Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

I don't have any interest in reading a 500 page report, I went to the primary source to avoid the ever-predictable "that's guido therefore I'm just going to ignore it" deflections.

If the BBC's impartiality issues could be described solely as left wing bias I doubt they'd be scoring as poorly as they are.

Me neither I meant this thread.

There's no thread on ITV bias or Sky bias or Channel 5 bias yet as the graphic shows it's that close in terms of perception of bias.

It's not so much about ignoring Guido but realising that Paul Staines deliberately based his blog offshore because he thinks British libel laws are too oppressive.

I think the thread is mainly about not liking that there's a TV licence fee.

Quite correct, I object to compulsory being made to pay for a view of the world I do not subscribe to.

And I don't like where some of my taxes go to either...but hey ho.

This is not just a Tax is it? Without a licence you cannot watch TV programmes from other suppliers, why should I pay the BBC to watch ITV,
unlike general taxation which covers many different needs, the BBC licence fee is as the name implies solely for the BBC.

It doesn't just fund BBC TV channels (including CBBC) but also its radio stations, BBC iPlayer, BBC Sounds and online services and apps. Most people who say they never use the BBC are actually fibbing and will dip into it occassionally no matter how much they say they don’t.

Big sporting events, big entertainment shows etc...

If that is the case it should be a subscription service and everyone who wants to pay can.

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

I don't have any interest in reading a 500 page report, I went to the primary source to avoid the ever-predictable "that's guido therefore I'm just going to ignore it" deflections.

If the BBC's impartiality issues could be described solely as left wing bias I doubt they'd be scoring as poorly as they are.

Me neither I meant this thread.

There's no thread on ITV bias or Sky bias or Channel 5 bias yet as the graphic shows it's that close in terms of perception of bias.

It's not so much about ignoring Guido but realising that Paul Staines deliberately based his blog offshore because he thinks British libel laws are too oppressive.

I think the thread is mainly about not liking that there's a TV licence fee.

Quite correct, I object to compulsory being made to pay for a view of the world I do not subscribe to.

And I don't like where some of my taxes go to either...but hey ho.

This is not just a Tax is it? Without a licence you cannot watch TV programmes from other suppliers, why should I pay the BBC to watch ITV,
unlike general taxation which covers many different needs, the BBC licence fee is as the name implies solely for the BBC.

It doesn't just fund BBC TV channels (including CBBC) but also its radio stations, BBC iPlayer, BBC Sounds and online services and apps. Most people who say they never use the BBC are actually fibbing and will dip into it occassionally no matter how much they say they don’t.

Big sporting events, big entertainment shows etc...

If that is the case it should be a subscription service and everyone who wants to pay can.

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

[klan8456]

PRTVR said:

Quite correct, I object to compulsory being made to pay for a view of the world I do not subscribe to.

You don’t have to pay. I don’t have a TV license. Haven’t watched TV for 8 years now.

[dickymint]

klan8456 said:

PRTVR said:

Quite correct, I object to compulsory being made to pay for a view of the world I do not subscribe to.

You don’t have to pay. I don’t have a TV license. Haven’t watched TV for 8 years now.

Commendable, i would do the same in a heartbeat (not have a TV license) but Wifey is having none of it based on her perceived view of the hassle involved. We are not prepared to not watch TV in it's entirety.

The option that could work but will never be adopted by any UK government is quite simple - TV providers such as Sky, BT etc all have the ability to block households from receiving any channel they want so give us the option to opt out of being able to view all of the BBC. It really is that simple.

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

[chrispmartha]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

[R Mutt]

There was a refreshing question on Channel 5 asking how the government would be able to win round the public on lockdowns considering the number of rebel Tories.

[PRTVR]

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

I don't use Nuclear Weapons, can I have my tax back?

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

I don't use Nuclear Weapons, can I have my tax back?

Entertainment? As far as I know they are not used for light entertainment.

[amusingduck]

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

I don't use Nuclear Weapons, can I have my tax back?

You're using them whilst they're sat doing nothing, like the rest of us

[chrispmartha]

PRTVR said:

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

The point being it's not a personal choice to pay for other forms of entertainment whether you use them or not - just like the TV Licence.

So do you think its acceptable for some of your tax to go towards paying for those forms of entertainment or is it just the BBC you have an issue with?

[Gadgetmac]

amusingduck said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

I don't use Nuclear Weapons, can I have my tax back?

You're using them whilst they're sat doing nothing, like the rest of us

Not true. Italy, Spain, Sweden etc don't feel the need to pay for nukes. You pay for them, I don't want to. Where do I queue for a refund?

[98elise]

Gadgetmac said:

amusingduck said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

chrispmartha said:

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

How do you suggest we do that with Radio stations?

The same as commercial radio station, I still find it strange that people think that charging for entertainment they do not use is acceptable, I have not listened to the BBC radio for about 8 years.

We all pay for a lot of things (including entertainment) that we might not use.

The difference is all entertainment are personal choices, except the BBC with the "unique way it is funded "

I don't use Nuclear Weapons, can I have my tax back?

You're using them whilst they're sat doing nothing, like the rest of us

Not true. Italy, Spain, Sweden etc don't feel the need to pay for nukes. You pay for them, I don't want to. Where do I queue for a refund?

When they send you a bill refuse to pay it.

On the subject of Nukes we're obliged to spend a certain amount on defence as part of NATO. The fact we have Nukes doesn't change that figure. We maintain a nuclear deterrent, and the ability to operate our armed forces anywhere in the globe (few countries can do this).

I'm glad we have that capability both as part of NATO, and as an independent country.

[Scrump]

Volume 2:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...