tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post116151232504316217..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: If Ever Anything Proved the Need for 18DoughtyStreet...Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161784748447257042006-10-25T14:59:00.000+01:002006-10-25T14:59:00.000+01:00Shotgun, you'd need to have a TV card in your PC A...Shotgun, you'd need to have a TV card in your PC AND it needs to be set up for receiving to be liable for the licence fee -- just like you can use a TV for other purposes (games, video, surveillance) without being liable. Otherwise, every company would have to pay the BBC licence fees on every computer they have, a 'brilliant idea' which is currently being tied on in Germany by the GEZ, and being fiercly contested in the supreme court of Germany -- the GEZ is attempting to charge mobile phones and PCs TV&Radio licence fees from 2007 onwards, and it is compehensivly unpopular. See: http://www.vrgz.org/<BR/><BR/>What I can't work out is how anyone has the time and patience to sit through a TV program or a film, reading is way faster and not so noisy -- 18Doughty street is OK, but to be honest, the message it has can be conveyed in a fraction of the time when it is written as a transcript.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161728732620213402006-10-24T23:25:00.000+01:002006-10-24T23:25:00.000+01:00Seeing the venomous unpleasant anti democratic ran...Seeing the venomous unpleasant anti democratic ranting in this string reminds me that beneath the veneer of civilisation provided by Cameron/Gove et al, the average Conservative is an unpleasant thug only out for himself. In government you would come to the fore, just like last time. Long may you remain in opposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161696520193173522006-10-24T14:28:00.000+01:002006-10-24T14:28:00.000+01:00A nice illustration of how the BBCs 'impartiality'...A nice illustration of how the BBCs 'impartiality' allows the government to get away with whatever it wants:I watched 'Suez' last night and it made me smile.A war scheme cooked up by Eden,Ben Gurion and the French to re-occupy the Suez canal.If the British representative hadn't been cajoled into signing a piece of paper,there would have been NO RECORD.<BR/><BR/>When the Conservatives called Blair a liar over Iraq before the last election,the BBC was up in arms(!) about it.'You can't accuse the Prime Minister of lying without absolute proof!' --The well known Suez precedent tells us these operations are conducted by word of mouth.THERE WON'T BE ANY PROOF!!The people outraged over the obvious cobbled together falseness of the Government's 'intelligence' were denied an outlet by which to mock its absurdity.This cloak that deflects criticism of the Government also allows their frequent relaunches.The man in the street can see the Emperor has no clothes but the lack of evidence stops BBC comment and denies the common sense man in the street an outlet to air his mockery.NOW the BBC hold an 'impartiality summit'.It's not their consciences that are talking but real fear of losing their pay cheques after having disenfranchised too many people.Schoolboy-Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10635169409297565162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161688474754205472006-10-24T12:14:00.000+01:002006-10-24T12:14:00.000+01:00I believe the BBC indulges in social engineering (...I believe the BBC indulges in social engineering (see introduction of term ‘lone parent’ to replace the term in common everyday usage ’single parent’). .I first heard ‘Tory’ used on a BBC radio news broadcast in (mid)1996.It then transferred to BBC television news broadcasts with increasing frequency up to the 1997 election.The ongoing problem is that Labour/New (improved) Labour are used differently to suit the context of the report:Labour when discussing ‘traditional socialist values’ and New (improved) Labour when reporting items containig ‘the party’s vision for the future’.With the introduction of 'news sniffer'perhaps these types of abuses could be flagged up??Many BBC broadcasts are now seemingly saved to text,so there's a record that software can search through (as long as it's a true record).Alternatively BBC broadcasts could be taped and transcribed to text via speech recognition software (There is a small(ish) group of top newscasters so the software could be 'trained' on tapes of their voices and be corrected manually at little cost?.-then the software could go to work.It would be handy to have something like this as soon as possible before the next election.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161688005963143142006-10-24T12:06:00.000+01:002006-10-24T12:06:00.000+01:00Mong - does that mean mongrel dog or is it perhaps...Mong - does that mean mongrel dog or is it perhaps mongoloid. I wonder which of these bj is supposed to repreesent.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it refers to mong kok or chong mong chu or maybe mong fu shek. Nah these are much too multicultural. Couldn't be any of those.<BR/><BR/>But its illuminated the debate!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161675669173099782006-10-24T08:41:00.000+01:002006-10-24T08:41:00.000+01:00BJ said... Shotgun, if you feel the need to res...<I>BJ said...<BR/><BR/> Shotgun, if you feel the need to respond to me by calling me a knob and a mong, and by segueing your response into a discussion about how unpleasant you find cottaging, then I'm not going to dignify what you said with much of a response.</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately you are a mong and a knob, and I pay your wages....<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't call it cottaging which implies a certain pleasant outlook, however, you obviously don't consider it unpleasant, which should come as no surprise I suppose.<BR/><BR/><I> However: my point about the FCO funding remains -- because Rog talked about a "telly tax". My point was that the World Service is not funded by the regressive tax that is the licence fee.</I><BR/><BR/>So we were absolutely right but in a slightly different context eh? I see.<BR/><BR/><I> If it came to it, yes we would insist that a correspondent use miles instead of kilometres etc. But I don't think we would have to. People at the BBC are reasonable, unlike you.</I><BR/><BR/>Reasonable in the sense that you will force your standards, which should be the standards of the majority that pays your wages? No, I think I will stick with my definition of reasonable.<BR/><BR/><I> A couple of further thoughts: Yes, there are quite a few BBC jobs advertised in the Guardian, but that's because it's got the best-read media section of the daily newspapers. I didn't get any of my jobs from adverts in its pages. In fact, I think too many BBC jobs go to people who already work for the BBC.</I><BR/><BR/>Your point being.....<BR/><BR/><I> And why is there a perceived left-wing bias? </I><BR/><BR/>Perceieved? There you go again by telling the people who make up the majority how they are wrong. Don't you understand you fucking mong that this impartiality report was from the BBC itself? Have they got the wrong perception?<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe because people who choose a career at the Beeb do so because they are motivated by a belief in public service broadcasting.</I><BR/><BR/>Then you will campaign against the licence fee? Big words not backed up by big action.<BR/><BR/><I> It's certainly one of the reasons I do (I'm in my twenties). People young people more oriented towards the market are, nderstandably, more motivated by money... and they choose to go and make a lot more of it somewhere else.</I><BR/><BR/>You aren't old enough to remember anything pre-Thatcher, but feel well enough versed to comment on the world and call others young? What you actually mean is they are not mature enough, but you are?<BR/><BR/>Mong.<BR/><BR/><I> Is the answer to increase the salaries of BBC journalists then?<BR/><BR/> No, I thought not.<BR/><BR/> 12:06 AM </I><BR/><BR/>No, the answer is to abolish the licence fee and see if BBC journalists can survive the market...if they are as good and right as you claim they are.<BR/><BR/>I would give a better and more detailed response to your musing and shite, but you have chosen to pick one issue from my post and use that as a vehicle to avoid discussing all other issues, most of which you are incapable of discussing either rationally or with any hope of winning.<BR/><BR/>Sad little mong who's carreer is to be curtailed as the licence fee is abolished, which seems increasingly likely, and good thing too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161666811837018292006-10-24T06:13:00.000+01:002006-10-24T06:13:00.000+01:00This war on terrorism is bogus The 9/11 attacks ga...This war on terrorism is bogus <BR/>The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination <BR/><BR/>Michael Meacher<BR/>Saturday September 6, 2003<BR/>The Guardian<BR/><BR/>Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier. <BR/><BR/>We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). <BR/><BR/>The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." <BR/><BR/>The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia". <BR/><BR/>The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". <BR/><BR/>Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways. <BR/><BR/>First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. <BR/><BR/>It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House". <BR/><BR/>Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001). <BR/><BR/>Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners.stelios the big easy guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12258082451604077234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161644792590007702006-10-24T00:06:00.000+01:002006-10-24T00:06:00.000+01:00Shotgun, if you feel the need to respond to me by ...Shotgun, if you feel the need to respond to me by calling me a knob and a mong, and by segueing your response into a discussion about how unpleasant you find cottaging, then I'm not going to dignify what you said with much of a response.<BR/><BR/>However: my point about the FCO funding remains -- because Rog talked about a "telly tax". My point was that the World Service is not funded by the regressive tax that is the licence fee.<BR/><BR/>If it came to it, yes we would insist that a correspondent use miles instead of kilometres etc. But I don't think we would have to. People at the BBC are <I>reasonable</I>, unlike you.<BR/><BR/>A couple of further thoughts: Yes, there are quite a few BBC jobs advertised in the Guardian, but that's because it's got the best-read media section of the daily newspapers. I didn't get any of my jobs from adverts in its pages. In fact, I think too many BBC jobs go to people who already work for the BBC.<BR/><BR/>And why is there a perceived left-wing bias? Maybe because people who choose a career at the Beeb do so because they are motivated by a belief in public service broadcasting. It's certainly one of the reasons I do (I'm in my twenties). People young people more oriented towards the market are, nderstandably, more motivated by money... and they choose to go and make a lot more of it somewhere else. <BR/><BR/>Is the answer to increase the salaries of BBC journalists then? <BR/><BR/>No, I thought not.BJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05244614921212446782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161638445188335812006-10-23T22:20:00.000+01:002006-10-23T22:20:00.000+01:00To illustrate my point that a lot of what is going...To illustrate my point that a lot of what is going on here is in fact the last bastion of the old Establishment unable to see they are on a a level with everyone else I have looked up a bit of DH Lawrence.Bourgeois is wrong but the insufferable decaying class superiority of the BBC might be attacked with justice in the same terms.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>How beastly the bourgeois is<BR/>especially the male of the species--<BR/><BR/>Nicely groomed, like a mushroom<BR/>standing there so sleek and erect and eyeable--<BR/>and like a fungus, living on the remains of a bygone life<BR/>sucking his life out of the dead leaves of greater life<BR/>than his own.<BR/><BR/>And even so, he's stale, he's been there too long.<BR/>Touch him, and you'll find he's all gone inside<BR/>just like an old mushroom, all wormy inside, and hollow<BR/>under a smooth skin and an upright appearance.<BR/><BR/>Full of seething, wormy, hollow feelings<BR/>rather nasty--<BR/>How beastly the bourgeois is!<BR/><BR/>Standing in their thousands, these appearances, in damp<BR/>England<BR/>what a pity they can't all be kicked over<BR/>like sickening toadstools, and left to melt back, swiftly<BR/>into the soil of England.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Which is all that is left for the BBC nowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161637587713816462006-10-23T22:06:00.000+01:002006-10-23T22:06:00.000+01:00Some good points but also some paranoid lunacy . T...Some good points but also some paranoid lunacy . The BBC has an institutional bias that reflects the bias of the Universities from which their high echelons are recruited . It is far less an articulated political point of view than is implied by many here and perhaps more irritating for it .<BR/>The fact that the bias is implicit and a default mode of a residual establishment is what gives their slant that infuriating assumtion of rightness.<BR/><BR/>If I could demonstrate . The spittle flecked shotgun tirade will only convince them that they have the balance right . A major part of this conviction would be the class from which they would assume such views emanate .<BR/><BR/>The first conclusion will be concious the second vastly more sinister one will be unconcious.<BR/><BR/>All of this has to be put in the context of an embattled organisation whose raison d`etre is obviously seeping away into the thousands of channells available and new medias like this one. <BR/><BR/>It is interesting though that in the discussion of the House of Lords there is a readiness to admit that the imperfect illogical system was better than the alternatives. I very much suspect we will find the same with the demise of the BBC. While news can survive alone the arts output of the BBC is invaluable and a positive agenda for cohering Society from its national Broadcaster still goes on . I think that we can safely assume that very few of those here so desparate to preserve our "culture " either know about it or have any wish to participate in it.<BR/><BR/>DURRUTI`s point is the best way forward and I am trying to amplify the reaons why the BBC finds it hard to admit they actually have a"point of view"<BR/><BR/>Tut tut that SHOT GUN is so rude . Bad language and homophobia all in a stew .I do wonder how it can be that I seem to be consistently the most censored poster here . If he had been forced to practice the piano instead of going out and playing ruffianly games , I think he would like the BBC more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161632156188527762006-10-23T20:35:00.000+01:002006-10-23T20:35:00.000+01:00So to be 'impartial" (as you imply Andrew Marr see...So to be 'impartial" (as you imply Andrew Marr sees it) the BBC should reflect 'provincial' prejudices. <BR/>And were is the 'middle of the road' over Iraq - conveniently where Blair wants it to be: let's now argue about the past (ie why he lied to get our support) but concentrate on supporting the Iraqi government.<BR/>And the comment on newsreaders wearing veils seems to have been made in support of Fiona being allowed to wear a cross.<BR/>Impartiality is a nonsense. As Andrew Marr seems to say it's not about impartiality but whose viewpoint you reflect.<BR/>It seems to me that the BBC is still in a state of post-Hutton apologetics. It should:<BR/>1) tell its critics to get their tanks the-f***-off-our lawn<BR/>2) it should publish its journalistic values and stick by themBuenaventura Durrutihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13905496758011641954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161625728966337952006-10-23T18:48:00.000+01:002006-10-23T18:48:00.000+01:00For the BBC producer whining that us proles who pa...For the BBC producer whining that us proles who pay their salaries just aren't appreciative enough of their efforts..................<BR/><BR/>Example: when James Naughtie of "Today", when interviewing a Labour politician just before the last Election said "When WE are elected" and "WE in the Labour Party" - and was never rebuked for it, and never retracted it - that was demonstrating how unbiased they are, was it?<BR/><BR/>If they stopped recruiting entirely from The Guardian and spread their adverts across other newspapers which - shock horror gasp - the majority of the population read, they might get a better mix of staff.<BR/><BR/>I don't bother with BBC TV news, because it is so biased towards the Labour Party it drives me mad - I want the news, not propaganda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161621485458324502006-10-23T17:38:00.000+01:002006-10-23T17:38:00.000+01:00The Editors Blog (BBC) links to the Mail on Sunday...The <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bbc_in_the_news_monday_21.html" REL="nofollow">Editors Blog (BBC)</A> links to the Mail on Sunday article and is therefore fair game for leaving '<I>helpful</I>' comments on to help the BBC understand how unbiased many of us think they are.Man in a Shedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990902055642035293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161600688613785312006-10-23T11:51:00.000+01:002006-10-23T11:51:00.000+01:00Wow !I notice a lesser, but similar admission from...Wow !<BR/><BR/>I notice a lesser, but similar admission from you Newsnight editor guest of 18 Doughty street - but it wasn't followed up.<BR/><BR/>I wonder what has made them look into this ?<BR/><BR/>I'd like to believe its because of the fact their bias is now daily documented in the Blosphere. But I suspect it is because they are finally waking up to the disaster` that Multiculturalism is bring to our country.<BR/><BR/>(Thanks for posting on this Iain - I'd have missed it otherwise.)Man in a Shedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990902055642035293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161598099268119542006-10-23T11:08:00.000+01:002006-10-23T11:08:00.000+01:00bj - the worldwide Arabic TV network (and all of B...bj - the worldwide Arabic TV network (and all of BBC World's output) is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the licence payer.<BR/><BR/>PT - True, but this is still taxpayer's money. <BR/><BR/>bj - I really like this blog: you're one of the sanest commentators going.<BR/><BR/>PT - Further evidence that the BBC think that people they are ready to call people they disagree with mad<BR/><BR/>You are looking through a distorted prism, like the rest of the bbcPraguetoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520923731691837948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161595376881392672006-10-23T10:22:00.000+01:002006-10-23T10:22:00.000+01:00Cinnamon said... Don't like the BBC? Dump yo...<I> Cinnamon said...<BR/><BR/> Don't like the BBC?<BR/><BR/> Dump your TV and stop paying their licence fee.<BR/><BR/> I did that 10 years ago, I gained time and money, and if I need 'TV' time, I can use the internet, which is much more fun anyway.<BR/><BR/> As for the BBC news website -- the stories lack intellectual depth, and often are predictable. The BBC is the last place where I look for news!<BR/> (But I check it for today's sheeple fayre ;) </I><BR/><BR/>Your PC has receiving equipment and is subject to a licence fee. This is why they changed the name from a TV licence to a licence fee, dumping the word TV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161595257123932752006-10-23T10:20:00.000+01:002006-10-23T10:20:00.000+01:00Iain won't, but I'll have a bash at answering your...Iain won't, but I'll have a bash at answering your whole post in as quick and succinct, maybe ascerbic, fashion as I can.<BR/><BR/><I>BJ said...<BR/><BR/> Rog: the worldwide Arabic TV network (and all of BBC World's output) is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the licence payer.</I><BR/><BR/>Listen you knob...the licence payer is the tax payer, and the tax payer funds the FCO, so we pay for Arabic TV network. Same difference and you're not very bright really are you?<BR/><BR/><I> Little Black Sambo (!): I am a producer for BBC radio news. If a correspondent's piece includes metric measurements (kilometres are preferred to miles on the World Service, just as cost comparisons in dollars are preferred to those in pounds) then we ask him/her to re-file in imperial, or use both.</I><BR/><BR/>Ask or insist? Would a report be shelved if they refused your request?<BR/><BR/><I> What Her Majesty's famously neutral, not all all connected to our chief rival, ITN, </I><BR/><BR/>Why do you consider ITN a rival when they are free to the taxpayer? The BBC should not have any rivals, and it is a real Freudian slip that you should mention the word.<BR/><BR/><I>by dint of Paul Dacre being the brother of Nigel Dacre Mail on Sunday said was that lots of gay and "ethnic" people worked for us and that it was "openly pro-multiculturalism".</I><BR/><BR/>And that is tyhe point that lefty liberal knobs from the BBC miss...the BBC should <B>NOT</B> be pro anything, let alone openly so.<BR/><BR/>I'll give you an example of the lefty liberal openly pro shite that has seen the BBC made a laughing stock with certain groups, not the least the onlibe community. There was a large and active debating forum on the BBC called the Great Debate which existed for years, and yes it was openly biased, but it was popular. The whole thing was closed down about three years ago because of lack of funds <B>at the same time that the Asian Network</B>, an online community from the BBC very similar to the Great Debate, was expanded.<BR/><BR/>In any other organisation that would be called bias and racism.<BR/><BR/><I>For Jesus'/Moses'/Mohammed's/Rama's and Sita's/Guru Nanak's/Buddah's sake*: is "gay people work in creative industry" really bloody news? Iain, I'm not gay -- I'd be interested to know your views on that bit.</I><BR/><BR/>No it isn't news, but the BBC being so pro-active in making gays prominent is. It is not the BBC's job to social engineer to make certain things acceptable, like homosexuality, whether that Graham Norton who is famous <I>because</I>he is a knob jockey, or Archie from Balamory who is the attempt to make queers acceptable to young children. There are loads of other examples of how the BBC works tirelessly to make certain things acceptable, not the least of which is George Michael, who's penchant for sucking the cocks of strangers in public toilets is now classed by some as perfectly acceptable and his carreer is none the worst for it.<BR/><BR/>So no, the BBC social engoneering is not acceptable.<BR/><BR/><I> As arguably the most important cultural institution in the UK,</I><BR/><BR/>Says who?<BR/><BR/><I>should we regard all cultures or just the ones who make up the majority?</I><BR/><BR/>The culture that makes the majority should take prominence, seeing as that majority pays your wages sonny and without the patronage of the majority you wouldn't exist.<BR/><BR/>Knobs like you seem to forget you are a <B> PUBLIC SERVICE </B> not a service for minorities.<BR/><BR/><I> Iain, I really like this blog: you're one of the sanest commentators going. (Oh, and Sunday Service was really good). But your attitude towards the Beeb really winds me up.</I><BR/><BR/>Well boohoooo. The BBC is owned by the likes of me and Iain, and who the fuck do you think you are to whine when we moan about it?<BR/><BR/><I> If it annoys you so, why don't you give up your probably very lucrative appearances on News 24 and other outlets?<BR/><BR/> 11:42 PM </I><BR/><BR/>Probably for the same reason you found time to write your utter shite here while it winds you up so much.<BR/><BR/>People need to make a living and can't just indulge in what they feel they should do and navel gaze...like the BBC does.<BR/><BR/>The sooner mongs like you have to work for a living and justify yourself in order to keep your jobs the better, and the sooner I can choose whether to pay for your whining and snivelling social engineering the better.<BR/><BR/>If you are so confident on the rightness of the BBC's actions and the way they are openly pro whatever, why don't you campaign for the abolition of the licence fee? Or don't you think the <I>majority</I> you seem to hold in such contempt would subscibe, and you would be out on your fucking arse and out of a job because of lack of funds?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161594069327537112006-10-23T10:01:00.000+01:002006-10-23T10:01:00.000+01:00I love this from BJ..."Rog: the worldwide Arabic T...I love this from BJ...<BR/><BR/>"Rog: the worldwide Arabic TV network (and all of BBC World's output) is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the licence payer."<BR/><BR/>So that's alright then. Its only the money from my taxes that's being wasted, not the money from the extortionate licence fee that I am forced to pay so that the BBC can pay Jonathan Ross christ knows how many millions. <BR/><BR/>As for BBC Breakfast news, i can barely remember the last time they had a news story that wasn't a plug for some new BBC programAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161593014403304612006-10-23T09:43:00.000+01:002006-10-23T09:43:00.000+01:00Don't like the BBC?Dump your TV and stop paying th...Don't like the BBC?<BR/><BR/>Dump your TV and stop paying their licence fee.<BR/><BR/>I did that 10 years ago, I gained time and money, and if I need 'TV' time, I can use the internet, which is much more fun anyway.<BR/><BR/>As for the BBC news website -- the stories lack intellectual depth, and often are predictable. The BBC is the last place where I look for news!<BR/>(But I check it for today's sheeple fayre ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161591087196671562006-10-23T09:11:00.000+01:002006-10-23T09:11:00.000+01:00'Dear 18 Doughty StreetKeep up the Good WorkI thin...'<BR/>Dear 18 Doughty Street<BR/><BR/>Keep up the Good Work<BR/><BR/>I think you should give more of Iain's animal supporters an opportunity to broadcast to a wider audience - like that wonderful horse Shergar <BR/><BR/>GEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161557707747049622006-10-22T23:55:00.000+01:002006-10-22T23:55:00.000+01:00Oh, and furthermore, anti-countryside? Don't make ...Oh, and furthermore, anti-countryside? Don't make me laugh. The <I>Today</I> programme does a story about wter voles or the crisis facing rural things at least twice a week!BJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05244614921212446782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161557657403670642006-10-22T23:54:00.000+01:002006-10-22T23:54:00.000+01:00BJ, Let me respond to your last para. Obviously I ...BJ, Let me respond to your last para. Obviously I am glad you like the blog! With regard to my attitude to the BBC, all I have consistently said is that I see an inbuilt Liberal bias to news broadcasting. Peter Barron from Newsnight admitted on my programme that it was there, and so it seems did the Impartiality seminar. <BR/><BR/>I am not a persistent BBC basher. It does many many good things and I hope I say so from time to time. But I think in some areas it has a case to answer and needs to do so. I am glad that at last people like Peter Barron are willing to come out into the open and talk these issues through. It's a healthy development and should be encouraged.<BR/><BR/>As to your last point - I see absolutely no conflict in appearing non the BBC as well as criticising it from time to time. As you well know, appearance fees are not exactly exhorbitant, so I can assure you it's not for the money. <BR/><BR/>The bit about multiculturalism and gay people is a bit more oblique. I don;t believe it is the BBC's job to "promote" multiculturalism, any more than it is the BBC's job to promote any religion. It should reflect what is going on in society.<BR/><BR/>And just because a dispropotionate number of gay people work in the media does not mean it should promote a gay agenda. But it doesn't do so , as far as I can see anyway.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161557561617382322006-10-22T23:52:00.000+01:002006-10-22T23:52:00.000+01:0018 DS is neaded because a center right or REAL lib...18 DS is neaded because a center right or REAL liberal view of the world is not represented on the broadcast media at all and has not been since the second world war. As George Orwell observed a long time ago.<BR/><BR/>The fact that people who describe themselves as liberal, so obviously dont have the slightest idear what a liberal is, just shows me what a "great" job the BBC has done in distorting British political debate for generations.<BR/><BR/>The BBC is not liberal now and never has been it is an authoratarian socialist organisation. This should not suprise anyone as The BBC compleatly relies on the state for its very exsistance. And therefore the livelyhoods of all that ride on its gold plated gravy train.<BR/><BR/>If you were a young university educated socialist who would you want to get a job with. A semi-free free market capitalist organisation like one of Rupert Murdocks or a socialist state sanctioned non commercial propergander machine like the BBC?<BR/><BR/>Quote<BR/>Socialism is the creed of envy and the refuge of the ignorent, its only inherent vertue is its equal sharing of misery.<BR/>(Winston Churchill)<BR/><BR/>If we want to avoid socialisms misery we must end the BBCs 60 years old hold over our sociaty ASAP. We got rid of the British state steel coal and telephone industries, so why not the states broadcast propagander industry as well?<BR/><BR/>Or just get used to, ever increasing poverty traps, state contolls and interference in every aspect of human exsistance. This resulting in violent racial and class inspired inserection. This will continue to happen untill the Marxists prediction of the fall of free market American/zionist/Jewish capitalism is acheived.<BR/><BR/>What then? who knows. On things for sure REAL Socialists dont care.<BR/><BR/>Perpetual revolution is the aim. This done by destroying every assumption and value that the ordinary citizen holds dear. Not by making this world a better place for anyone. That is except the fascist corporate dictators along with their propergander organisations, that survive its deadly consequences.<BR/><BR/>If this all sounds paranoid, over the top or just a little bit mad, remember this. <BR/><BR/>The ordinary people of the Soviet Union had no idear what Stalin was up to while he was destroying the lives of over 15 million of his own people. In fact they thought he was their best friend. Such is the POWER of prolonged authoratarian socialist state controll over imformation and education. What makes us so sure this could not happen to us? or that the BBC or our state liecenced media would be allowed to tell us if it was?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161556951914530132006-10-22T23:42:00.000+01:002006-10-22T23:42:00.000+01:00Rog: the worldwide Arabic TV network (and all of B...Rog: the worldwide Arabic TV network (and all of BBC World's output) is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the licence payer.<BR/><BR/>Little Black Sambo (!): I am a producer for BBC radio news. If a correspondent's piece includes metric measurements (kilometres are preferred to miles on the World Service, just as cost comparisons in dollars are preferred to those in pounds) then we ask him/her to re-file in imperial, or use both.<BR/><BR/>What Her Majesty's <I>famously neutral, not all all connected to our chief rival, ITN, by dint of Paul Dacre being the brother of Nigel Dacre</I> Mail on Sunday said was that lots of gay and "ethnic" people worked for us and that it was "openly pro-multiculturalism". For Jesus'/Moses'/Mohammed's/Rama's and Sita's/Guru Nanak's/Buddah's sake*: is "gay people work in creative industry" really bloody news? Iain, I'm not gay -- I'd be interested to know your views on that bit.<BR/><BR/>As arguably the most important cultural institution in the UK, should we regard all cultures or just the ones who make up the majority?<BR/><BR/>Iain, I really like this blog: you're one of the sanest commentators going. (Oh, and <I>Sunday Service</I> was really good). But your attitude towards the Beeb really winds me up. If it annoys you so, why don't you give up your probably very lucrative appearances on News 24 and other outlets?BJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05244614921212446782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1161552785144734482006-10-22T22:33:00.000+01:002006-10-22T22:33:00.000+01:00What a bunch of lying bloody hypocrites!For years ...What a bunch of lying bloody hypocrites!<BR/><BR/>For years they've been denying <I>any</I> bias , and ignoring/ridiculing all such criticism.<BR/><BR/>"We get from time to time people saying you're biased in favour of the Labour Party. Every time I ask people - show me a case of that bias, explain to me where we got it wrong and why what we said was so unfair - they seem to be unable to do so", <B>Andrew Marr, May 11th 2001.</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Check this out.</A><BR/><BR/>Personally, I find the BBC news and current affairs stuff practically unwatchable these days.<BR/><BR/>Can someone also tell me why the Beeb is launching a worldwide Arabic TV station (and closing down 10 foreign language radio stations), and what in the way of VFM does this bring the poor telly tax payer?<BR/><BR/>Iain, less of "discuss", more of "disband".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com