|
Post by nob on Jul 21, 2017 15:56:51 GMT
More patriotic than most in that place. I would have left the Thatcher bit out though. So, it would have been Chuchill, Neave and Fat Arthur. Yep but not in that order.
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 21, 2017 18:08:25 GMT
Simple answer to the "biased broadcasting corp", sell it off, make it pay for itself and SCRAP THE LICENCE(tax) fee! ... Snigger
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 21, 2017 18:41:08 GMT
AFAIK, the licence fee is for the equipment at the premises and not for the BBC.The fact that such revenue is apothecated for Aunty is unrelated. We all know that there is nowt so certain as death or taxes, so I can't believe that anyone actually believes that flogging off The Beeb will result in the abandonment of the TV licence. Focus forward and visualise all those stations that survive such a cull as suggested being peppered with mind numbing repetitive brain washing advertising while we are still expected to cough up to licence the equipment in our homes? Nope. It's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 21, 2017 19:59:20 GMT
AFAIK, the licence fee is for the equipment at the premises and not for the BBC.The fact that such revenue is apothecated for Aunty is unrelated. We all know that there is nowt so certain as death or taxes, so I can't believe that anyone actually believes that flogging off The Beeb will result in the abandonment of the TV licence. Focus forward and visualise all those stations that survive such a cull as suggested being peppered with mind numbing repetitive brain washing advertising while we are still expected to cough up to licence the equipment in our homes? Nope. It's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. e&oe... So BJ....how do they fund TV equipment in the USA and other countries where there is no national license fee?
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 21, 2017 20:42:42 GMT
Why do they licence fishing rods over here? Fishing may or may not be free but the equipment still needs a licence. The media in the USA is funded at least in part by advertising. I'm guessing that you don't need rod licences over there either. It would take federal action to impose a licence on such equipment over there and would be virtually impossible to police even if it could be enacted- why would they when it's already self funding through advertising? The power of the NRA illustrates the hurdles to be scaled in such an attempt to change the status quo. Over here it's just historically useful to pipe the revenue over to fund state broadcasting, but if that situation was to change, the exchequer will not let go of its licencing revenue. I'm happy not to contribute because I don't consume BBC or any other media delivered by licenced equipment. Even iPlayer is subject to the licence now so they can shove that too. If you are advocating selling off the Beeb to private equity (or whatever), apart from the loss of the oasis in a sea of advertising- I agree, but I'll bet that the equipment will still require a licence, and as I said; baby/bathwater.
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 21, 2017 22:33:12 GMT
Why do they licence fishing rods over here? Fishing may or may not be free but the equipment still needs a licence. The media in the USA is funded at least in part by advertising. I'm guessing that you don't need rod licences over there either. It would take federal action to impose a licence on such equipment over there and would be virtually impossible to police even if it could be enacted- why would they when it's already self funding through advertising? The power of the NRA illustrates the hurdles to be scaled in such an attempt to change the status quo. Over here it's just historically useful to pipe the revenue over to fund state broadcasting, but if that situation was to change, the exchequer will not let go of its licencing revenue. I'm happy not to contribute because I don't consume BBC or any other media delivered by licenced equipment. Even iPlayer is subject to the licence now so they can shove that too. If you are advocating selling off the Beeb to private equity (or whatever), apart from the loss of the oasis in a sea of advertising- I agree, but I'll bet that the equipment will still require a licence, and as I said; baby/bathwater. e&oe... Not quite true, it's perfectly legal to own a fishing rod without having a license. Anyway, if countries such as USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal and Holland can struggle along without imposing this left wing propaganda tax on their citizens, then I'm pretty damned certain that it wouldn't be beyond the wit of a Brit government led by someone with a pair to do the same here. Just saying like!
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 21, 2017 23:24:53 GMT
And it's perfectly legal to own a TV without a licence too, even one with a three pin plug still attached.
We have enjoyed right wing political influence during the whole of my working life. (You can't convince me that 'New Labour" was left wing- even Tina gave Bliar the thumbs-up.) Add to that the fact that the Media in this country is almost totally right wing makes me wonder how this so-called left wing organisation has survived intact through it all.
I regularly hear interviews on The Home Service where the interviewer gives politicians of either persuasion as well as Brexiteers and Remoaners equally short shrift. He (or she) has to because none of the interviewees let go once they get a chance and will happily keep talking while his or her adversary is doing the same. Alligator stations- all mouth and no ears! In fairness, some of the interviewers are just as bad. The trouble is that when a point of view contrary to what anyone contrives to believe is given any oxygen of publicity at all, it is jumped on and I hear wolf being cried. I guess that's democracy.
Tonight on Radio 4 I heard La Farage being given an uninterrupted opportunity to put forward his thoughts across regarding the timeline of the Brexit negotiations and making very good sense IMO, but I suppose in the interests of turning the knife in the Beeb's guts that can be conveniently forgotten, after all- they're just a load of lefty *insert suitable derogatory descriptor*.
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 22, 2017 8:31:30 GMT
And it's perfectly legal to own a TV without a licence too, even one with a three pin plug still attached. We have enjoyed right wing political influence during the whole of my working life. (You can't convince me that 'New Labour" was left wing- even Tina gave Bliar the thumbs-up.) Add to that the fact that the Media in this country is almost totally right wing makes me wonder how this so-called left wing organisation has survived intact through it all. I regularly hear interviews on The Home Service where the interviewer gives politicians of either persuasion as well as Brexiteers and Remoaners equally short shrift. He (or she) has to because none of the interviewees let go once they get a chance and will happily keep talking while his or her adversary is doing the same. Alligator stations- all mouth and no ears! In fairness, some of the interviewers are just as bad. The trouble is that when a point of view contrary to what anyone contrives to believe is given any oxygen of publicity at all, it is jumped on and I hear wolf being cried. I guess that's democracy. Tonight on Radio 4 I heard La Farage being given an uninterrupted opportunity to put forward his thoughts across regarding the timeline of the Brexit negotiations and making very good sense IMO, but I suppose in the interests of turning the knife in the Beeb's guts that can be conveniently forgotten, after all- they're just a load of lefty *insert suitable derogatory descriptor*.
e&oe... Absolutely!
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 22, 2017 8:47:23 GMT
Anyway, one thing that's puzzled me is why just because someone supports Brexit they automatically seem become 'Right Wing' When did policies such as controlling our own borders, making our own laws and deporting illegal immigrants..... become right wing? Strange that 'cos I'm fairly sure that those policies weren't 'Right Wing' in 1939.
|
|
|
Post by nob on Jul 22, 2017 9:51:29 GMT
Andrew Neil?? I didn't know that but it would explain his attitude with remaniac Lammy and tother Tory anti patriot and his saying two against one when Suzanne Evans was with them. I'll view that guy in a new light now.
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 22, 2017 12:16:49 GMT
And bizarre when you remember that Corbyn is a long time celebrated Brexiteer that now unexpectedly finds himself at the head of a remoaning party. Actually, the plebiscite fell into his lap; all he has to do is walk the tightrope between quarreling Bliarites and his own long held ambition, while the Tories similarly battle it out. I can imagine a scenario where Brer Corbyn will eventually be seen as the one that saved Brexit, because it certainly won't be that ex-remoaner May woman.
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by nob on Jul 22, 2017 12:23:27 GMT
It certainly wont be Hammond, he was on his way out so its revenge time for him and his attempts at derailing Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 22, 2017 15:14:36 GMT
Hmmmm...I've been thinking about this remark by BJ. I am of course assuming that by "the Media" he is referring to the print media. Well, leaving aside the 'Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Observer and the comically named 'Independant' ... then I'll accept that the Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun, each of them Brexit supporting newspapers could by some folk's definition be labelled 'Right Wing' Of course, the difference between all of those newspapers and the BBC is that no-one needs to buy a licence to read them! Also of course, even folks that don't have a TV may need a TV licence. Indeed, if a law abiding gent such as myself were to sit in a field and using his mobile data allowance watch a live tv show on his Smart fone, then he too could be prosecuted for not having a TV license. Summat else to think about. Apparently nearly 180,000 folks were prosecuted last year for not having a TV license. Figures show that over 70% of them were women! Hmmm, I think that it's reasonable to assume that of that 70% ... a goodly portion were single parents who were struggling to make ends meet. So, yer caring sharing BBC drag them to court and because they couldn't afford to pay £145 pa license fee, they happily watch them get fined up to £1000. Perhaps this post should be moved to the YCNMTU thread. Just saying like.
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jul 22, 2017 19:26:19 GMT
Are we going to ignore the way registered blind people still have to cough up an oh so generously (grudgingly?) reduced fee for the privilege of "watching" telly when the over 70s get it for free? Oh sorry- I forgot, they're both government decrees that the Beeb has to fund. After they've ensured that they have neither made a profit or a loss while managing their stipend of course.
"You don't need a licence to read them". True enough but unless you rob them off the stands you need to pay for them and it's not possible to licence the equipment used to read them. If they could find a way then I'm sure they would but they've got to crack the thorny issue of how to licence your lungs first.
OK on the Mirror, but The Grauniad? I recall that it only recently slipped away from a coalition dalliance back to its traditional stomping ground. The Observer? Siamese twin with The Grauniad. The independent? Hmm- neither fish nor foul and deffo not lefty (allegedly) but cocked its snoot to its readership recently probably due to its rooskie proprieter(s). Surprisingly no mention of that bastion of bias The Morning Star!
The Express- blue. The Star- blue. The Sun- (follows the zeitgeist and currently a droit) The Torygraph- I don't need to comment. The Times (and its siblings)- (another chameleon currently affecting a blue rinse) The FT- (another wobbler currently to the right). The Evening Standard- (died in the wool true blue) The Sunday People- The Spectator- The New Statesman- Clue me because I don't know about either.
What is the overall picture here regarding print media political allegiances?
I guess I see things through black and white specs because while I would be the first to agree that it's immoral and wrong to penalise single parent mums, and I wouldn't have the bare faced nerve to do it myself, at the end of the day it's not acceptable to think that because you have spent what little available cash you do have on other "essentials", it's then OK to watch TV on unlicenced equipment. Making criminals out of mums in penury is in itself a sound reason to abolish the TV tax- if you have no pud then you could then just put up with the ads, but to use that as an example why we should trash the Beeb and its ad-free oasis for the rest of us is unrelated and daft in my view. You can always change the channel. You retain that power. I wonder whether if the Beeb was demonstrably right leaning and openly pro-Brexit there would be a similar push here to abolish the TV tax? If not then it's not about the tax- it's about disagreeing with another viewpoint for no better reason than it doesn't chime with your own.
The BBC is one of the most quintessentially status quo organisations going and even if I was to disagree with what I might see as an abuse of their position in their own interests, that is not really synonymous with lefty subversion on their part.
As it stands, life definitely goes on without a TV, just as it does without fags (and booze mobile 'phone, internet access, Sky and so on). Don't have enough money left this week? No worries just ignore the car tax. Whatever your situation, cut your cloth accordingly. If you are in a desperate financial situation, turn the box off. End of. It's not the end of the world. At the end of the day it's the children that really suffer, especially if mum gets bundled off to prison for something that ought to be no more than a civil wrong. Disgusting but it happens and society should be ashamed. I am and it's nothing over which I have any influence, especially when it's my (our) taxes that go to keep these people in prison. Remind me: what exactly is a scrote to which some have so frequently referred?
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by Ratae on Jul 22, 2017 21:15:09 GMT
"Scrote" Well, I expect that different folks have different definitions of this adjective. But it seems to me that the definition most accepted in my neck of the woods is .... A worthless, workshy,thieving toerag, who thinks the tax payer owes him (always a male) a living, or possibly a sciving,wannabe drug dealer/user type who almost always gets caught and then whinges for a brief cos " I got me f*cking rights, innit".
|
|