Impartial BBC?

WoodallServices said:
Controversies?? Looks like most of them were just “Annoyed from Tunbridge Wells” because they weren’t being jingoistic enough and seemingly the rest because they weren’t kissing the arzes of the Tories, specifically the hag Thatcher!
Click to expand...
Did you not see Saville and Bashir in there?
 
Neil had no intention of interviewing Body Bag Boris, he 'd done the rwn j channels bidding putting the boot into Corbyn.
if shut it down tomorrow and pay the lot off.
the GB news must have invested 10 Bob for kit, they would be better off using a phone and You Tube the scruffy ...
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
So if they go to subscription how do all the people who do not have access to fast enough/reliable enough internet access subscribe?

What about all the people who do not have and can not afford access to new TV's/Tablet/PC's/laptops that would be required subscribe?

What about the older generations who are not tech savvy enough to manage streaming etc, what do they do?

Do you think Sky is any less biased than the BBC?
Click to expand...
Also I suggested it as an option, which it is a viable option but a TV provider such as sky or virgin or whoever could purchase the BBC, there are a few options available and as for not having laptops or decent Internet connection I think these are quite minor and you would factor for that. IMO.
 
WoodallServices said:
So Saville is a reason to get rid of the BBC? Get a grip, there was people in positions far higher than the BBC who would have heard about Saville.
Bashir is a nothing story and just an excuse to kick the BBC…..Diana knew exactly what she was doing!!
Click to expand...
Savile is just one part of the reason. As for Diana knowing what she was doing, how can you possibly say that without getting her side of the story? Bashir lied.
 
I've just had a flick through the 'controversies' on that biased wikipedia page. Anybody can knock a page up to attack something or someone they want to see an end to.

Who set the page up and why?

Who decided what is classed as controversial?

People moaning about too much coverage of a subject isn't controversy, it may be a lack of decent management but that's what the thread is about. The positioning of figures at the top of the institution to intentionally undermine it.

What next, the NHS?
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
Must be lots of examples in the BBC's 100 year history?

Thinking about what you've just posted it sounds very similar to another institution - what would you do about that lot?
Click to expand...
Which institution? Any institution that does what I said above deserves to be outed for what they've done and lose any privileges.
 
Boro1876 said:
Which institution? Any institution that does what I said above deserves to be outed for what they've done and lose any privileges.
Click to expand...

They're not privileges, they're performing a service needed by the country.

The NHS paid out £2.3 billion in damages due to the failure of obstetrics. Would you put right what's going wrong for a fraction of the cost or privatise it?

I'd improve the BBC by cutting its links to political parties. If you've worked in a government position you're not impartial, and the chances are you're no longer in that position because you're not very good. You shouldn't then be placed in a senior position in an institution such as the BBC to either provide a service to suit your party or be intentionally positioned their due to your incompetence.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong place for the villain.?
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:

BBC director sought to block senior editorial appointment

Sir Robbie Gibb concerned that preferred candidate would damage relations with government
www.ft.com www.ft.com

Apparently not.
Click to expand...
For those without FT access, the article reports that Sir Robbie Gibb, newly appointed BBC NED and former Tory spin doctor, has made thinly-veiled threats designed to block a senior BBC appointment not to the government's liking. A more pertinent criticism could be 'why is the BBC overseen by dead Bee Gees?'.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
They're not privileges, they're performing a service needed by the country.

The NHS paid out £2.3 billion in damages due to the failure of obstetrics. Would you put right what's going wrong for a fraction of the cost or privatise it?

I'd improve the BBC by cutting its links to political parties. If you've worked in a government position you're not impartial, and the chances are you're no longer in that position because you're not very good. You shouldn't then be placed in a senior position in an institution such as the BBC to either provide a service to suit your party or be intentionally positioned their due to your incompetence.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong place for the villain.?
Click to expand...
I'm always open to people convincing me and changing my views what you write is very informative 👍 I just think too much has gone on for the BBC to be funded by the tax payers.
 
Boro1876 said:
Why accuse me of trolling? I have my opinion and you have yours. That isn't trolling. I respect anyone's opinion in this thread and its comments like yours that stop people airing opinions because they don't want to be accused or abused. Grow up.

A company who has so many wrongdoings against its name shouldn't be funded by tax payers. This is my opinion. The programming is often excellent and it would be a massive shame to lose that but the controversies overshadow this for me personally.
Click to expand...
Like the Royal family? Shall we scrap them, so many wrongdoings why are we the tax payers funding them ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top