This child is a bit odd using the "royal" 'us' and 'we'. A real one man's People's Army of Judea type. I bet it's mummy finds out what it's up to and sends it to bed, all before we all ignore it and wait for it to get fed up and go and play somewhere else.
We detect here the beginnings of a dishonest debating tactic. Let's just recap:
1. You claimed that we want to abolish the BBC because we don't like it, as if our position is whimsical.
2. We replied by explaining that we have reasons for wanting to abolish the BBC and kindly referred you to our website. It is not, or not just, that we dislike the BBC.
3. You now reply stating that since we are not abolishing the BBC because we dislike it, that must mean that we like the BBC and therefore we can't have a good reason for abolishing it.
4. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that liking or dislking something is not necessarily related to wishing to either reform, change or abolish something.
Before you reply on this point (if you do burden us with another response), could we ask that you read carefully what we have just said and try to think logically.
Here you dishonesty omit our points that:
(i). the BBC is part-funded out of general taxation, in the form of government grant aid money; and,
(ii). under the relevant statute and supporting regulation, a licence fee is required to be paid by all persons who are in possession of television-receiving equipment.
Both these points nullify your argument.
Our complaint in regard to bias is not predicated on the belief that the BBC should be unbiased, rather it is predicated on the belief that since media organisations will be biased, there should be a competitive marketplace and people should be allowed to fully exercise choice. The existence of the BBC precludes this. Payment for the BBC is compulsory for us all as taxpayers and mandatory for all those who possess television-receiving equipment. With respect, that is not choice. That is authoritarianism.
It's not clear what you are talking about here.
We don't object to the salaries paid. But they can be paid by the private sector based on the choices exercised by viewers and listeners.
That's entirely your choice - so far, nearly 5,000 people disagree with you, and that petition has only been running for a few days. We think there will be more support.
I already knew arguing with you was a futile exercise because, like most single issue agenda types, you join a forum to promote your single issue and anyone opposing it is "shot down in flames".
Do you not see the irony of what you're protesting against here?
No idea why this site attracts so many, but rest assured you're not the first, you probably won't be the last.
I have no doubt that, like those before you, you thoroughly believe in what you're doing and would say I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours - but like I said previously, happy to pay the £12 a month for what I get out of it. As are the other 64,995,000, apparently.
OK, OK, not that many (1 license per household and all that), but you get my meaning.
And no, I'm not dishonest. I even tell the truth about my waistline, my disappointing sexual performances and inability to fight my way out of a paper bag.
Quelle surprise at the contrariness from your corner.
When did she last play, say the Albert Hall or Hyde Park (as did Paul Simon a few weeks ago - at the same age).
She was appearing in a speculative film called The Blues Brothers by the age of 38 (with James Brown)
Who also makes your 'modern great' category ?
(am interested to know where the bar is set)
I like evidence, you see, in preference to the good ol' sweeping statement
It's very difficult to label an incident such as this before the Police have established the facts.
There were two incidents last year that had could potentially have been terror related but that turned out to have been nothing of the sort. The confusion usually stems from members of the public seeing and misinterpreting what they have witnessed. This wasn't a problem before they had the ability to tweet their often hysterical observations..
In October last year a car drove into and slightly injured some pedestrians in South Kensington. I was sitting at the BBC news desk (literally next to the News Editor) chatting with a producer, when the rumours started:
A middle Eastern (Muslim) had carried out a 'Berlin' style attack on members of the public in Central London.
There was a great deal of excitement but the news desk were reticent about using the T word until they had more info; which was just as well..
Reality: An Uber driver had got confused by the unique layout of Exhibition Road and accidentally struck some pedestrians. At no time did the Police mention an act of terror in their statements.
Interestingly standing outside the cordon I saw our friend Tommy Robinson running around asking tourists on camera what they thought of Muslim terrorists endangering their lives.
Then in November of last year another flurry of hysterical tweets: 'A gunman is running amok at Oxford Circus!!'
I happened to be standing on a balcony at Broadcasting House testing a BGAN when the incident occurred.
From my position I could hear screaming and saw a wave of pedestrians running from the direction of the tube entrance. By the time I got through to the desk everyone one was in full flap mode. Eventually I set up a camera and was able to get a good view... of some pretty relaxed Armed cops. A cordon was in place and pedestrians were being directed away.
At this time the incident was being referred to by broadcasters including the BBC, as a potential terrorist incident. Those of us observing what was unfolding were pretty convinced it wasn't terror related because we had seen the SO13 convoy (Breaching vehicle, Range Rovers and Transit Vans) turn up, only to be stood down immediately.
It soon became clear that the incident was nothing more than two blokes having a fight on the platform which had caused, consternation, a stampede and a thousand panicking messages via social media claiming murder and mayhem.
In both cases the news desk's priority was to report the known facts as soon as possible (i.e before the other broadcasters) and the danger here is that of misinformation. Bearing in mind how these stories panned out it's no surprise that more recent incidents have seen Editors being more circumspect.