, and as often as not, the electorate elected a Labour one. But that didn't mean that he didn't continue advocating Tory governments to change the public's mind the next time, or oppose the Labour government in the interim. Because that's what he believed in and had made clear all along.

Well it's the same for the Lib Dems. Before the referendum, it was the only staunch pro-EU party, well before becoming the main unequivocally anti-Brexit party. The public narrowly voted the other way. That didn't mean that it wasn't legitimate to continue to oppose Brexit as a point of principle. Suppose it had gone the other way: would Farage have thrown in the towel? Of course not, he would have redoubled his efforts to change the electorate's mind.

Now in the incredibly unlikely event that the public voted in a Lib Dem majority on an explicit platforms of revoking article 50, well that would be a proper democratic mandate to do so, no? And if there's another referendum, they'll campaign to remain, and try and win. And if they lose, it doesn't mean that they changed their mind. But I'd hope that a second referendum would have open ended options like the last one. Because that oversight from Cameron is what started this shitstorm.

 
Back
Top