This Lineker thing

[SydneyRover]

this puts it nicely in perspective:
First they came for the refugees, then they came for drag queens and trans men & women, next up was protesters, then they came for lawyers, next was the turn of climate presenters and national treasures, and now they’ve come for sports presenters.
You don’t have to agree with all of the above, but you do need to defend their rights, because if you don’t, then when they come for you too, who’ll still want to stand at your side.
Put aside your prejudices, hatred and fear is their weapon of choice, rise above it, you’re better that this, and them.
The Government are systematically targeting dissent and silencing criticism, they’re controlling our public broadcaster, and the narrative, because that’s all they have left.
This is a pivotal moment, a slice of history, you only need to decide if you want to be able to hold your head high and say that you stood against tyranny and creeping fascism, or forever regret enabling it.

And this is why Niemoller wrote the original ....

''Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany. In the 1920s and early 1930s, he sympathized with many Nazi ideas and supported radically right-wing political movements. But after Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Niemöller became an outspoken critic of Hitler’s interference in the Protestant Church. He spent the last eight years of Nazi rule, from 1937 to 1945, in Nazi prisons and concentration camps. Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for his postwar statement, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out…”''

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists

[wilts rover]

“I think there is a general observation that I’d make, which is I think comparisons with Germany in the 1930s aren’t always the best way to make one’s argument."

Sir Keir Starmer.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sir Keir on this. Put very simply and succinctly. Of course such comparisons are inappropriate. I still don't for the life of me understand how any decent human being (with a reasonable understanding of history) could defend such comments. The BBC should have pulled Lineker to one side and brought him up on this point.

I would have thought that if these comments about this policy were inappropriate (or innaccurate) then at least some of these Tory MPs' would be suing him over them? Very telling that none of them are.

And any decent human with a reasonable understanding of history would know about the use of propoganda in the rise of the Nazi Party especially their use of 'untermenschen'. The only point Lineker got wrong was that it began in the late 1920's not the 1930's.

[wilts rover]

Unbelievable Jeff - the Tories do Match of the Day:

https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1635551131525955585

[i_ateallthepies]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

[belton rover]

Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra are my two ‘go to’ stations.

[drfchound]

Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra are my two ‘go to’ stations.

Radio 4?  That left wing station……..

From The Mail Online:

“Radio 4 is tackling criticism the BBC’s comedy output is guilty of a Left-wing bias by telling programme makers that ‘humour shouldn’t just come from one political viewpoint’.

The station has also told its factual producers to ‘check the political assumptions underlying your idea’.

Bosses are also making efforts to counter concerns Radio 4 has become too miserable, telling producers it was not looking for ‘unremitting grief and bleakness’ in its drama output.


Director-general Tim Davie has made impartiality one of his major priorities at the corporation. He was reportedly keen for the issue to be considered by the whole BBC and not just news.

Radio 4 comedy shows have come under fire for their handling of politics. In 2018, The News Quiz was censured for anti-Tory bias. The following year Jo Brand’s joke on Radio 4 comedy talk show Heresy, about throwing battery acid at politicians, was found by the BBC to have gone ‘beyond what was appropriate’.”

[SydneyRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

The bbc supplies reliable newsfeeds across the world by TV and radio offering a democratic view against other forms of government and maintains UK influence.

[ncRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

[ncRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

The bbc supplies reliable newsfeeds across the world by TV and radio offering a democratic view against other forms of government and maintains UK influence.

Aren’t there media regulatory standards for the likes of Sky / ITV news? I don’t see any rampant bias there.

I thought you thought the bbc had a conservative bias? I can’t keep up

[BillyStubbsTears]

So after all the kerfuffle about Lineker dominating the headlines, there wasn't a mention on the BBC website last night that the Bill went through without a single Tory voting against it.

[wilts rover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

[danumdon]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

So basically, you don't benefit from well mannered and educated kids in this country, because you don't have any?

You don't get any benefit from the country being in a position to defend itself from invaders, try talking to some poor bugger from Ukraine.

You don't drive much?, but you do benefit from a road network that gets you to where you need to be and provides you with all your life's necessities.

And you don't have any way of getting out of this?

Unbelievable. and i had the impression you wee a teacher?

If that's not some major whataboutery there then i don't know what is.

[ncRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

You’re conflating TV with the BBC.

Do you have Netflix Wilts?

[wilts rover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

So basically, you don't benefit from well mannered and educated kids in this country, because you don't have any?

You don't get any benefit from the country being in a position to defend itself from invaders, try talking to some poor bugger from Ukraine.

You don't drive much?, but you do benefit from a road network that gets you to where you need to be and provides you with all your life's necessities.

And you don't have any way of getting out of this?

Unbelievable. and i had the impression you wee a teacher?

If that's not some major whataboutery there then i don't know what is.

Why did you think I was a teacher? I have never been a teacher.

[wilts rover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

You’re conflating TV with the BBC.

Do you have Netflix Wilts?

Nope. Never even seen it. Never had Sky either.

[ncRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

You’re conflating TV with the BBC.

Do you have Netflix Wilts?

Nope. Never even seen it. Never had Sky either.

But millions of other people do.

How would you feel if you were suddenly forced to pay for it in order to provide everyone with a better service?

Also, please provide some evidence that Sky / ITV news are less impartial than the BBC. Didn’t newsnight do that graphic of Corbyn looking like a communist revolutionary? You can’t have liked that.

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/11/bbc-rejects-complaints-newsnight-corbyn-russian

[SydneyRover]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

The bbc supplies reliable newsfeeds across the world by TV and radio offering a democratic view against other forms of government and maintains UK influence.

Aren’t there media regulatory standards for the likes of Sky / ITV news? I don’t see any rampant bias there.

I thought you thought the bbc had a conservative bias? I can’t keep up

If you explain the connection between your comment and mine I may be able to reply nc

[SydneyRover]

So after all the kerfuffle about Lineker dominating the headlines, there wasn't a mention on the BBC website last night that the Bill went through without a single Tory voting against it.

The legislation as you know is only there as a wedge so that the nasty party can claim any opposition to it are letting the hoards in.

[SydneyRover]

''BBC editors asked their journalists to avoid using the word “lockdown” in reporting at the start of the pandemic and to be more critical of Labour after pressure from Downing Street, leaked email and WhatsApp messages show''

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/14/bbc-editors-asked-journalists-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic

Hard to believe aye?

[danumdon]

Every time there is a discussion about leaving the BBC to fund itself on a commercial basis, it’s highest paid employees go all dewy-eyed and lecture us about how good it is. They start talking about it as if it is up there with a national institution like the NHS saying stuff like “our BBC”.

If it is so good, then surely it will flourish commercially? What are they scared of? The pushback says it all. Switching to a commercial model would probably allow it to have a higher quality output eventually because that’s the world we live in.

The license fee comes from a time where BBC was the only thing available. Even in the last 10 years, the competition in the market and choices available has gone through the roof. People can even start from nothing and become multi-millionaires on their YouTube channel.

I bet the that the BBC takes up less than 1% of an under-18s screen time. I can save myself a full hour and just watch the premier league highlights on the sky sports YouTube channel. A sour-faced Danny Murphy telling me a full-back needs to get tighter isn’t worth staying up for.

I detest commercial breaks in television and radio broadcasting.  The BBC operates three TV channels and innumerable radio stations that provide commercial-free service and in the case of radio, a good selection of speech-based stations for those who want more than music and cringeworthy local advertising.


In other words the BBC broadcasts a vastly different offering than any commercial radio station which would not exist without the funding model operated with the BBC.


And as for 'switching to a commercial model allowing it to have a higher quality output'.  Don't make me laugh.

Each to their own. I haven’t watched anything on the bbc since Peaky Blinders and don’t really listen to it’s stations either (Spotify premium does all that). But still I have to pay.

I dont have kids - but I have to pay to educate someone else's. A nuclear deterrent wont protect me (I read on here) but I have to pay not to use it. I dont drive much - but I have to pay for other people to use the roads.

Unlike watching tv I have no way of getting out of this. If you dont want to pay a tv licence - dont watch tv - easy as that.

So basically, you don't benefit from well mannered and educated kids in this country, because you don't have any?

You don't get any benefit from the country being in a position to defend itself from invaders, try talking to some poor bugger from Ukraine.

You don't drive much?, but you do benefit from a road network that gets you to where you need to be and provides you with all your life's necessities.

And you don't have any way of getting out of this?

Unbelievable. and i had the impression you wee a teacher?

If that's not some major whataboutery there then i don't know what is.

Why did you think I was a teacher? I have never been a teacher.

Obviously my mistake then, i should of relised that a teacher would of never said what you did.

So, Mr i dont drive, have kids or do anything that requires me to contribute to the state, live under a rock in the hill's do we?

[SydneyRover]

''BBC editors asked their journalists to avoid using the word “lockdown” in reporting at the start of the pandemic and to be more critical of Labour after pressure from Downing Street, leaked email and WhatsApp messages show''

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/14/bbc-editors-asked-journalists-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic

Hard to believe aye?

Compare the above and more in the link to this ................ some at the bbc will be having their 'own words' in their diets.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-64937658

[Ldr]

''BBC editors asked their journalists to avoid using the word “lockdown” in reporting at the start of the pandemic and to be more critical of Labour after pressure from Downing Street, leaked email and WhatsApp messages show''

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/14/bbc-editors-asked-journalists-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic

Hard to believe aye?

“ The bbc supplies reliable newsfeeds across the world by TV and radio offering a democratic view against other forms of government and maintains UK influence.” ………….. really?

[SydneyRover]

If you wish to explain what you don't understand I'll try to help ldr

[BillyStubbsTears]

''BBC editors asked their journalists to avoid using the word “lockdown” in reporting at the start of the pandemic and to be more critical of Labour after pressure from Downing Street, leaked email and WhatsApp messages show''

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/14/bbc-editors-asked-journalists-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic

Hard to believe aye?

“ The bbc supplies reliable newsfeeds across the world by TV and radio offering a democratic view against other forms of government and maintains UK influence.” ………….. really?

Everything is relative.

Compare it to RT, Fox News, GB News...

Then again, the BBC is in a particularly important position as a state funded broadcaster. It has to uphold very high standards of integrity and independence. And there's no question that is slipping under the current management.

Did you see the Guardian yesterday? They have a set of What's App messages sent to BBC News staff by editorial managers. One said specifically that No10 had been in touch complaining that BBC news was t being harsh enough on a Labour policy, and could the news team turn up the heat a bit on Labour.

I'm not naive enough to think that no party ever hassles the BBC editorial staff, but the fact that that request was just passed on unfiltered is extraordinary.

[Ldr]

If you wish to explain what you don't understand I'll try to help ldr

Can you use small words?

[SydneyRover]

would you understand them?

[Ldr]

would you understand them?

I’ll try

[Bentley Bullet]

You never saw a Labour government sending WhatsApp messages to the BBC. Mind you, it was in its infancy the last time a Labour government was in power. Social media has tripled in usage since.

Watch this space for Labour discrepancies being brought into the public eye after the next GE.

[ncRover]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

[Bentley Bullet]

Is the Guardian impartial or just always true?

It is neither.