Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[andymadmak]

Nobody disputes that the climate is changing. What is in dispute is what is causing that change. The story that we are supposed to believe is that man is causing it. The trouble is that there is bugger all evidence to support that theory.
Now, I know you might say, of course there flippin well is, but I would urge you to pop over to the climate change thread and read some stuff there before you absolutely make you mind up on matter

As for right wingers not being creative, are you for real? The problem is not a lack of creativity, but more the case that the BBC rarely commissions anything, be it drama, current affairs or comedy that does not originate from a centre left source. There are creative people on the right, but they have little access to the mainstream audience via the BBC.

Lastly, you make reference to other broadcasters. The problem here is that all those you have mentioned are commercial organisations. They have no public funding other than those prepared to pay to be their customers. They have no duty of impartiality. The BBC on the other hand does have a duty to be impartial. It suckles from the teat of public funding via the compulsory license fee. I suppose that for many, they would have less of a problem paying that fee if the BBC was actually impartial, as opposed to the full time Guardianista fest that it has become.

[don4l]

colonel c said:

mybrainhurts said:

colonel c said:

freakybacon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35372869

http://order-order.com/2016/02/14/bbcsp-tory-manif...

BBC has decided to run a manifesto tracker to hold the government to account. There was never any thought of this during 1997/2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

Yes, of course. BBC, being well left of left, thought Blair was far too right wing and deserved a kicking....

Others on here suggest that MR Corbyn is too far left for the BBC's liking.

Who?

Post a link.

[Pesty]

Harji said:

As opposed to not being hit by Sky News, The Sun, Sun on Sunday, The Daily Mail, Express, The Times, The Telegraph.

The BBC is supposed to be neutral those you listed aren't and we don't have to pay for those if we don't use them with threat of gaol.

Nice try though.

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 14th February 21:45

[mybrainhurts]

Harji said:

mybrainhurts said:

Harji said:

WTF the wrong with that? You know we give millions of tax payers to rich land owners to allow for shooting grouse , these ppl also divert rivers off their land, it needs to be discussed but why is it a left wing topic and not a national one? Yes, climate change is happening, it's not a myth, but hey blinker yourself if you want.

You might be interested to know you just made a tit of yourself.

Usually an insult is followed by an explanation unless you're a *unt.

You said "Yes, climate change is happening, it's not a myth, but hey blinker yourself if you want."

And something snidely envious about "rich" people.

Sorry, I didn't think you needed an explanation.

[don4l]

Harji said:

mybrainhurts said:

Harji said:

WTF the wrong with that? You know we give millions of tax payers to rich land owners to allow for shooting grouse , these ppl also divert rivers off their land, it needs to be discussed but why is it a left wing topic and not a national one? Yes, climate change is happening, it's not a myth, but hey blinker yourself if you want.

You might be interested to know you just made a tit of yourself.

Usually an insult is followed by an explanation unless you're a *unt.

MBH wasn't wrong.

[Harji]

andymadmak said:

Nobody disputes that the climate is changing. What is in dispute is what is causing that change. The story that we are supposed to believe is that man is causing it. The trouble is that there is bugger all evidence to support that theory.
Now, I know you might say, of course there flippin well is, but I would urge you to pop over to the climate change thread and read some stuff there before you absolutely make you mind up on matter

As for right wingers not being creative, are you for real? The problem is not a lack of creativity, but more the case that the BBC rarely commissions anything, be it drama, current affairs or comedy that does not originate from a centre left source. There are creative people on the right, but they have little access to the mainstream audience via the BBC.

Lastly, you make reference to other broadcasters. The problem here is that all those you have mentioned are commercial organisations. They have no public funding other than those prepared to pay to be their customers. They have no duty of impartiality. The BBC on the other hand does have a duty to be impartial. It suckles from the teat of public funding via the compulsory license fee. I suppose that for many, they would have less of a problem paying that fee if the BBC was actually impartial, as opposed to the full time Guardianista fest that it has become.

I should state that left wingers tend to be more creative, all the gigs , friend in the arts and so on. I also know money men, less open to arts on the whole, and dare I say, quite dull. There are many mediums for right wingers to express, I know many famous directors and actors (from another era mainly) were right wing. In this day the concern is making money rather than art for art's sake. All of Sky and other platforms are out there, I don't buy into this myth that the BBC is a left wing luvvies only environment when a lot of the BBC board are not (research them).

I think many ppl confuse that challenging the government is a leaning to the left. The hardest grilling I saw was the BBC on Blair's government, and don't forget their stand off with Alaistair Campbell and the sexed up documents. People forget that they were just as hard on Blair's government, whoever is power gets it (apart from Sky News who lap everything up), but I don't see it as bias.

I've read a lot on climate change, if we honestly think that human factors are not PART of it then we are stuffed.

[Harji]

mybrainhurts said:

Harji said:

mybrainhurts said:

Harji said:

WTF the wrong with that? You know we give millions of tax payers to rich land owners to allow for shooting grouse , these ppl also divert rivers off their land, it needs to be discussed but why is it a left wing topic and not a national one? Yes, climate change is happening, it's not a myth, but hey blinker yourself if you want.

You might be interested to know you just made a tit of yourself.

Usually an insult is followed by an explanation unless you're a *unt.

You said "Yes, climate change is happening, it's not a myth, but hey blinker yourself if you want."

And something snidely envious about "rich" people.

Sorry, I didn't think you needed an explanation.

Still, you can't discuss without an insult as an introduction? what a knob.

Snidey? It's a fact, your taxpayer money is going to them landowners , see below. As for envious, not really, if you must know, house in West London, blah blah done well for myself, Mrs done very well,we are very comfortable hard working people worth more than ppl realise but I don't give a st as I never chased it, just a progression of my career. But as a tax player, stuff like the below makes me angry the same reason that gun licences are so cheap is that the very rich can come over here and shoot thing on tax payer subsidised land owned by rich landowners. Yet we only see st programs about benefit cheats and not the real scandals.

Taxpayer money for grouse shoooting

[Harji]

don4l said:

Harji said:

mybrainhurts said:

Harji said:

WTF the wrong with that? You know we give millions of tax payers to rich land owners to allow for shooting grouse , these ppl also divert rivers off their land, it needs to be discussed but why is it a left wing topic and not a national one? Yes, climate change is happening, it's not a myth, but hey blinker yourself if you want.

You might be interested to know you just made a tit of yourself.

Usually an insult is followed by an explanation unless you're a *unt.

MBH wasn't wrong.

Another *unt then I see.

[Johnnytheboy]

In response to your multiquote above, it was not the individual elements that amused me, but the sheer relentlessness of it.

[don4l]

mybrainhurts said:

colonel c said:

freakybacon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35372869

http://order-order.com/2016/02/14/bbcsp-tory-manif...

BBC has decided to run a manifesto tracker to hold the government to account. There was never any thought of this during 1997/2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

Yes, of course. BBC, being well left of left, thought Blair was far too right wing and deserved a kicking....

The Cameron/Osborne partnership certainly seems to be to the left of the Blair/Brown partnership. Increases in foreign aid and decreases in what you can put into your pension pot.

Osborne has gone even further to the left than Brown dared to.

[colonel c]

don4l said:

colonel c said:

mybrainhurts said:

colonel c said:

freakybacon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35372869

http://order-order.com/2016/02/14/bbcsp-tory-manif...

BBC has decided to run a manifesto tracker to hold the government to account. There was never any thought of this during 1997/2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

Yes, of course. BBC, being well left of left, thought Blair was far too right wing and deserved a kicking....

Others on here suggest that MR Corbyn is too far left for the BBC's liking.

Who?

Post a link.

Not going to waste my time on that one. You have my word that such comments were made.

[freakybacon]

colonel c said:

freakybacon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35372869

http://order-order.com/2016/02/14/bbcsp-tory-manif...

BBC has decided to run a manifesto tracker to hold the government to account. There was never any thought of this during 1997/2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

A BBC employee said " Some critics might say a single page summary of the 1997/2002 government is not quite the same as a concerted attempt to hold the current government to account by the politics department.. To that we say we think we got it about right." (So Yah! Boo! Sucks! Pay up your £145 or else!)

[Crush]

colonel c said:

don4l said:

colonel c said:

mybrainhurts said:

colonel c said:

freakybacon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35372869

http://order-order.com/2016/02/14/bbcsp-tory-manif...

BBC has decided to run a manifesto tracker to hold the government to account. There was never any thought of this during 1997/2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm

Yes, of course. BBC, being well left of left, thought Blair was far too right wing and deserved a kicking....

Others on here suggest that MR Corbyn is too far left for the BBC's liking.

Who?

Post a link.

Not going to waste my time on that one. You have my word that such comments were made.

I read something like that, but seem to remember it was more that he was unelectable rather than too far left.

[Johnnytheboy]

Crush said:

I read something like that, but seem to remember it was more that he was unelectable rather than too far left.

Quite probably.

The BBC would most likely be happy if elections were a fight between someone as far right as Tony Blair and someone on the left like Corbyn.

Then all legitimate political opinions would have a voice.

[The Don of Croy]

Harji said:

Taxpayer money for grouse shoooting

In the words of the Moonbat - "European rules insist that we pay farmers to help flood our homes."

Therein lies the problem...

[AstonZagato]

Harji said:

Taxpayer money for grouse shoooting

My senior partner at work has a grouse moor, so I happen to know a bit about this stuff. That article couldn't be more wrong if it tried (though it is Monbiat, so facts are always less important than the political message). It is class-warrior nonsense pretending to be ecological "science".

The drainage of uplands was encouraged by governments in 60s and 70s to increase agriculture in the uplands (not grouse populations).

Then research undertaken in the 1980s and 90s found that the moors were being eroded over time. Sediment was running off and causing issues downstream. The solution was to block the drains. Doing so could restore natural drainage patterns and help the re-vegetation of bare peat. Grouse moor managers have therefore been actively blocking drains to hold more water on their moors (they have been doing this in consultation with Defra and Natural England). The drain blocking has raised water tables, encouraged the growth of sphagnum moss. This moss slows the run-off of water into the river below.

If you don't believe me, then Professor Jeremy Purseglove, a noted ecologist has said there is no proven link between grouse moor management and flooding.

Grouse moors are rarer that rainforests - 75% of what remains is found in Britain. That is only due to it being managed for grouse shooting - without that is would be over-run by sheep and the rare birds that live there would become even more threatened. Species such as curlew and lapwing are up to five times more abundant on moors managed for red grouse. If you want to see how unmanaged moors far, read about the Langholm project.

[AJS-]

Heh. I'm far from a class warrior but any argument that starts with "my senior partner owns a grouse moor" is not going to win over the average Labour voter, no matter matter how sensible it is.

[AstonZagato]

No. And that is exactly the point. The issue is so steeped in class nonsense, wealth envy, eco-warrior claptrap, anti-hunting propaganda that the facts get ignored. The conservation money poured into that moor would make the RSPB blanch. My mate offered the RSPB to do a diversity study - any of their wildlife reserves versus his moor. If they lost, they would admit they were wrong about grouse shooting. If they won, they could trumpet the failures of moor owners to all and sundry. The RSPB turned him down. They knew they'd lose.

[Timmy40]

Indeed, nothing gives me greater pleasure than telling Gaurdian readers that as a farmer I oppose fox hunting ( and getting condescending smiles in return ) I then go on to explain my reasoning that the local hunt have every reason to ensure there are foxes in the countryside and regard them as sport whereas I regard them as a bloody nuisance that needs to be systematically annihiliated by shooting, poisoning, trapping all of which are far more efficient means of killing foxes than have fat women chasing around after them on 'orses.

[Digga]

Timmy40 said:

Indeed, nothing gives me greater pleasure than telling Gaurdian readers that as a farmer I oppose fox hunting ( and getting condescending smiles in return ) I then go on to explain my reasoning that the local hunt have every reason to ensure there are foxes in the countryside and regard them as sport whereas I regard them as a bloody nuisance that needs to be systematically annihiliated by shooting, poisoning, trapping all of which are far more efficient means of killing foxes than have fat women chasing around after them on 'orses.

I'm told, a bucket of fish heads, couple of decent Lurchers and a decent, high-powered torch works pretty well.