British Broadcorping Castration

boltonbonce wrote:Not keen on the BBC, Bob, but you take news from a UKIP propaganda site.

Never come across this site before, know nothing of its provenance and you'll notice I used the word 'allegedly'.

The Beeb is capable of producing some interesting stuff but spends too much money on tat and some of its reporters are gullible, prejudiced or both.

The three part documentary on Shipman that finished last night was quite interesting but I don't recall the word 'coroner' being used. Alarm bells were going off with Shipman virtually from the start of his career in medicine. Where was the coroner?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The dirty deed has been done. I've sent 'em a cheque.

Not giving 'em access to my bank account though and I'd rather not be gnashing my teeth every month when a DD goes through. Bad enough having to put up with Lineker every week or it would be if I could bear to watch MOTD with the smug git on it. No wonder he's smug with a new five-year contract at £1.35m p.a. plus all the other bits. Walkers crisps? No gracias.

Summat's going to have to change. 894,000 TV licence cancellations so far, allegedly.

https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/bbc-licence-fee-cancelled-revealed/

Deary me!

10 pages so far in this thread on the beeb (as well as Vince!) moaning and now you have given the BBC your hard earned dosh!

Ever thought about becoming legally license free and enjoying life by getting out a bit more?

karlypants wrote:

Deary me!

10 pages so far in this thread on the beeb (as well as Vince!) moaning and now you have given the BBC your hard earned dosh!

Ever thought about becoming legally license free and enjoying life by getting out a bit more?

10 pages, over 2,800 views and nobody's interested? What's your problem, KP?

I'm more concerned at the fact you have just given them £157.50.

I hope you at least told them you still used a black and white telly!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
10 pages, over 2,800 views and nobody's interested? What's your problem, KP?

I click on everything that shows up as 'unread'. That's how it works. My own personal thread is now on Volume 7, so I can't even imagine how many views my online drivel has had. I intend to have the volumes stored for future generations.

karlypants wrote:I'm more concerned at the fact you have just given them £157.50.

I hope you at least told them you still used a black and white telly!

Its so kind of you to be concerned but its concerning to understand why you should be so concerned. Its really not necessary.

boltonbonce wrote:
I click on everything that shows up as 'unread'. That's how it works. My own personal thread is now on Volume 7, so I can't even imagine how many views my online drivel has had. I intend to have the volumes stored for future generations.

That's really interesting, Boncey, but when I checked a moment ago there were 56 users online and only 6 were registered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that the audience might just be a bit bigger than regular posters on Nuts?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:The dirty deed has been done. I've sent 'em a cheque.

Not giving 'em access to my bank account though

Ah what a blockhead funding the BBC, don't you understand where your money's going?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ah what a blockhead funding the BBC, don't you understand where your money's going?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
That's really interesting, Boncey, but when I checked a moment ago there were 56 users online and only 6 were registered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that the audience might just be a bit bigger than regular posters on Nuts?

Not only regular posters read the posts. That's why I'm on seven volumes. The poor fools don't realise what it is until it's too late.
Thank God for the non posters. Otherwise we'd be talking between ourselves.
Hello.............

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Easily amused, are you? Don't you go watching that Nearest and Dearest stuff. It just might be a  bit too challenging for you.

Yes, I am very easily amused. Doesn't 30,000+ posts on here tell you that?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Yes, I am very easily amused. Doesn't 30,000+ posts on here tell you that?

Let's not get into what that tells me.

What sort of hypocrite would post this incessantly about how poor the licence fee is and then pay it?!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:What sort of hypocrite would post this incessantly about how poor the licence fee is and then pay it?!

For once we actually agree!

boltonbonce wrote:
I click on everything that shows up as 'unread'. That's how it works.

I do the same, Bonce, but when I click on Ten Bobsworth's contributions, I am totally unimpressed and uninterested. He seems only concerned about his views- count. 
The BBC is a vital source of largely unbiased news and excellent articles. It does have an agenda to be highly inclusive, but it is clearly the target of Cummings whose ideas for head of Ofcom and chair of the BBC are obvious signs of trying to exert total control over press freedom. Its only failing is the high salaries, but it has to be competitive in the face of rival news outlets which pay more.

okocha wrote:
I do the same, Bonce, but when I click on Ten Bobsworth's contributions, I am totally unimpressed and uninterested. He seems only concerned about his views- count. 
The BBC is a vital source of largely unbiased news and excellent articles. It does have an agenda to be highly inclusive, but it is clearly the target of Cummings whose ideas for head of Ofcom and chair of the BBC are obvious signs of trying to exert total control over press freedom. Its only failing is the high salaries, but it has to be competitive in the face of rival news outlets which pay more.

Yes, I think the knives have been out for the BBC for a long time, and we need to support it. Take a look at some of the news outlets over in the states, and it's pretty obvious that we've got something worth fighting for.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:What sort of hypocrite would post this incessantly about how poor the licence fee is and then pay it?!

Well, me, sort of, I guess.

I don't go on about how poor it is as such but it isn't to my preference some/most of the stuff they do - particularly like the 'popular' stuff like 'Strictly' and EastEnders' but on the other hand they do stuff I love, such as David Attenborough and his wildlife documentaries for instance, so I think to myself for about £3 per week to watch stuff like this, then it's quite a bargain really - or at least I think so.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here but isn't Bob more drawing attention to the various high profile 'celebrates' and having a raised public profile, (from a public funded organisation remember) to air their personal views beyond their contractual remit? And how some of them have employed shall we say some questionable means of ensuring they pay as little tax as they can from their publicly funded wages?

He does raise an interesting point but unfortunately not one that is interesting enough for most of us.

Is he really doing much harm in expressing his view though?

Are people over reacting to them a tad too much maybe?

I post endlessly on cycling but people tend to ignore me on that, so why can't people simply ignore Bob on his foible in this case too?

Just a thought.

During lockdown I was very impressed by the Talking Pictures channel(81 on Freeview), it was a treat seeing some great old movies from the past, rather than the myriad CGI driven movies we see on most of the other channels.

Sluffy wrote:

Well, me, sort of, I guess.

I don't go on about how poor it is as such but it isn't to my preference some/most of the stuff they do - particularly like the 'popular' stuff like 'Strictly' and EastEnders' but on the other hand they do stuff I love, such as David Attenborough and his wildlife documentaries for instance, so I think to myself for about £3 per week to watch stuff like this, then it's quite a bargain really - or at least I think so.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here but isn't Bob more drawing attention to the various high profile 'celebrates' and having a raised public profile, (from a public funded organisation remember) to air their personal views beyond their contractual remit?  And how some of them have employed shall we say some questionable means of ensuring they pay as little tax as they can from their publicly funded wages?

He does raise an interesting point but unfortunately not one that is interesting enough for most of us.

Is he really doing much harm in expressing his view though?

Are people over reacting to them a tad too much maybe?

I post endlessly on cycling but people tend to ignore me on that, so why can't people simply ignore Bob on his foible in this case too?

Just a thought.

They don't 'grasp it' Sluffy, because they don't want to grasp it. So what do they do? Doesn't need explaining, does it?

Not really different to the ageing adolescents on the Ageing Adolescents site, is it?

I see that one of the two accountants on AA has given his immature views on Wiggin. It makes me cringe but I've observed this pair for a while and neither have ever shown as much nous as you'd expect from the office cleaner.