Bbc : Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[trastrick 866]

15 minutes ago, RJRB said:

My example was slightly tongue in cheek but is one of many examples of services supported by a form of taxation,that individuals may feel that they do not benefit from.

Anyway I still fervently believe that the BBC is incredible value for money.

@trastrick

I read the Daily Express which rarely confirms or supports any of my beliefs,but that does serve a purpose.

As for gathering news on the internet,this is largely drawn from the original sources of the so called MSM.

i.e it is a variety of opinions rather than news.

Long live "a variety of opinions". 

[S35_2o21 32]

59 minutes ago, trastrick said:

 

As for programming, with the bottomless pit of taxpayer funding, they distort the market, by their ability to outbid the private companies for the best available resources of celebrities, and production resources, so it's obvious they'll produce something of value to everyone.

It's not a bottomless pit of taxpayer funding. The licence fee is capped by Government. Over the years, the BBC has not been able to outbid rivals for sports contents- e.g. Football, Formula 1 (there are other examples, I'm not a massive follower of sports in general).

 

The BBC has had to cut it's cloth accordingly which may actually enable them to develop programmes from scratch, e.g. Great British Bake Off. 

 

#43

You're comparing an entertainment company to a countries transport infrastructure? You may not own a car...ever took a taxi or bus? What do they drive on?

 

A strange comparison, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

(Sorry, don't know how to quote from multiple posts). I would argue with the span of content, the BBC is akin to part of the infrastructure. 

[zach 234]

6 hours ago, RJRB said:

My example was slightly tongue in cheek but is one of many examples of services supported by a form of taxation,that individuals may feel that they do not benefit from.

Anyway I still fervently believe that the BBC is incredible value for money.

@trastrick

I read the Daily Express which rarely confirms or supports any of my beliefs,but that does serve a purpose.

As for gathering news on the internet,this is largely drawn from the original sources of the so called MSM.

i.e it is a variety of opinions rather than news.

I can see how some people think the BBC is good value for money for them. I can't just put it down to the BBC but I think live TV in general in the UK is terrible, and certainly not worth £150. I don't have a problem with people that like our live TV, I'd just rather watch what & when I want. News is via the radio, it was the only thing I ever watched on live TV but when strictly come dancing becomes news, I call it a day.

 

As for taxes we don't seem to benefit from. Agreed, there are many. It will always be the way, some you win on, some you seem to lose on...life!

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

1 minute ago, zach said:

I can see how some people think the BBC is good value for money for them. I can't just put it down to the BBC but I think live TV in general in the UK is terrible, and certainly not worth £150. I don't have a problem with people that like our live TV, I'd just rather watch what & when I want. News is via the radio, it was the only thing I ever watched on live TV but when strictly come dancing becomes news, I call it a day.

 

As for taxes we don't seem to benefit from. Agreed, there are many. It will always be the way, some you win on, some you seem to lose on...life!

What stations do you like that have good news bulletins?

[zach 234]

18 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

What stations do you like that have good news bulletins?

That would depend on the type of bulletin you mean. I'm a bit of a novice on the radio news, as such I'm still trying a few out. I have the phone set to alert to breaking news that interests me. Not things like Boris being 'ambushed' by a birthday cake!

 

You? Any pointers?

[Chekhov 488]

On 17/04/2022 at 18:15, Delayed said:

You're right. Covid has affected everyone's lives over the last 2 years and furlough payments will need to get paid back at some point. 

 You crying about it on Sheffield forum won't change that .

Get over it .

I could not disagree with you more. We have to make sure this draconian suppression policy never happens again, and certainly not for a virus which 99% of people survived and with an average age of death of 83. It is the biggest over reaction in the history of the world. Have I ever mentioned that before ? Just checking.....

 

On 17/04/2022 at 18:44, Litotes said:

Chekov, the BBC say here are 7 things - not the top 7 things, or seven things in order of priority. It is click bait and you succumbed to it because you didn't bother to read the article. And then you discussed it on a forum with a veneer of outrage... A good job done, BBC!

I did read the article as my post makes clear. If someone has an article saying 7 reasons why X has happened, it is reasonable to assume they think those 7 reasons are the most significant. Or it is in a rational world anyway.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Chekhov

[Delayed 464]

37 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I could not disagree with you more. We have to make sure this draconian suppression policy never happens again, and certainly not for a virus which 99% of people survived and with an average age of death of 83. It is the biggest over reaction in the history of the world. Have I ever mentioned that before ? Just checking.....

 

Yes well I'm sure that Boris will consult Sheffield forum and your copy and pasting skills before deciding whether to impose any future lockdowns

[The_DADDY 3,475]

16 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I could not disagree with you more. We have to make sure this draconian suppression policy never happens again, and certainly not for a virus which 99% of people survived and with an average age of death of 83. It is the biggest over reaction in the history of the world. Have I ever mentioned that before ? Just checking.....

 

Once or twice 🤣

[Chekhov 488]

Chekhov said:
I could not disagree with you more. We have to make sure this draconian suppression policy never happens again, and certainly not for a virus which 99% of people survived and with an average age of death of 83. It is the biggest over reaction in the history of the world. Have I ever mentioned that before ? Just checking.....

16 hours ago, Delayed said:

Yes well I'm sure that Boris will consult Sheffield forum and your copy and pasting skills before deciding whether to impose any future lockdowns

It's not just me, we all have a responsibility, a civic duty in fact, to make sure this never happens again. Everyone should do whatever they can to ensure that people never forget what they did "to keep us safe", the flimsy evidence on which it was based, and the lack of interest in the huge harm it was doing and will continue to do for years.

[RJRB 688]

E

29 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Chekhov said:
I could not disagree with you more. We have to make sure this draconian suppression policy never happens again, and certainly not for a virus which 99% of people survived and with an average age of death of 83. It is the biggest over reaction in the history of the world. Have I ever mentioned that before ? Just checking.....

It's not just me, we all have a responsibility, a civic duty in fact, to make sure this never happens again. Everyone should do whatever they can to ensure that people never forget what they did "to keep us safe", the flimsy evidence on which it was based, and the lack of interest in the huge harm it was doing and will continue to do for years.

How can you say that something must never happen again when you cannot foresee the nature of a future problem.

At the outset of the pandemic little was known as to how it might affect the population and the measures taken were accepted by the majority.

Furthermore,similar measures were taken to a greater or lesser degree around the world.

Your future policy seems to be to go for the herd immunity policy from the outset which was certainly considered by Johnson and Co and then hastily dismissed.

As far as the slight connection to your comments on this threads subject then the BBC will continue to report the news on the Covid developments,the war in the Ukraine etc. Without a particular bias towards one faction or another.

[Chekhov 488]

3 hours ago, RJRB said:

How can you say that something must never happen again when you cannot foresee the nature of a future problem.

At the outset of the pandemic little was known as to how it might affect the population and the measures taken were accepted by the majority.

Furthermore,similar measures were taken to a greater or lesser degree around the world.

Your future policy seems to be to go for the herd immunity policy from the outset which was certainly considered by Johnson and Co and then hastily dismissed.

As far as the slight connection to your comments on this threads subject then the BBC will continue to report the news on the Covid developments,the war in the Ukraine etc. Without a particular bias towards one faction or another.

I objectively stated earlier my position on that, but I will reemphasise it.

The word is proportionality, a word never to pass the lips of any suppressionists.

Let's assume suppression works (which, BTW, is not proven to any significant extent), I would support it if we had a virus with death rate of 1 in 50 and an average age of death of mid 80s, or a 1 in 200 death rate if it really was indiscriminate (i.e. the average age of death in the mid 40s). TBH I think a young person dying (esp a child) is much sadder than someone over 80 dying and therefore more should be done (and we should be willing to accept more of the consequent damage to society) to try and prevent that

[El Cid 220]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

Let's assume suppression works (which, BTW, is not proven to any significant extent), I would support it if we had a virus with death rate of 1 in 50 and an average age of death of mid 80s, or a 1 in 200 death rate if it really was indiscriminate (i.e. the average age of death in the mid 40s).

Have you understood the reason for the lockdown?

If 100% of the intensive care beds were occupied tomorrow, emergency measures would need to be taken. The death rate would be irrelevant.