BBC bias in question (which way do they lean?)

I'm very much for reporting the new, unusual and potentially ground-breaking.

The paradox is that whilst also espousing the 'new', for example veganism, we also live in a society where to judge is beyond the pale.

To pick but one example:

We can't 'fat-shame', for instance; we can't tell the truth about such as obesity.

A female friend of mine said to me that she sat through some drivel on Women's Hour last week where an 'outsize' (fat) female was gobbing on about how thin people are jealous of her body shape and happiness. It was all abutter and her beauty.

Huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on there. No, I'm not jealous. At all. But were I to say anything to the contrary I'd be criticising and indicative of all that is bad in the world.

More and more, we are being forced to 'celebrate' the different (and, in some cases, quite damaged). It's tedious. And, hey, in the case of obesity it's costly.

If someone's happy in their body, fine. Why the hell does that need air time, though? And why is looking after yourself 'elitist' or 'shaming'?

We've stepped through the looking glass.
Words have lost their meaning..... Respect/acceptance has evolved to a binary response and either your for or against something and the BBC make no effort to adopt a mature attitude to call out the idiots who choose to misinterperate language intentionally.

As a supposed bastion, its one of many proofs of bias that the BBC simply refuse to acknowledge.
 
Words have lost their meaning..... Respect/acceptance has evolved to a binary response and either your for or against something and the BBC make no effort to adopt a mature attitude to call out the idiots who choose to misinterperate language intentionally.

As a supposed bastion, its one of many proofs of bias that the BBC simply refuse to acknowledge.
Truth has lost its meaning as far as the bbc is concerned.
 
Truth has lost its meaning as far as the bbc is concerned.
The lost truth is the BBC is biased, for the very same reason it massively supported the theory of institutional racism and the idea, that groups of people are trained or conditioned to have a bias, towards difference. Yet, in itself, it fails to detect its own institutionally progressivism, which can only be defined as biased by the same theory.

In plain language, the BBC is about as big a hypocrite we have, in our present system of governance and why I despise it so much and resent chipping up for it.. Unlike graculus, I am a law abiding citizen and wish the law changed and not to simply port around the problem.
 

Awol

LE
In plain language, the BBC is about as big a hypocrite we have, in our present system of governance and why I despise it so much and resent chipping up for it.. Unlike graculus, I am a law abiding citizen and wish the law changed and not to simply port around the problem.
I think it's completely reasonable to argue that it is now legally justifiable to refuse to pay the for the TV licence because it is blatantly failing to provide the unbiased reporting it is contracted to do.

It's also allegedly the reason that nobody who has stated bias as the reason for refusing to pay the BBC's tax has ever been prosecuted. If (when) the BBC lose the case, it would set a legal precedent which would bankrupt them.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Obesity affects the NHS and the environment, two of the BBC's favourite topics but they are presumably trumped by social justice. Oh dear, how will they resolve that dilema?
Well, for a start we could classify it for what it is in the vast majority of cases: a lifestyle choice/consequence of lifestyle. It is not - bar some relatively rare and unfortunate cases - an illness.

At that point, start telling those with pieabetes to get a grip of the diet and get some exercise.
 

skeetstar

Old-Salt
I think it's completely reasonable to argue that it is now legally justifiable to refuse to pay the for the TV licence because it is blatantly failing to provide the unbiased reporting it is contracted to do.

It's also allegedly the reason that nobody who has stated bias as the reason for refusing to pay the BBC's tax has ever been prosecuted. If (when) the BBC lose the case, it would set a legal precedent which would bankrupt them.
I've often wondered what the legal situation would be were I to write to the bbc stating that their product is not worth the 'price' I have to pay. I would make a payment which reflected what I thought was the value to me. The bbc would then have a case against me for debt rather than non payment.

Would they then gave to seek a civil remedy rather than a prosecution?

Could the licence fee be seen as the price of the product or is it something else? Bent is a civil matter is it not?
 

Awol

LE
Obesity affects the NHS and the environment, two of the BBC's favourite topics but they are presumably trumped by social justice. Oh dear, how will they resolve that dilema?
I think there could be a thread here.

List the diversity characteristics in order of BBC favoured wokeyness, or alternatively predict which diverse minority characteristics out trump all others. For example, now that the BBC has said that there isn't enough diversity in its output (Holy Mother of God) and we are reaching a point where majorities on the screen will actually be in a minority, what criteria will be applied if a disabled black woman was vying for the same head role (possibly Zola Budd's life story, knowing the BBC), as a transgender Asian climate activist.

It is a bit worrying to type this, but I do wonder (and only half tongue in cheek) if there actually is a BBC memo listing which minorities get priority over the others.
 

craven50

Old-Salt
I think it's completely reasonable to argue that it is now legally justifiable to refuse to pay the for the TV licence because it is blatantly failing to provide the unbiased reporting it is contracted to do.

It's also allegedly the reason that nobody who has stated bias as the reason for refusing to pay the BBC's tax has ever been prosecuted. If (when) the BBC lose the case, it would set a legal precedent which would bankrupt them.
I think the statement nobody has been prosecuted because of their bias is erronious.

I gave up the BBC and turned in my licence never looked back. :D :D
 
I think there could be a thread here.

List the diversity characteristics in order of BBC favoured wokeyness, or alternatively predict which diverse minority characteristics out trump all others. For example, now that the BBC has said that there isn't enough diversity in its output (Holy Mother of God) and we are reaching a point where majorities on the screen will actually be in a minority, what criteria will be applied if a disabled black woman was vying for the same head role (possibly Zola Budd's life story, knowing the BBC), as a transgender Asian climate activist.

It is a bit worrying to type this, but I do wonder (and only half tongue in cheek) if there actually is a BBC memo listing which minorities get priority over the others.
Urgent from BBC Thought Police:

Who leaked this to you????????
 
I think there could be a thread here.

List the diversity characteristics in order of BBC favoured wokeyness, or alternatively predict which diverse minority characteristics out trump all others. For example, now that the BBC has said that there isn't enough diversity in its output (Holy Mother of God) and we are reaching a point where majorities on the screen will actually be in a minority, what criteria will be applied if a disabled black woman was vying for the same head role (possibly Zola Budd's life story, knowing the BBC), as a transgender Asian climate activist.

It is a bit worrying to type this, but I do wonder (and only half tongue in cheek) if there actually is a BBC memo listing which minorities get priority over the others.
Who prioritises the prioritisers?
brain-storm.gif
 
Last edited:

Awol

LE
I've often wondered what the legal situation would be were I to write to the bbc stating that their product is not worth the 'price' I have to pay. I would make a payment which reflected what I thought was the value to me. The bbc would then have a case against me for debt rather than non payment.

Would they then gave to seek a civil remedy rather than a prosecution?

Could the licence fee be seen as the price of the product or is it something else? Bent is a civil matter is it not?
I would simply write to them (recorded delivery, of course), and say that because of hundreds of cases of blatant bias that you have recorded for the past three years (anti Brexit bias for three years, conservative MPs being interrupted within in seconds almost every time, slips of the tongue during referendum/election nights etc,etc) that you feel they are failing in their charter obligations.

I bet you'll never hear a peep out of them again.
 

Awol

LE
I think the statement nobody has been prosecuted because of their bias is erronious.

I gave up the BBC and turned in my licence never looked back. :D :D
I had a jobsworthy 'enforcement' bloke at the door one evening. Spongebob was blasting out of the TV, the kids were happily jumping up and down on the sofa and he said 'I see you haven't got a TV licence'.

'No', I replied with a half smile, 'I don't have a TV'.

He frowned and said, 'What's that noise'.

'My kids' I said.

'Can I come in for a minute ' he said.

'No' I said.



He left.




.
 

craven50

Old-Salt
I had a jobsworthy 'enforcement' bloke at the door one evening. Spongebob was blasting out of the TV, the kids were happily jumping up and down on the sofa and he said 'I see you haven't got a TV licence'.

'No', I replied with a half smile, 'I don't have a TV'.

He frowned and said, 'What's that noise'.

'My kids' I said.

'Can I come in for a minute ' he said.

'No' I said.



He left.
But was that a lie? Do you ever watch BBC? I don't and it's like breath of fresh air:p
 
He's a contrarian and long been on my Ignore list which is a shame as he used to post interesting stuff.
I haven't changed in my general posting style. HTH.
He appears to be a person who has harboured intense resentment that his opinions are in a minority on the site.. To an extent, he seems to have convinced himself, that as a result we are clueless and not worthy. The fact, the general population elected Boris and others he holds a low opinion of, puts him in a minority off site as well.

Seems like an ideal candidate for a role in the BBC editorial team.
You appear to be making stuff up....again. And...when this kind of thing is coming from a poster who deleted his account, then selectively plays to the crowd with his new account, you have to ask what their motives are, don't you?

You're also shy of a bit of logic, you have no idea about my opinions other than I hold a low opinion of yourself and some other posters on site. wafflers.

Getting elected with a majority doesn't mean the majority of the country supports Borist BTW. get back to me when you work it out.
 

Top