Privatising the BBC

[Sheaf Saint]

Yep, my thoughts exactly. Griffin is a c*nt imho, but there was precisely no point putting him on the programme in the first place if it was only to be jeered at. I would have liked to hear some kind of response to several things he raised, such as the nazi accusation and his reply about his father fighting them as opposed to Jack Straws father being a CO; that argument would have been particularly interesting given that the "discussion" was being chaired by a Dimbleby, but the track of that was simply stopped.

 

This is one of very few BBC programmes I can remember where the debate was clearly biased.

 

I agree it was, but with Griffin on the panel it was never going to be anything else was it, let's face it. There's no way that they could have had a normal QT debate about the week's issues when there was the 'elephant in the room' of this vile cretin who needed to be publicly challenged about some of his more extreme statements and actions.

[Thedelldays]

I agree it was, but with Griffin on the panel it was never going to be anything else was it, let's face it. There's no way that they could have had a normal QT debate about the week's issues when there was the 'elephant in the room' of this vile cretin who needed to be publicly challenged about some of his more extreme statements and actions.

 

But that is the whole point of QT.. To talk about the weeks topics.. If they should have put griffin in the Andrew marr show if they wanted it to be about him... Completely biases broadcasting from what is supposed to be an impartial station

[scotty]

I agree it was, but with Griffin on the panel it was never going to be anything else was it, let's face it. There's no way that they could have had a normal QT debate about the week's issues when there was the 'elephant in the room' of this vile cretin who needed to be publicly challenged about some of his more extreme statements and actions.

 

But that is the whole point of QT.. To talk about the weeks topics.. If they should have put griffin in the Andrew marr show if they wanted it to be about him... Completely biases broadcasting from what is supposed to be an impartial station

 

Up to a point Bexy, but Dimbleby could have asked at least the other panel members to address some of the points raised by Griffin, instead he simply ended each topic without doing so. I actually recorded that programme as I was out that evening, I'll have to rewatch it. And Delldays, this programme was biased, buts thats one of the main reasons I recall it; it's unusual for me to perceive that about BBC political output which imo is normally rigidly impartial.

[Iowsaintsfan]

Common sense.

 

The license fee is not worth it in my opinion, so I should have a choice wether I pay it or not.

 

Agreed, u have the choice to have sky or not the bbc should be the same dont want it scramble it!

[Wade Garrett]

Real vaue for money maybe but the licence fee is a tax. Why should those of us that do not want to pay for the BBC - I have Sky an have no need of the politically biased coverage offered by the BBC.

 

So you watch the politically impartial Sky? BBC political coverage is unblemished when compared to Murdoch's mouthpiece. Kay Burley was truly embarrassing in the last election, displaying the same mindless characteristics as her Fox counterparts.

[pedg]

So for all the alleged wide spread left wing bias on the BBC so far the only 'example' is a single episode of Question Time (which gave coverage to a Right wing extremist so not sure how that was left wing bias anyway??) ?

[Fuengirola Saint]

Look the only reason these derechistas think the BBC is biased is because it is not biased towards the right wing, eg. The Sun, Sky News, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express etc, they are so used to reading or watching this ****e that when something like the BBC comes along they can't compute that it's not spewing out a vile and phobic right wing bias.

[Thedelldays]

Look the only reason these derechistas think the BBC is biased is because it is not biased towards the right wing, eg. The Sun, Sky News, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express etc, they are so used to reading or watching this ****e that when something like the BBC comes along they can't compute that it's not spewing out a vile and phobic right wing bias.

 

that is the thing.......is should not be biased to anyone.......and clearly..it is

[scotty]

that is the thing.......is should not be biased to anyone.......and clearly..it is

 

Think what some of the above are saying is;

 

'If you consider the right-wing of british politics to be the centre ground, then yes, it is biased. If you consider the centre ground to be mid-way between the right and left wings then no, it isnt.'

 

hth

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The issue that infuriates me on some of their reporting is that instead of giving us the facts for us to make our mind up the reporters too often give their view of events and the whys and wherfores or what they think will happen etc. and with their background too often there is a left of centre bias of their view.

 

Funny, many people thought Nick Robinson was biased towards the Tories during the election. Certainly his time as a 'Young Conservative' hardly makes him 'left of centre'.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

question time...and as much as I despise him..the whole nick griffin going on there was pointless

 

Give us a break Griffin would have got an equally hard time on both Sky and ITV, that's hardly proof of left of centre bias.

[dune]

Give us a break Griffin would have got an equally hard time on both Sky and ITV, that's hardly proof of left of centre bias.

 

Rubbish. I'm not a fan of Nick, but I want to hear what he's got to say without a sensible debate turning into an orchestrated stitch up.

[scotty]

Rubbish. I'm not a fan of Nick, but I want to hear what he's got to say without a sensible debate turning into an orchestrated stitch up.

 

Agreed, but that edition of the programme was the exception that proves the rule.

[pedg]

that is the thing.......is should not be biased to anyone.......and clearly..it is

 

Generally I find when people say 'clearly' in situations like this it means they are taking it as read as its what they believe but without actually having any proof to back up their assumption....

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Rubbish. I'm not a fan of Nick, but I want to hear what he's got to say without a sensible debate turning into an orchestrated stitch up.

 

Wow you struggle to follow basic logic: I don't care whether or not you wanted to hear what he had to say - what I'm saying is that it would have been no different if he'd have appeared on panel show on Sky or ITV. The whole point of Question Time is that you get a cross-section on the panel. IIRC the Tory on Question Time did their level best to make Griffin look like a tool (not that he needed much help) - was the Tory part of the Liberal Left bais that night too?

[dune]

Wow you struggle to follow basic logic: I don't care whether or not you wanted to hear what he had to say - what I'm saying is that it would have been no different if he'd have appeared on panel show on Sky or ITV. The whole point of Question Time is that you get a cross-section on the panel. IIRC the Tory on Question Time did their level best to make Griffin look like a tool (not that he needed much help) - was the Tory part of the Liberal Left bais that night too?

 

The host was biased and had a clear agenda.

[Sheaf Saint]

The host was biased and had a clear agenda.

 

I don't think he had an agenda, certainly not a politically-leaning one anyway. He was mostly pointing out to Griffin the contradictions in his statements based on things he had done and was quoted as saying previously. It's probably fair to say that the show's producers, having taken a lot of flak from large sections of the public for inviting him on in the first place, went to some lengths to make sure he did not come out of the experience in a good light. But then, he made a perfectly good job of that himself without needing to be 'stitched up'. It was just as everyone expected - give him enough rope and he'll hang himself - and he duly obliged.

 

Anyway, as someone has already pointed out, if this is the only example that you can find in defense of your claims of the BBC leaning to the left (ONE show, which everybody agrees was a one-off and in no way representative of the show or the BBC's political allegiances in general) then I think we can safely say that you are wrong.

[Joensuu]

Disagree with the OP entirely.

 

Quality commerical channels are few and far between. After HBO, I'm stuck to think of any quality in commercial TV. Let's face it, commerical TV channels are great at providing the light entertainment for the masses, but they completely fail to provide high quality in almost any other area of programming. So without the BBC, you can wave goodbye to any form of quality in Science, Education, History, Geography, etc... they'll all be scrapped in favor of 'Celebrity strickly come cash in the attic on ice' or some other such waste of airtime.

 

To me, there is an underlying problem with the BBC. By competing with the commerical channels in the areas where they are good (i.e. light entertainment), the BBC is wasting money in providing a service that others already provide. Instead the BBC should be asked to focus solely on the television that other channels fail to deliver quality programmes in. By this I mean, get the BBC to drop the dramas, and get rid of the high-paid celebs (wage cap of £150k - including the DG!). Then let the commerical channels provide what they want to, and instead get the BBC to focus on the quality documentaries, on Panorama, on Newsnight, on Attenborough and Palin.

 

The simple way to do this - drop the BBC's requirement to need to use 'ratings' to justify itself. Ratings serve only to prove the 'quantity', and not the 'quality' of the programme. As such ratings steer all programmes towards the lowest common denominator... I think most people call it 'dumbing down'.

Edited 22 November, 2010 by Joensuu

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The host was biased and had a clear agenda.

 

Well, you've certainly made a compelling case so if you say so it must be true. I'm sure Dimbleby, like all former members of the Bullingdon Club, is a raging Marxist

[franny]

Under the last Labour government Campbell whistled and the BBC did as he asked, you only had to look at the disgraceful behaviour at the time of the dodgy dossier furore. BBC reporter Gilligan exposed the story, Campbell/Blair in fake indignation complain to the BBC, Gilligan had no support from the hierarchy and has to go. Gilligan was subsequently proven to be correct with his story but the damage was done and once more a cover up ensued. Whilst the NUJ are happy to strike and try and black out the Tory party conference over pensions I did not see NUJ journalists picketing for their journalistic independence when their colleague Gilligan was being stitched up, I believe because they are part of the conspiracy. Time and again BBC journalists will question Tories and quite correctly put them on a spot and make them uncomfortable but not let them adequately answer, the same treatment is seldom meted out to Labour party politicians, a leading question would be asked of Blair or Brown and they would then drone on with the spin they wanted to get out there.

What deep exposé has there been of the awful situation at the Staffordshire Hospital. The Labour government presided over massive amounts of money going into the NHS and created a culture of targets that created an environment where patients and their care were less important than hitting targets. I have not seen any of the Labour politicians embarrassed by this or try and explain why it happened on their watch. The man who was in charge of Health when this first started to break is now our shadow chancellor so God help us. They want the credit for any positives but have any politicians been held accountable by our public broadcaster?

Despite the mantra of Education Education Education after 13 years of Labour rule we see 20% of children leaving primary school without the required level of English. Have any politicians been held accountable by our public broadcaster?

They beat on about the LibDems going back on the pledge ref Uni Fees but fail to mention that they were introduced by Labour who also said they would not introduce them but did a massive U turn.

Take the EU for example, if they want a loony Eurosceptic they go to UKIP, if they want a mainstream Eurosceptic they get a Tory but seldom if ever a Labourite although there are many in the party (Kate Howey, Tony Benn etc..) because it helps paint a picture in the mind of the public.

Why do they keep out Griffin? As detestable and obnoxious as he, his party and policies are he is an elected politician who has enough votes and support in the country to sit in Brussels. The murderers from Northern Ireland (McGuiness etc.) who, if not themselves their policies have killed British citizens get air time even the Green Party with fewer votes get air time and invites to QT but not Griffin.

The point is Sky, ITV, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail etc can be as biased as they wish since they are independent organisations and create a product to suit their audience and will survive or fail based on that. The BBC however is OUR broadcaster and the only opportunity to hold politicians to account on OUR behalf in a totally impartial way irrespective of race, colour or creed and I believe they do not.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Under the last Labour government Campbell whistled and the BBC did as he asked, you only had to look at the disgraceful behaviour at the time of the dodgy dossier furore. BBC reporter Gilligan exposed the story, Campbell/Blair in fake indignation complain to the BBC, Gilligan had no support from the hierarchy and has to go. Gilligan was subsequently proven to be correct with his story but the damage was done and once more a cover up ensued. Whilst the NUJ are happy to strike and try and black out the Tory party conference over pensions I did not see NUJ journalists picketing for their journalistic independence when their colleague Gilligan was being stitched up, I believe because they are part of the conspiracy. Time and again BBC journalists will question Tories and quite correctly put them on a spot and make them uncomfortable but not let them adequately answer, the same treatment is seldom meted out to Labour party politicians, a leading question would be asked of Blair or Brown and they would then drone on with the spin they wanted to get out there.

What deep exposé has there been of the awful situation at the Staffordshire Hospital. The Labour government presided over massive amounts of money going into the NHS and created a culture of targets that created an environment where patients and their care were less important than hitting targets. I have not seen any of the Labour politicians embarrassed by this or try and explain why it happened on their watch. The man who was in charge of Health when this first started to break is now our shadow chancellor so God help us. They want the credit for any positives but have any politicians been held accountable by our public broadcaster?

Despite the mantra of Education Education Education after 13 years of Labour rule we see 20% of children leaving primary school without the required level of English. Have any politicians been held accountable by our public broadcaster?

They beat on about the LibDems going back on the pledge ref Uni Fees but fail to mention that they were introduced by Labour who also said they would not introduce them but did a massive U turn.

Take the EU for example, if they want a loony Eurosceptic they go to UKIP, if they want a mainstream Eurosceptic they get a Tory but seldom if ever a Labourite although there are many in the party (Kate Howey, Tony Benn etc..) because it helps paint a picture in the mind of the public.

Why do they keep out Griffin? As detestable and obnoxious as he, his party and policies are he is an elected politician who has enough votes and support in the country to sit in Brussels. The murderers from Northern Ireland (McGuiness etc.) who, if not themselves their policies have killed British citizens get air time even the Green Party with fewer votes get air time and invites to QT but not Griffin.

The point is Sky, ITV, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail etc can be as biased as they wish since they are independent organisations and create a product to suit their audience and will survive or fail based on that. The BBC however is OUR broadcaster and the only opportunity to hold politicians to account on OUR behalf in a totally impartial way irrespective of race, colour or creed and I believe they do not.

 

Actually Sky and ITV are also supposed to be impartial and that is a regulation of their braodcast licence. You've laced your argument with your own political opinion. What you're really saying is "I want the BBC to reflect my own personal bias".

[dune]

Actually Sky and ITV are also supposed to be impartial and that is a regulation of their braodcast licence. You've laced your argument with your own political opinion. What you're really saying is "I want the BBC to reflect my own personal bias".

 

I don't think he's saying this. I think he's saying what everyone else is saying in that the BBC needs to stop pandering to the views of it's marxist unionised employees and become impartial.

[pedg]

I don't think he's saying this. I think he's saying what everyone else is saying in that the BBC needs to stop pandering to the views of it's marxist unionised employees and become impartial.

 

By everyone else you mean just you and him?

[Joensuu]

I don't think he's saying this. I think he's saying what everyone else is saying in that the BBC needs to stop pandering to the views of it's marxist unionised employees and become impartial.

 

Dune,

 

this is incorrect. The BBC are not 'marxist' at all. They are probably the most left-wing channel, but aren't really left of centre, they just appear to be so because of the extreme right-wing stance of most of their competition. In reality, the BBC are very much centralists, they go to great effort to ensure that they don't bias towards either right or left.

 

The opportunity they gave Griffin was similar to the opportunity they gave Bob Crowe, give either extreme airtime, they will make themselves look stupid (I wonder why!).

[badgerx16]

Everything looks left-wing from Dune's standpoint.

[franny]

Actually Sky and ITV are also supposed to be impartial and that is a regulation of their braodcast licence. You've laced your argument with your own political opinion. What you're really saying is "I want the BBC to reflect my own personal bias".

 

Thank you for telling me what I am thinking but you do not know what my political views are and I find it arrogant that you think you do, it really confirms what I have seen over the last 13 years of Labour rule of the "I know best for you" attitude. You will note I applauded the BBC for taking Tories to account for their actions and utterances but pointed out that in my opinion they failed to do that with others. I did not say the employees were Marxist just that they were follwing their political agneda when they should be independant.

You may be correct about Sky and ITV and their licence obligations and I defer to you on that but my point was that like the newspapers that people re quick to denigrate since they are commercial they will stand or fall by their output. You do not answer any of my points but just turn it back to me which suggests to me that you are not able to counter/discuss the points I raise perhaps because perhaps of your own political bias.

In my view the problem with most of the posters on here from left to right is that they are locked into their own dogma and will shoot a poster down as a racist or marxist simply becasue of who the poster is rather than looking at the content. This is the same with politics in that there is good and bad in varying degrees amongst most politicall parties policies it is just the honesty that is consistently lacking.

[Joensuu]

franny, IMO, the key point that you are making is incorrect. I believe the BBC tried its best to hold Labour to task, in the same way that they are currently trying to hold the coalition govenment to task.

 

However, I do think the Labour party tried to influence the output of the BBC. The Hutton Inquiry, was IMO, a whitewash, which forced the BBC to take a more considered approach when being cricital of the government. As such, Labour forced the BBC to seem to be more pro-Labour, which IMO isn't something we should blame the BBC for.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Thank you for telling me what I am thinking but you do not know what my political views are and I find it arrogant that you think you do, it really confirms what I have seen over the last 13 years of Labour rule of the "I know best for you" attitude. You will note I applauded the BBC for taking Tories to account for their actions and utterances but pointed out that in my opinion they failed to do that with others. I did not say the employees were Marxist just that they were follwing their political agneda when they should be independant.

You may be correct about Sky and ITV and their licence obligations and I defer to you on that but my point was that like the newspapers that people re quick to denigrate since they are commercial they will stand or fall by their output. You do not answer any of my points but just turn it back to me which suggests to me that you are not able to counter/discuss the points I raise perhaps because perhaps of your own political bias.

In my view the problem with most of the posters on here from left to right is that they are locked into their own dogma and will shoot a poster down as a racist or marxist simply becasue of who the poster is rather than looking at the content. This is the same with politics in that there is good and bad in varying degrees amongst most politicall parties policies it is just the honesty that is consistently lacking.

 

Your politics ae pretty evident from both your posts, you don't think the BBC have been tough enough on Labour politicians simply because you want them to be tougher because you mistrust and dislike them. It's classic selective thinking - just like football fans who convince themselves that all referees are biased against them, they ignore the 50-50 decisions that go in their favour but latch on to every decision against. For example in all the breaking reports on the Tuition Fee debate there was mention of Labour's difficulty in mounting an attack because of they hadn't yet agreed their own policy and because they broke their own manifesto pledge in 1997.

[badgerx16]

I don't think the BBC are particularly biased one way or the other, it's just that their relationship with whichever Government is in power is to some extent bound to be coloured by 'he who pays the piper calls the tune', and the politicos feel that as they are technically the paymasters, they are entitled to some influence.

[CB Saint]

Have to chuckle at the irony on this thread - politically biased posts debating the political bias of the beeb.

[saint1977]

BBC had loads of fights with Blair and Brown, no more or less than they have had with the Tories. Sky is slightly right-wing but Adam Boulton apart, the coverage is still impartial and of decent quality, ditto ITV. Remember, Nick Robinson is employed as Chief Political Correspondent by BBC and he is ex-YC Head and Daily Mail Political Lead so he'd hardly work for a Marxist organisation.

 

We should be grateful for our TV coverage, we don't have to put up with the nonsense that the Americans do. Fox News and it's ilk aren't journalism, just fifth rate propaganda.

[Viking Warrior]

get rid of the bbc, no longer a trust worthy news service. Its ful lof its own agenda (Trendy lefty mainly)

They only want you to hear the news they want you to hear and from therir agenda. iIn fact I think they are trying to create the news not report it.

 

So far up their own backsides it unsafe.

yes disband the BBC . It will ave us taxpayers a fortune.

PS is strickly come dancing value for money ?

[Joensuu]

VW,

 

so you want to see the back of all the high quality programmes the BBC produce, and have a world filled with 'When horses go wild' or 'Worlds fattest women' and other such high quality commerical channel offerings?

 

Scrap the BBC, and you are scrapping almost all of the highest quality television. Bring on the impartiality of Fox news eh?

 

NB, Stricky is definately not fitting of the definition of 'quality' or value for money - see post 118.

[franny]

Your politics ae pretty evident from both your posts, you don't think the BBC have been tough enough on Labour politicians simply because you want them to be tougher because you mistrust and dislike them. It's classic selective thinking - just like football fans who convince themselves that all referees are biased against them, they ignore the 50-50 decisions that go in their favour but latch on to every decision against. For example in all the breaking reports on the Tuition Fee debate there was mention of Labour's difficulty in mounting an attack because of they hadn't yet agreed their own policy and because they broke their own manifesto pledge in 1997.

 

Thankyou for your analysis I only wish I had your insight and intelligence.

Pedg (I think it was?) asked for more examples of bias, I gave some that I perceived. Sometimes the bias can be demonstrated by what is not asked rather than just what is asked. I dont believe I was selective, I approved of the attacks on the Tories but since the Labout government was in power for the last 13 years I could only refer to their policies. I approved of them of taking ALL politicians to task from the right or left just that is was less intense to the left. You answered my questions selctively so I can only assume you are acting in this "classic manner" you refer to. My distrust is of all politicans and I would expect the BBC to be equal in their challenges to any of them.

As I said before some people are blinkered and can only look either to the right or left and are not able to open their mnds.

[mickn]

Disagree with the OP entirely.

 

Quality commerical channels are few and far between. After HBO, I'm stuck to think of any quality in commercial TV. Let's face it, commerical TV channels are great at providing the light entertainment for the masses, but they completely fail to provide high quality in almost any other area of programming. So without the BBC, you can wave goodbye to any form of quality in Science, Education, History, Geography, etc... they'll all be scrapped in favor of 'Celebrity strickly come cash in the attic on ice' or some other such waste of airtime.

 

To me, there is an underlying problem with the BBC. By competing with the commerical channels in the areas where they are good (i.e. light entertainment), the BBC is wasting money in providing a service that others already provide. Instead the BBC should be asked to focus solely on the television that other channels fail to deliver quality programmes in. By this I mean, get the BBC to drop the dramas, and get rid of the high-paid celebs (wage cap of £150k - including the DG!). Then let the commerical channels provide what they want to, and instead get the BBC to focus on the quality documentaries, on Panorama, on Newsnight, on Attenborough and Palin.

 

The simple way to do this - drop the BBC's requirement to need to use 'ratings' to justify itself. Ratings serve only to prove the 'quantity', and not the 'quality' of the programme. As such ratings steer all programmes towards the lowest common denominator... I think most people call it 'dumbing down'.

 

Whilst agreeing with this I would have to include comedy as the beeb are best at this as well.

[dune]

Whilst agreeing with this I would have to include comedy as the beeb are best at this as well.

 

Were the best. It's now too left wing to produce good comedy. Those with left wing views generally lack a sense of humour.

[mickn]

Were the best. It's now too left wing to produce good comedy. Those with left wing views generally lack a sense of humour.

 

Trust me, we have a great sense of humour, especially when reading the right wing nonsense posted on here

[scotty]

Thank you for telling me what I am thinking but you do not know what my political views are and I find it arrogant that you think you do, it really confirms what I have seen over the last 13 years of Labour rule of the "I know best for you" attitude. You will note I applauded the BBC for taking Tories to account for their actions and utterances but pointed out that in my opinion they failed to do that with others. I did not say the employees were Marxist just that they were follwing their political agneda when they should be independant.

You may be correct about Sky and ITV and their licence obligations and I defer to you on that but my point was that like the newspapers that people re quick to denigrate since they are commercial they will stand or fall by their output. You do not answer any of my points but just turn it back to me which suggests to me that you are not able to counter/discuss the points I raise perhaps because perhaps of your own political bias.

In my view the problem with most of the posters on here from left to right is that they are locked into their own dogma and will shoot a poster down as a racist or marxist simply becasue of who the poster is rather than looking at the content. This is the same with politics in that there is good and bad in varying degrees amongst most politicall parties policies it is just the honesty that is consistently lacking.

 

Thats the whole point of an impartial broadcaster, that they shouldn't have to broadcast with a view to "standing or falling" commercially, simply that the political spectrum should be represented impartially. There are more right-wing newspapers in this country because more people that read newsapers in this country are right-wing rather than left, therefore a right-wing stance sells more papers. I dont want the BBC deciding on the content of its broadcasting based on what they think will appeal to the most people.

[Red and White Army]

From dune's viewpoint, Nick Griffin is left wing. No wonder he thinks the BBC are a bunch of Marxists.

[dune]

Trust me, we have a great sense of humour

 

Trust me you don't. You only have to look at Tory v Labour politicians. Tories (and those of us on the right) have the ability to laugh at ourselves. Socialists (and those on the left) have too much of a chip on their shoulders.

[dune]

From dune's viewpoint, Nick Griffin is left wing. No wonder he thinks the BBC are a bunch of Marxists.

 

You're right about that. The BNP are left wing if you take immigrants out of the equation. Essentially the BNP are a party that appeals to Labour voters who feel abandoned. I have voted for the BNP in the past as a protest, but i'm firmly a UKIP supporter that wants the Conservatives to move to the right and to withdraw from the EU.

Edited 22 November, 2010 by dune

[Joensuu]

Whilst agreeing with this I would have to include comedy as the beeb are best at this as well.

 

Agreed, they do produce some of the best comedies... but also loads of dross like Scallawagga, and the recent Miranda. It's all a bit scattergun for my liking, with each good comedy outweighed by 5 or 10 distinctly unfunny shows. Also, commerical stations can compete in this area, Channel 4, is especially strong, with Peep Show, Inbetweeners, and plenty of other examples of the funniest shows on TV over the last 20 years.

 

Generally, while I'd miss some of their comedies, I feel the BBC money would be best spent providing more of the content that commerical channels choose not to: documentaries etc.

[Joensuu]

You're right about that. The BNP are left wing if you take immigrants out of the equation. Essentially the BNP are a party that appeals to Labour voters who feel abandoned. I have voted for the BNP in the past as a protest, but i'm firmly a UKIP supporter that wants the Conservatives to move to the right and to withdraw from the EU.

 

The social rights and wrongs of immigration are not a left-right thing, they are a liberal vs authoritarian decision. If however you are talking about the economic benefits of immigration, then I think you will find that you are wrong. Economically immigration is an advantage to people on the right, as it boosts the economy and keeps wages down.

 

Dune, you must be in a right quandary over immigration. Do you follow your economic principles and wholeheartedly welcome more people, or do you allow your authoritarian side to win the debate, and support a migration ban?

[Sheaf Saint]

Trust me you don't. You only have to look at Tory v Labour politicians. Tories (and those of us on the right) have the ability to laugh at ourselves. Socialists (and those on the left) have too much of a chip on their shoulders.

 

You know what, I really don't care if I get an infraction for this...

 

You really are a f***ing moron aren't you dune.

[pedg]

get rid of the bbc, no longer a trust worthy news service. Its ful lof its own agenda (Trendy lefty mainly)

 

Does Strictly have have a trendy left wing agenda, does cash in the attic, does QI, does Match of the Day?

 

What you are saying is you want to get rid of the BBC because you think an incredibly small percentage of the material they actually broadcast (i.e. the opinion bits in the news) during the year might have some 'trendy left wing bias'?

[mickn]

Trust me you don't. You only have to look at Tory v Labour politicians. Tories (and those of us on the right) have the ability to laugh at ourselves. Socialists (and those on the left) have too much of a chip on their shoulders.

 

Thus proving my point with ideas like that

[bridge too far]

The social rights and wrongs of immigration are not a left-right thing, they are a liberal vs authoritarian decision. If however you are talking about the economic benefits of immigration, then I think you will find that you are wrong. Economically immigration is an advantage to people on the right, as it boosts the economy and keeps wages down.

 

Dune, you must be in a right quandary over immigration. Do you follow your economic principles and wholeheartedly welcome more people, or do you allow your authoritarian side to win the debate, and support a migration ban?

 

The foundations of his political views match his name - built on sand.

[dune]

The social rights and wrongs of immigration are not a left-right thing, they are a liberal vs authoritarian decision. If however you are talking about the economic benefits of immigration, then I think you will find that you are wrong. Economically immigration is an advantage to people on the right, as it boosts the economy and keeps wages down.

 

Dune, you must be in a right quandary over immigration. Do you follow your economic principles and wholeheartedly welcome more people, or do you allow your authoritarian side to win the debate, and support a migration ban?

 

I support a migration ban. We don't need foreign workers, we need to the get benefits slobs working.

[View From The Top]

The foundations of his political views match his name - built on sand.

 

 

 

He is very, very thick hence why he's on ignore.

He has no capacity for original thought and lacks the cognitive ability to form his own opinions.

[Lord Duckhunter]

In this day and age it is wrong to pay a poll tax on watching a TV station . People should have a choice whether they subscribe to a channel or not. If the BBC is as good as it's defenders make out, then they will have no problem raising the money without forcing people who dont want to watch their channels to pay for it.

 

If the BBC didn't exist and the new govt wanted to start a national tv station and charge people £142.50 whether they wanted to watch it or not. If you had to pay this whether you were rich or poor and your details were taken every time you purchased a tv, the lefties would be up in arms over it.