Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[Duty281]

I don't mind the BBC existing, I object to having to pay for it if I dare to watch live television. 
They shouldn't have a hold on that aspect.

https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/tv-licence-fee-evasion-highest/

According to the BBC’s Television Licence Fee Trust Statement for the year ending 31 March 2023, and the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23, the TV licence fee evasion rate has been on the rise.

The TV Licence fee evasion has been a growing concern for the BBC, with the estimated evasion rate for 2022/23 reaching 10.31%, up from 9.38% in the previous year.

This is the first time since 1995 that the estimated rate of evasion has exceeded 10%. This increase represents a significant loss in revenue for the BBC, with the estimated loss amounting to around £430 million.

This is excellent news.

I don't think it is really because if it aint funded properly, it's offerings will become even more Poopie. Also the license payers left that aren't contentious objectors will have to fill the difference. I bet they all think they're effin heroes as well. Looks like the Right wing demonisation of the BBC is having  it's desired destabilisation effect then.
With regard to the evasion/avoidance it's a bit like the whole Cayman Islands, Non dom and other spurious aggressive tax avoidance/evasion. They think they're so clever but actually it the rest of us that either have to make up the difference or watch public services disintegrate or at the moment...both!!

Or the BBC could cut the vastly inflated salaries of its staff, rather than reduce the quality of what it broadcasts (which would be a tough job).

My main objection to the BBC is the intimidation through which they go about collecting the license fee, with threatening letters and 'enforcement agents' turning up on your doorstep (possibly). Rather not deal with a barrel-scraping organisation such as that.

[super_realist]

I don't mind the BBC existing, I object to having to pay for it if I dare to watch live television. 
They shouldn't have a hold on that aspect.

https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/tv-licence-fee-evasion-highest/

According to the BBC’s Television Licence Fee Trust Statement for the year ending 31 March 2023, and the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23, the TV licence fee evasion rate has been on the rise.

The TV Licence fee evasion has been a growing concern for the BBC, with the estimated evasion rate for 2022/23 reaching 10.31%, up from 9.38% in the previous year.

This is the first time since 1995 that the estimated rate of evasion has exceeded 10%. This increase represents a significant loss in revenue for the BBC, with the estimated loss amounting to around £430 million.

This is excellent news.

I don't think it is really because if it aint funded properly, it's offerings will become even more Poopie. Also the license payers left that aren't contentious objectors will have to fill the difference. I bet they all think they're effin heroes as well. Looks like the Right wing demonisation of the BBC is having  it's desired destabilisation effect then.
With regard to the evasion/avoidance it's a bit like the whole Cayman Islands, Non dom and other spurious aggressive tax avoidance/evasion. They think they're so clever but actually it the rest of us that either have to make up the difference or watch public services disintegrate or at the moment...both!!

It's not a "right wing demonisation", it's just the BBC is rubbish and operates an archaic, outdated, indefensible and immoral licence model. 

Can you name any programming which makes a licence fee justifiable? It's an awful broadcaster which like many institutions is living in the past and on previous output. 

As an example it spent 87m on the EastEnders set, a show which barely gets 1m viewers. It wastes millions on a ridiculous BBC Alba, which no one watches. It sent something like 7000 staff to cover Glastonbury . It has far too many staff as well. 
It's the perfect example of how state owned industries are wasteful, inefficient and lack innovation. 

Yes, it produces the OCCASIONAL good show, but I'm struggling to think of the last one. 

Why is "evading" a licence a bad thing? Why should the BBC get money for a product I don't watch? If I don't drive my car, I'm not required to keep putting fuel in it.

[super_realist]

Hey JAS, your migrant boat sinking has returned to the top story on the BBC. Rejoice

[navyblueshorts]

I don't mind the BBC existing, I object to having to pay for it if I dare to watch live television. 
They shouldn't have a hold on that aspect.

https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/tv-licence-fee-evasion-highest/

According to the BBC’s Television Licence Fee Trust Statement for the year ending 31 March 2023, and the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23, the TV licence fee evasion rate has been on the rise.

The TV Licence fee evasion has been a growing concern for the BBC, with the estimated evasion rate for 2022/23 reaching 10.31%, up from 9.38% in the previous year.

This is the first time since 1995 that the estimated rate of evasion has exceeded 10%. This increase represents a significant loss in revenue for the BBC, with the estimated loss amounting to around £430 million.

This is excellent news.

I don't think it is really because if it aint funded properly, it's offerings will become even more Poopie. Also the license payers left that aren't contentious objectors will have to fill the difference. I bet they all think they're effin heroes as well. Looks like the Right wing demonisation of the BBC is having  it's desired destabilisation effect then.
With regard to the evasion/avoidance it's a bit like the whole Cayman Islands, Non dom and other spurious aggressive tax avoidance/evasion. They think they're so clever but actually it the rest of us that either have to make up the difference or watch public services disintegrate or at the moment...both!!

It's not a "right wing demonisation", it's just the BBC is rubbish and operates an archaic, outdated, indefensible and immoral licence model. 

Can you name any programming which makes a licence fee justifiable? It's an awful broadcaster which like many institutions is living in the past and on previous output. 

As an example it spent 87m on the EastEnders set, a show which barely gets 1m viewers. It wastes millions on a ridiculous BBC Alba, which no one watches. It sent something like 7000 staff to cover Glastonbury . It has far too many staff as well. 
It's the perfect example of how state owned industries are wasteful, inefficient and lack innovation. 

Yes, it produces the OCCASIONAL good show, but I'm struggling to think of the last one. 

Why is "evading" a licence a bad thing? Why should the BBC get money for a product I don't watch? If I don't drive my car, I'm not required to keep putting fuel in it.

Why should you pay? Why should someone pay tax towards the NHS if they've never used it? Why should someone pay >£10 for a prescription to subsidise the ~90% that manage to avoid doing so? Why should someone subsidise free travel for pensioners? Why should someone pay tax to fund a State pension? Why should someone pay tax for anything they don't directly use/benefit from? You shouldn't have taken a job in Norway; America seems more your style to me...

[navyblueshorts]

Hey JAS, your migrant boat sinking has returned to the top story on the BBC. Rejoice

Feel free to watch/read output from other media outlets...

[super_realist]

I don't mind the BBC existing, I object to having to pay for it if I dare to watch live television. 
They shouldn't have a hold on that aspect.

https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/tv-licence-fee-evasion-highest/

According to the BBC’s Television Licence Fee Trust Statement for the year ending 31 March 2023, and the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23, the TV licence fee evasion rate has been on the rise.

The TV Licence fee evasion has been a growing concern for the BBC, with the estimated evasion rate for 2022/23 reaching 10.31%, up from 9.38% in the previous year.

This is the first time since 1995 that the estimated rate of evasion has exceeded 10%. This increase represents a significant loss in revenue for the BBC, with the estimated loss amounting to around £430 million.

This is excellent news.

I don't think it is really because if it aint funded properly, it's offerings will become even more Poopie. Also the license payers left that aren't contentious objectors will have to fill the difference. I bet they all think they're effin heroes as well. Looks like the Right wing demonisation of the BBC is having  it's desired destabilisation effect then.
With regard to the evasion/avoidance it's a bit like the whole Cayman Islands, Non dom and other spurious aggressive tax avoidance/evasion. They think they're so clever but actually it the rest of us that either have to make up the difference or watch public services disintegrate or at the moment...both!!

It's not a "right wing demonisation", it's just the BBC is rubbish and operates an archaic, outdated, indefensible and immoral licence model. 

Can you name any programming which makes a licence fee justifiable? It's an awful broadcaster which like many institutions is living in the past and on previous output. 

As an example it spent 87m on the EastEnders set, a show which barely gets 1m viewers. It wastes millions on a ridiculous BBC Alba, which no one watches. It sent something like 7000 staff to cover Glastonbury . It has far too many staff as well. 
It's the perfect example of how state owned industries are wasteful, inefficient and lack innovation. 

Yes, it produces the OCCASIONAL good show, but I'm struggling to think of the last one. 

Why is "evading" a licence a bad thing? Why should the BBC get money for a product I don't watch? If I don't drive my car, I'm not required to keep putting fuel in it.

Why should you pay? Why should someone pay tax towards the NHS if they've never used it? Why should someone pay >£10 for a prescription to subsidise the ~90% that manage to avoid doing so? Why should someone subsidise free travel for pensioners? Why should someone pay tax to fund a State pension? Why should someone pay tax for anything they don't directly use/benefit from? You shouldn't have taken a job in Norway; America seems more your style to me...

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

[super_realist]

Hey JAS, your migrant boat sinking has returned to the top story on the BBC. Rejoice

Feel free to watch/read output from other media outlets...

The point was JAS said he didn't like that it wasn't getting any headlines.

[McLaren]

BBC should be run in the right way and not in a way to maximise audience numbers, whether that be TV, news, online, whatever.

It should have a slight open uni/academic vibe and rise above the race for profits the corporate media organisations need to chase.

[super_realist]

BBC should be run in the right way and not in a way to maximise audience numbers, whether that be TV, news, online, whatever.

It should have a slight open uni/academic vibe and rise above the race for profits the corporate media organisations need to chase.

It's already done to serve a minimal audience Mac. They're trying lamentably to appeal to the young, but the young don't watch linear TV and they're alienating everyone else with their ageist policy and awful programming.

[navyblueshorts]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

[Soul Requiem]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

As opposed to someone else deciding what is worthwhile. I don't pay for a TV licence and support it's abolition, the BBC is no longer fit for purpose.

[super_realist]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

[navyblueshorts]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

We all need healthcare, but why should someone wealthy enough to go private their entire life subsidise others? Why should someone able to afford a good private pension/retirement plan, pay tax towards a State pension they don't need, nor really give two hoots about? Etc...

I could argue the toss about the BBC, but I haven't got the willpower and you won't change your opinion, so what's the point? I think it (or something like it) is worth keeping, and the fee for it is minimal.

[Duty281]

I don't think the BBC is comparable to healthcare or a state pension.

[super_realist]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

We all need healthcare, but why should someone wealthy enough to go private their entire life subsidise others? Why should someone able to afford a good private pension/retirement plan, pay tax towards a State pension they don't need, nor really give two hoots about? Etc...

I could argue the toss about the BBC, but I haven't got the willpower and you won't change your opinion, so what's the point? I think it (or something like it) is worth keeping, and the fee for it is minimal.

You're still not answering the question. I'm happy to pay for services that benefit society as health,education, roads do etc, what is the benefit to society of the BBC?

Have you ever had Private Healthcare? You don't use it for much except things that are serious or need done quickly. You use the NHS for most things. Private healthcare is just a work perk for most people and not to do with "how rich you are"
By the way, if you don't earn around 40k, you aren't contributing enough to pay for your state pension anyway, so I'm actually supporting the poorer in society.

[JAS]

Cheers Jas, most people have been telling me to go for it.
Its in Norway and so will be subject to Norwegian tax, but they're also paying a staggering commuting allowance meaning I get accomodation paid and flights back every few weeks so seems like a no brainer.

So in that scenario would you/or even could you base yourself in Norway for Tax purposes, In other words set up a Norwegian Limited Company rather than a UK one?...and then domicile yourself in Norway for personal taxation as well?

Not a very Labour/socialist position for you to take, JAS? Legal, maybe. Dubious, definitely. One of the reasons this dump of a country is where it is.

I was asking what Super (who I'm guessing is most definitely not Socialist) would do.

I quite enjoy the debating opportunity about how a high Tax state can also be really prosperous and give it's people a great quality of life and high standard of living. I can just imagine Truss and Kwarteng trying to airbrush Norway from the map before starting their dogmatic debate on tax and spend that says we can only prosper by lowering taxes.

Paying £3 for a cucumber, £13 for a beer and £2.50 for a litre of diesel would cause riots JAS in the UK. We just don't have the mentality to make a change like that in this country.

I might be earning more than double my current salary JAS when I move, but my real term income or standard of living won't increase by the same amount, imagine it was the same when you were in Malmö

...and when I was in Helsingborg (not Malmo) I was on the 2nd highest day rate I'd ever been on. You've ended up portraying Scandinavian prices and saying British people would riot. On current UK wages yes they probably would. It wouldn't be prices that would be the problem it would be wages. As you will have noticed Scandinavian countries are high wage, high tax, high spend, therefore they have plenty of revenue to provide decent public services. Britain under right wing ideologues are heading further and further toward low wage, low tax, low spend. So Low wage - people are skint, poverty thrives, low tax - the main winners are at the top end of the income scale, low spend - an inevitable consequence of the previous point. Public services (Health, education, policing, local authorities, transport are pretty much on their knees and the solution is....even less funding!! Yep 13 years in that's working so well isn't it?? Our electorate are brainwashed into thinking that we must have low taxes, as Scandinavian countries prove, it's NOT the be all and end all. The other entity that would struggle to get it's head round that equation is the market. There would have to be a LOT of pre-work done to prepare the market for a big philosophical shift. But of course much of players in the market are driven by greed and therefore have a vested interest in preserving a low tax regime.

[super_realist]

The NHS gets more money than it's ever had and Labour didn't bring in the minimum wage did they? The NHS cannot work anymore with our population. Funny how doctors and nurses want to run away to Australia for more money, but don't want an Australian system in the UK. Why are the British, especially tje left wing so against reform of systems that no longer work?

Every party has to take blame and simply making this a left v right issue solves nothing.

Day rates in Scandinavia are not representative of the standard income there. I've just been offered a permanent role with a major company on nearly £50k LESS than I get as a contractor.

[Soul Requiem]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

We all need healthcare, but why should someone wealthy enough to go private their entire life subsidise others? Why should someone able to afford a good private pension/retirement plan, pay tax towards a State pension they don't need, nor really give two hoots about? Etc...

I could argue the toss about the BBC, but I haven't got the willpower and you won't change your opinion, so what's the point? I think it (or something like it) is worth keeping, and the fee for it is minimal.

You think it's worth keeping and that is your opinion. It is the opinion of myself and others that it isn't worth paying for, it is in no way comparable to universal healthcare and your inability to argue the benefits of the BBC is telling. It's a waste of money and has been for a number of years now. You argue on the merits of the individual fee, not tax paying in general.

[JAS]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

We all need healthcare, but why should someone wealthy enough to go private their entire life subsidise others? Why should someone able to afford a good private pension/retirement plan, pay tax towards a State pension they don't need, nor really give two hoots about? Etc...

I could argue the toss about the BBC, but I haven't got the willpower and you won't change your opinion, so what's the point? I think it (or something like it) is worth keeping, and the fee for it is minimal.

You think it's worth keeping and that is your opinion. It is the opinion of myself and others that it isn't worth paying for, it is in no way comparable to universal healthcare and your inability to argue the benefits of the BBC is telling. It's a waste of money and has been for a number of years now. You argue on the merits of the individual fee, not tax paying in general.

An impartial state funded broadcaster, not dependent on or in hoc too the vested interests of it's advertisers, yeah what a Poopie concept that is. That being said the BBC does need to look at itself, are there other ways of funding it outside the license fee concept. Is it really impartial? Does it really give value for money? All valid questions that can be levelled at it's current performance. But the "I don't like it therefore it should be abolished" is a bit "Throw the toys out the pram" kind of response to be honest. That reduction to a binary argument is how Brexit happened. Now that that's "done" the crosshairs can turn to institutions like the BBC. Just ask yourself who the prime beneficiaries would be if the BBC met it's demise. Oh look...it would be the evil Murdoch empire...what a surprise the Sun is engaging in helping undermine it. Honestly would you prefer an American style media world where the truth is optional, depending on the political persuasion of the station? Not saying the BBC is whiter than white when it comes to the truth but in terms of digging for the truth the BBC should not be susceptible to outside influence. Do you find it a coincidence that trust in the BBC has gone down hill since it's had Tories running it?

[Duty281]

Britain under right wing ideologues are heading further and further toward low wage, low tax, low spend.

1) We don't have a right-wing government.
2) Tax revenues are at the highest level ever, and the tax burden is on course to hit the highest post-war level in the UK, so we don't have low tax and we're certainly not heading there (the Tories got rid of the one who was taking us there).
3) Wages are rising at a record annual pace, although it isn't keeping pace with inflation.

[Duty281]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

We all need healthcare, but why should someone wealthy enough to go private their entire life subsidise others? Why should someone able to afford a good private pension/retirement plan, pay tax towards a State pension they don't need, nor really give two hoots about? Etc...

I could argue the toss about the BBC, but I haven't got the willpower and you won't change your opinion, so what's the point? I think it (or something like it) is worth keeping, and the fee for it is minimal.

You think it's worth keeping and that is your opinion. It is the opinion of myself and others that it isn't worth paying for, it is in no way comparable to universal healthcare and your inability to argue the benefits of the BBC is telling. It's a waste of money and has been for a number of years now. You argue on the merits of the individual fee, not tax paying in general.

An impartial state funded broadcaster, not dependent on or in hoc too the vested interests of it's advertisers, yeah what a Poopie concept that is. That being said the BBC does need to look at itself, are there other ways of funding it outside the license fee concept. Is it really impartial? Does it really give value for money? All valid questions that can be levelled at it's current performance. But the "I don't like it therefore it should be abolished" is a bit "Throw the toys out the pram" kind of response to be honest. That reduction to a binary argument is how Brexit happened. Now that that's "done" the crosshairs can turn to institutions like the BBC. Just ask yourself who the prime beneficiaries would be if the BBC met it's demise. Oh look...it would be the evil Murdoch empire...what a surprise the Sun is engaging in helping undermine it. Honestly would you prefer an American style media world where the truth is optional, depending on the political persuasion of the station? Not saying the BBC is whiter than white when it comes to the truth but in terms of digging for the truth the BBC should not be susceptible to outside influence.  Do you find it a coincidence that trust in the BBC has gone down hill since it's had Tories running it?

Why is it always America? Any time the BBC, or the NHS, gets criticised, there's always a comparison to America as though it's the only other country in the world.

Trust in the BBC has been going downhill since before the Tories, in any case.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jul/28/broadcasting.bbc

[Soul Requiem]

An impartial state funded broadcaster, not dependent on or in hoc too the vested interests of it's advertisers, yeah what a Poopie concept that is. That being said the BBC does need to look at itself, are there other ways of funding it outside the license fee concept. Is it really impartial? Does it really give value for money? All valid questions that can be levelled at it's current performance. But the "I don't like it therefore it should be abolished" is a bit "Throw the toys out the pram" kind of response to be honest. That reduction to a binary argument is how Brexit happened. Now that that's "done" the crosshairs can turn to institutions like the BBC. Just ask yourself who the prime beneficiaries would be if the BBC met it's demise. Oh look...it would be the evil Murdoch empire...what a surprise the Sun is engaging in helping undermine it. Honestly would you prefer an American style media world where the truth is optional, depending on the political persuasion of the station? Not saying the BBC is whiter than white when it comes to the truth but in terms of digging for the truth the BBC should not be susceptible to outside influence.  Do you find it a coincidence that trust in the BBC has gone down hill since it's had Tories running it?

Concept and reality are not the same thing. There's also a difference between wider BBC broadcasting and it's news coverage which on the whole is still very good. The quality of it's programming has gone downhill in recent years and was propped up by a few major lead dramas namely Luther, Sherlock and Peaky Blinders. It's not throwing my toys out the pram choosing not to pay for something that I don't use, we're not talking about essential services like the NHS which I may need to use at any moment in my life. Your whole post was directly entirely at it's news output failing to take into account issues outside of that.

[super_realist]

Exactly, the NHS worshippers seem to think that the only options are A) the NHS or B) USA. 

There is no recognition that there is every other developed country that runs a mix of private and publicly provided healthcare which is available to all and which gets better results than the woeful NHS. 
I'm also sick of people praising it as of it's a national religion, so much so it's 75th was actually worshipped in Westminster Abbey last week with indoctrinated children being forced to sing "we love the NHS". 
It is not "the envy of the world " and never has been, if it was, it would have been copied. 

It needs reform and it needs a different model, not just "more money"
It also needs a population which takes better care of itself.

PS, 15 European countries have abolished their TV licences. Thought you wanted to be more like Europe?

[JAS]

An impartial state funded broadcaster, not dependent on or in hoc too the vested interests of it's advertisers, yeah what a Poopie concept that is. That being said the BBC does need to look at itself, are there other ways of funding it outside the license fee concept. Is it really impartial? Does it really give value for money? All valid questions that can be levelled at it's current performance. But the "I don't like it therefore it should be abolished" is a bit "Throw the toys out the pram" kind of response to be honest. That reduction to a binary argument is how Brexit happened. Now that that's "done" the crosshairs can turn to institutions like the BBC. Just ask yourself who the prime beneficiaries would be if the BBC met it's demise. Oh look...it would be the evil Murdoch empire...what a surprise the Sun is engaging in helping undermine it. Honestly would you prefer an American style media world where the truth is optional, depending on the political persuasion of the station? Not saying the BBC is whiter than white when it comes to the truth but in terms of digging for the truth the BBC should not be susceptible to outside influence.  Do you find it a coincidence that trust in the BBC has gone down hill since it's had Tories running it?

Concept and reality are not the same thing. There's also a difference between wider BBC broadcasting and it's news coverage which on the whole is still very good. The quality of it's programming has gone downhill in recent years and was propped up by a few major lead dramas namely Luther, Sherlock and Peaky Blinders. It's not throwing my toys out the pram choosing not to pay for something that I don't use, we're not talking about essential services like the NHS which I may need to use at any moment in my life. Your whole post was directly entirely at it's news output failing to take into account issues outside of that.

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

[super_realist]

You seriously think it's only right wing people who don't like it?

[Soul Requiem]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

[super_realist]

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

[JAS]

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

I think you've missed the point I've made several times that left leaning folk think its Tory biased and right wing people think its a lefty organisation ergo it must me making a pretty decent crack at being impartial (unless of course you think that righties are always right and lefties are always wrong)

[JAS]

Exactly, the NHS worshippers seem to think that the only options are A) the NHS or B) USA. 

There is no recognition that there is every other developed country that runs a mix of private and publicly provided healthcare which is available to all and which gets better results than the woeful NHS. 
I'm also sick of people praising it as of it's a national religion, so much so it's 75th was actually worshipped in Westminster Abbey last week with indoctrinated children being forced to sing "we love the NHS". 
It is not "the envy of the world " and never has been, if it was, it would have been copied. 

It needs reform and it needs a different model, not just "more money"
It also needs a population which takes better care of itself.

PS, 15 European countries have abolished their TV licences. Thought you wanted to be more like Europe?

How bizarrely defensive and inaccurate
1. I don't worship the NHS, I appreciate it and want it to be capable of treating me when I need it
2. I am well aware of Scandinavian healthcare models not just the USA, the USA is oft quoted because that's the signpost of where we shouldn't be going
3. I'd agree that it is no longer the envy of the world, austerity saw to that
4. When did I ever say I wanted to be more like europe?

[Duty281]

It has never been the envy of the world.

[super_realist]

Exactly, the NHS worshippers seem to think that the only options are A) the NHS or B) USA. 

There is no recognition that there is every other developed country that runs a mix of private and publicly provided healthcare which is available to all and which gets better results than the woeful NHS. 
I'm also sick of people praising it as of it's a national religion, so much so it's 75th was actually worshipped in Westminster Abbey last week with indoctrinated children being forced to sing "we love the NHS". 
It is not "the envy of the world " and never has been, if it was, it would have been copied. 

It needs reform and it needs a different model, not just "more money"
It also needs a population which takes better care of itself.

PS, 15 European countries have abolished their TV licences. Thought you wanted to be more like Europe?

How bizarrely defensive and inaccurate
1. I don't worship the NHS, I appreciate it and want it to be capable of treating me when I need it
2. I am well aware of Scandinavian healthcare models  not just the USA, the USA is oft quoted because that's the signpost of where we shouldn't be going
3. I'd agree that it is no longer the envy of the world, austerity saw to that
4. When did I ever say I wanted to be more like europe?

I was speaking in general how the British public , and especially the left are incapable of permitting any sort of criticism or reform of the NHS. It is the state religion and any criticism is like criticising tje North Korean leader. 
They are unwilling to trade the crap we have and be more like Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Belgium, Ireland etc who manage to do better simply because they can't see change without conflating having private elements with the USA model. No politician has ever stayed we should be like the USA, but the left use it as a stick to stop anyone changing the NHS. 
Remember how much the NHS model had to be modified in the beginning, well now it needs to again. With the 10m increase in population in the last 15 years , it's no wonder it doesn't work, especially with our repulsive population

The NHS was devised when the treatment for a heart attack was 5 days in bed, now we have dozens of treatments, and it's the same for every other ailment people have. The NHS model doesn't work with modern medicine

[super_realist]

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

I think you've missed the point I've made several times that left leaning folk think its Tory biased and right wing people think its a lefty organisation ergo it must me making a pretty decent crack at being impartial (unless of course you think that righties are always right and lefties are always wrong)

Then if that was the case, the left would also be trying to stop licence fees, but they seem to want to defend it, why would that be if they see it as right wing?

[navyblueshorts]

A universal health care is something worth paying for and which provides a vital service. The BBC does not do this.
Absolutely absurd comparisons. You mention vital elements of society that everyone will eventually need and use with a bloated, out of date licence fee that no one needs.

Ah, I see. We're back to what you decide is worthwhile, or not, as being the arbiter here.

Nope, didn't even imply that, I just gave an opinion, I didn't say I was deciding for others, but by all means, tell me what is so wonderful about it that I have to pay for something I will never benefit from. 
We will all need healthcare (although I don't think the NHS is a good model) , we all need/needed/benefitted  from education, travel, pensions etc. How exactly is the BBC comparable in regards to benefit to society and being an enforced tax?
What use does it give society and can you even name a decent, important or worthwhile programme or service it provides to those forced to pay for it?

We all need healthcare, but why should someone wealthy enough to go private their entire life subsidise others? Why should someone able to afford a good private pension/retirement plan, pay tax towards a State pension they don't need, nor really give two hoots about? Etc...

I could argue the toss about the BBC, but I haven't got the willpower and you won't change your opinion, so what's the point? I think it (or something like it) is worth keeping, and the fee for it is minimal.

You're still not answering the question. I'm happy to pay for services that benefit society as health,education, roads do etc, what is the benefit to society of the BBC?

Have you ever had Private Healthcare? You don't use it for much except things that are serious or need done quickly. You use the NHS for most things. Private healthcare is just a work perk for most people and not to do with "how rich you are"
By the way, if you don't earn around 40k, you aren't contributing enough to pay for your state pension anyway, so I'm actually supporting the poorer in society.

And I told you I can't be bothered to debate it with you. It's not worth it.

[navyblueshorts]

You think it's worth keeping and that is your opinion. It is the opinion of myself and others that it isn't worth paying for, it is in no way comparable to universal healthcare and your inability to argue the benefits of the BBC is telling. It's a waste of money and has been for a number of years now. You argue on the merits of the individual fee, not tax paying in general.

Only in your own head. Apologies, you'll have to explain what you're getting at by your last sentence...

[navyblueshorts]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

[Soul Requiem]

You think it's worth keeping and that is your opinion. It is the opinion of myself and others that it isn't worth paying for, it is in no way comparable to universal healthcare and your inability to argue the benefits of the BBC is telling. It's a waste of money and has been for a number of years now. You argue on the merits of the individual fee, not tax paying in general.

Only in your own head. Apologies, you'll have to explain what you're getting at by your last sentence...

It's quite simple really, you judge each tax on it's own merits. The NHS is worthwhile, the tv licence fee is not.

[super_realist]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education was a really absurd comparison.

[superflyweight]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education was a really absurd comparison.

You're not looking hard enough.  This article took me 10 seconds to find - https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-bias/

Recent accusations of rightwing bias
Many of those on the left of the political spectrum have taken a different approach in relation to BBC bias. They point to how the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14.  And they note how for many years, two of the Corporation’s leading politics programmes, the Daily Politics and The Sunday Politics, were both presented by Andrew Neil, who has also served as the Chairman of right of centre magazine, The Spectator.

Moreover in September 2021, it was reported that the current BBC Director General, Tim Davie, had previously been involved with the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association.  Mr Davie confirmed that in this former life, he had once been a candidate for the local council but failed to be elected.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

[McLaren]

Super

I think back in the early days of these sort of debates you would push back against any accusation that you were right wing. It seems you are now happy to adopt that label. Would you be up for talking us through how you have become more comfortable over the years with identifying as right wing? I'm genuinely curious.

[McLaren]

INW

If routinely naming suspects of sexual offences was shown to improve conviction rates and outcomes for victims I would accept a fairly high rate of mistaken identity cases. Tend to view these things like drugs, you just have to accept some side effects to get the benefit.

If it wasn't possible to know if naming was a benefit I might still cautiously support naming alleged perpetrators because covering this stuff up over the years doesn't seem to have done any good.

Ridiculous. I hope this comes to pass and you're mistakenly accused in the national press. What a stupid position to adopt.

Why are people scared of false accusations? The data shows false accusations of domestic or sexual abuse are very rare.

[super_realist]

INW

If routinely naming suspects of sexual offences was shown to improve conviction rates and outcomes for victims I would accept a fairly high rate of mistaken identity cases. Tend to view these things like drugs, you just have to accept some side effects to get the benefit.

If it wasn't possible to know if naming was a benefit I might still cautiously support naming alleged perpetrators because covering this stuff up over the years doesn't seem to have done any good.

Ridiculous. I hope this comes to pass and you're mistakenly accused in the national press. What a stupid position to adopt.

Why are people scared of false accusations? The data shows false accusations of domestic or sexual abuse are very rare.

Why not ask anyone who ever has been falsely accused.
It is a ridiculous assumption to believe every claim before it's been investigated.

[super_realist]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education was a really absurd comparison.

You're not looking hard enough.  This article took me 10 seconds to find - https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-bias/

Recent accusations of rightwing bias
Many of those on the left of the political spectrum have taken a different approach in relation to BBC bias. They point to how the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14.  And they note how for many years, two of the Corporation’s leading politics programmes, the Daily Politics and The Sunday Politics, were both presented by Andrew Neil, who has also served as the Chairman of right of centre magazine, The Spectator.

Moreover in September 2021, it was reported that the current BBC Director General, Tim Davie, had previously been involved with the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association.  Mr Davie confirmed that in this former life, he had once been a candidate for the local council but failed to be elected.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

What a ridiculous article. Do they not understand that governments of the day out in their own choice as Chair. Convenient they forget Greg Dyke. 
That isn't an example of the output being left or right wing though is it? How many of the presenters are right wing?

[super_realist]

Super

I think back in the early days of these sort of debates you would push back against any accusation that you were right wing. It seems you are now happy to adopt that label. Would you be up for talking us through how you have become more comfortable over the years with identifying as right wing? I'm genuinely curious.

Because I'm not right wing Mac. I hold a variety of views some which are right of centre, some which are left of centre. 
Is this another accusation of yours that you can't back up with any examples?

[superflyweight]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education was a really absurd comparison.

You're not looking hard enough.  This article took me 10 seconds to find - https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-bias/

Recent accusations of rightwing bias
Many of those on the left of the political spectrum have taken a different approach in relation to BBC bias. They point to how the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14.  And they note how for many years, two of the Corporation’s leading politics programmes, the Daily Politics and The Sunday Politics, were both presented by Andrew Neil, who has also served as the Chairman of right of centre magazine, The Spectator.

Moreover in September 2021, it was reported that the current BBC Director General, Tim Davie, had previously been involved with the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association.  Mr Davie confirmed that in this former life, he had once been a candidate for the local council but failed to be elected.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

What a ridiculous article. Do they not understand that governments of the day out in their own choice as Chair. Convenient they forget Greg Dyke. 
That isn't an example of the output being left or right wing though is it? How many of the presenters are right wing?

It's not the article that's ridiculous, the article is merely highlighting that there are complaints about the BBC from both the left and the right. I don't know how may presenters are right wing - I've never asked Tess Daly about her political leanings.

[McLaren]

Super

You have never expressed a left wing view on here.

So are you still not admitting to being right wing? Thought I read somewhere recently you referring to yourself as of the right? Maybe I'm mistaken.

[JAS]

Super

I think back in the early days of these sort of debates you would push back against any accusation that you were right wing. It seems you are now happy to adopt that label. Would you be up for talking us through how you have become more comfortable over the years with identifying as right wing? I'm genuinely curious.

Because I'm not right wing Mac. I hold a variety of views some which are right of centre, some which are left of centre. 
Is this another accusation of yours that you can't back up with any examples?

Ooh go on then, enlighten us with the some which you consider left of centre. Hold on, let me get my popcorn, because this will be a fascinating read!!

[super_realist]

Super

You have never expressed a left wing view on here.

So are you still not admitting to being right wing? Thought I read somewhere recently you referring to yourself as of the right? Maybe I'm mistaken.

Mac,  most people hold views from different sides of the central political line. 
I haven't ever claimed to he right wing. 
I would say I was left of centre in regards to education, abortion rights, gay marriage, certain types of taxation etc, I would say I was right of centre on illegal immigration, crime, privatisation etc. 

I think being rabidly left wing or rabidly right wing would be fairly insufferable levels of viewpoint because then you are the sort of person who is as vile as Owen Jones or Nick Griffin.

[super_realist]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education was a really absurd comparison.

You're not looking hard enough.  This article took me 10 seconds to find - https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-bias/

Recent accusations of rightwing bias
Many of those on the left of the political spectrum have taken a different approach in relation to BBC bias. They point to how the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14.  And they note how for many years, two of the Corporation’s leading politics programmes, the Daily Politics and The Sunday Politics, were both presented by Andrew Neil, who has also served as the Chairman of right of centre magazine, The Spectator.

Moreover in September 2021, it was reported that the current BBC Director General, Tim Davie, had previously been involved with the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association.  Mr Davie confirmed that in this former life, he had once been a candidate for the local council but failed to be elected.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

What a ridiculous article. Do they not understand that governments of the day out in their own choice as Chair. Convenient they forget Greg Dyke. 
That isn't an example of the output being left or right wing though is it? How many of the presenters are right wing?

It's not the article that's ridiculous, the article is merely highlighting that there are complaints about the BBC from both the left and the right.  I don't know how may presenters are right wing - I've never asked Tess Daly about her political leanings.  

Yet, the point is that you can find examples of where the BBC has shown left wing bias, but can you do the same for right wing views?

[JAS]

INW

If routinely naming suspects of sexual offences was shown to improve conviction rates and outcomes for victims I would accept a fairly high rate of mistaken identity cases. Tend to view these things like drugs, you just have to accept some side effects to get the benefit.

If it wasn't possible to know if naming was a benefit I might still cautiously support naming alleged perpetrators because covering this stuff up over the years doesn't seem to have done any good.

Ridiculous. I hope this comes to pass and you're mistakenly accused in the national press. What a stupid position to adopt.

Why are people scared of false accusations? The data shows false accusations of domestic or sexual abuse are very rare.

There speaks someone who has never been falsely accused.

I can relate a story here about one of my partners fellow head teachers who was falsely accused of child protection breaches by a parent who had previously been a teacher. When a teacher or a headteacher for that matter gets accused, they are immediately suspended (innocent until proven guilty don't quite work the same way in education), for most head teachers it's a career ender even if they are found to be completely innocent of all charges levelled against them. Yes they can go back to post eventually and it's usually months, but in the circumstances where a vexatious complainer parent has planted seeds of doubt among parents, governors, staff etc some of whom would have made judgements (because that's human nature) BEFORE any hearings. Many are not prepared to backtrack when they realise what Muppet they've been (that's human nature as well) so the position simply becomes untenable. All because of a false accusation!!

[navyblueshorts]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education[/b] was a really absurd comparison.

I made no such equivalence there. I was simply listing other state-funded institutions where someone might reasonably argue why they should fund them if they don't use them. I pay ~£160 p/a for a TV licence and apparently (King's Fund) in 2021 I paid ~£4266 p/a for the NHS.

The "left" probably want it retained even if they don't agree with the positions taken all the time because it's one of the few media organisations that's not right-leaning in all its output. I have no issue with reform of state institutions, the BBC included. Anyway, you're wrong re. "the left" not complaining, but why am I not surprised?

https://www.counterfire.org/article/the-bbc-s-anti-corbyn-bias-shows-it-s-not-fit-for-purpose/
https://www.theweek.co.uk/104905/was-bbc-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-during-the-election-campaign
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-complains-to-bbc-director-general-over-slanted-and-biased-election-coverage/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/bbc-bias-labour-sir-michael-lyons

Etc, etc, etc....

[Sponsored content]