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

Child, the definition of rant does not include mildly observing that one will not give him money.

Go and learn how to converse, debate and discuss without leaping to incorrect conclusions, insulting people who have a different opinion, and generally behaving childishly. In the meantime you're off to ignore.
Be happy that of the broad and multi-faceted membership of 30,000 arrsers you are in an elite group numbering fewer than ten.
Narzi.
 
...ahem

How is Channel 4 funded?​
Unlike the BBC, Channel 4 receives no public funding. It is funded entirely by its own commercial activities.
My understanding is that C4 News does receive funding from tax, maybe indirectly via ITN and/or a grant

Rest of C4 is mostly ad-funded, but some DCMS funding too through quangos

Doesn't alter my belief that C4 should be sold
 
Child, the definition of rant does not include mildly observing that one will not give him money.

Go and learn how to converse, debate and discuss without leaping to incorrect conclusions, insulting people who have a different opinion, and generally behaving childishly. In the meantime you're off to ignore.
Be happy that of the broad and multi-faceted membership of 30,000 arrsers you are in an elite group numbering fewer than ten.
Excellent demonstration of "I'm loosing, I won't debate you" and to remind us of your denunciation, you repeat "will not give him (Murdoch) money" when Murdoch doesn't own Sky UK and FTA (except BBC) doesn't require giving money

Hey, ho, why let facts get in the way of Greta style "How dare you disagree" tirade

Ownership, shareholders, pension investments, brands, questions? Yep, best to ignore those when convinced of own virtue

What's next - "I hate the Queen, I will never give her money by walking for free in her parks"?

Ignore, Childish? Oh what wonderful projection

...and all because I questioned "Grownup" moniker :wave:
 
I, with others, very peacefully protected my local war memorial a couple of weeks ago because there was a BLM protest 100 metres away, the Cenotaph had been vandalised by them a few days before and the local paper predicted the memorial was a target.

The price of this is that my 19 year old daughter has now disowned me, and what was already a very fragile relationship, thanks to her mother filling her head with lies, now appears to be irrevocably damaged.

I hope BLM burn in the fires of hell.
She’ll come back
 
I, with others, very peacefully protected my local war memorial a couple of weeks ago because there was a BLM protest 100 metres away, the Cenotaph had been vandalised by them a few days before and the local paper predicted the memorial was a target.

The price of this is that my 19 year old daughter has now disowned me, and what was already a very fragile relationship, thanks to her mother filling her head with lies, now appears to be irrevocably damaged.

I hope BLM burn in the fires of hell.
That's very sad to hear.
All BLM is achieving is dividing us. You couldn't create a better recruiting ground for those on the extremes of both sides.
 
Front page news right now. Note the wording. Not just straight reporting but a deconstruction.

Valid, perhaps, but it's a shame that the same forensic approach isn't applied to some favourite organisations of our impartial national broadcaster.

If the BBC and the less objective wider media see a puff of smoke over something it does not like, then it can objectively, pull apart anything it likes and is confident, that it meets objectivitiy rules..

Of course, if you see smoke over something you like, then its probably just those nice people of the centre left having a barbecue and we know how nice they're are, so unless a large fire breaks out we will carry on hounding right leaning rogues.
 
Excellent demonstration of "I'm loosing, I won't debate you" and to remind us of your denunciation, you repeat "will not give him (Murdoch) money" when Murdoch doesn't own Sky UK and FTA (except BBC) doesn't require giving money

Hey, ho, why let facts get in the way of Greta style "How dare you disagree" tirade

Ownership, shareholders, pension investments, brands, questions? Yep, best to ignore those when convinced of own virtue

What's next - "I hate the Queen, I will never give her money by walking for free in her parks"?

Ignore, Childish? Oh what wonderful projection

...and all because I questioned "Grownup" moniker :wave:
Why would she debate with you, when you think your understanding Trump's facts. You are a child. See ya'
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Y'see, now I'm torn.

I'm not sure whether spending the money on Eastenders is any better.
Maybe that money will be used to make Deadenders more realistic by replacing the gorblimey pasty characters with actors of more vibrant hues?
 
My understanding is that C4 News does receive funding from tax, maybe indirectly via ITN and/or a grant

Rest of C4 is mostly ad-funded, but some DCMS funding too through quangos
Must be true then... I bow to your greater knowledge. Clearly everybody is wrong but you. Including C4C, the House of Lords as per links already provided and (but not limited to):

'No decisions' on Channel 4 future (BBC news item)
Channel 4 was launched in 1982 as a publicly-owned, commercially-funded public service broadcaster. It does not receive public funding and has a remit to be "innovative, experimental and distinctive".

Freedom of Information Response from C4
Channel 4 Annual Report (pages 198 & 207 details revenue).

We Own it
This success is linked to Channel 4’s public service broadcasting remit – producing innovative and quality content. Many people do not realise that Channel 4 is publicly owned. It is commercially run which means it funds itself through advertising and doesn’t cost us a penny. In fact, Channel 4 makes up to £2 billion for the economy each year. Profitable and high quality​
As a reminder... in criticising another contributor you said:
Being factually wrong is not 'winning debate'

BBC & C4 are worst as we're compelled to pay for them
Is Channel 4’s public funding a fact rather than just something you perhaps erroneously believe? Could you be 'factually wrong' in fact? Hello pot...

Hey, ho, why let facts get in the way
 
There's much more to the Left than Black People Matter so it's very far from a righting of the wrongs of Colonialism however much the Left says it is. Besides Colonialism, despite todays perception of it's wrongs (and there were some even back in the day) brought along quite a bit of good to the countries that were affected so do we get our money and lives back out of all this?
My ancestors from back in the days when the Romans, Vikings, Barberry Pirates etc were also taken as slaves and taken to Europe & Africa - please can I also have some free money from someone. Also the Germans caused WW1 & WW2 and some of my ancestors were killed by them - can I be compensated for that as well. Come to think of it - throughout history my people have been oppressed by someone at some time. If you give me free money I will feel better.......also any generations that come after me will also want some free money from someone so I will open a bank account, so that someone somewhere born in the future can give one of my decedents free money and stuff as well.

Thank you in advance, spawn of oppressors.
 
Monuments are so last week, the BBC are coming after the Countryside chaps get out the side locks. Unbelievable, am I allowed to say I feel threatened in Brixton or Leicester am I bollox.
The BBC programme aired an episode last night in which Dwayne Fields, above, investigated a DEFRA report saying some ethnic groups felt the UK's national parks are a 'white environment'
The BBC have gone beyond subliminal and moved onto a full on Goebbels propaganda drive. The countryside is a white environment? Utter subjective shite. The comments in the Mail pretty much sum it up.
 
Agreed. But nothing is being done about it.
Not yet. I live in hope that the incumbent government acknowledges the reality that not only are the BBC increasingly biased, particularly towards the political left, but also recognises that a funding stream, which is effectively a legalised protection racket dressed up in quaint terms is an unacceptable and unjustifiable anachronism.
 
Victoria Derbyshire preparing to push the case for some statue to a black footballer who never was. Subjected to racism apparently. The BBC really are doubling down on all this BLM stuff...as the rest of the bien pensents are looking for ways to moonwalk away from the issue- after jumping the gun and kneeling too early, now a few things are coming to light.
 
Agreed. But nothing is being done about it.
Don't pay your licence - the sooner everyone just stops paying it, they will get the hint. I've never paid for a BBC licence and never will, I've always thought they were corrupt and morally bankrupt & they will never get a singe penny from me. I've had the TV twats coming round my house a few times asking about a licence - but I just tell them to piss off.
 
Must be true then... I bow to your greater knowledge. Clearly everybody is wrong but you. Including C4C, the House of Lords as per links already provided and (but not limited to):

'No decisions' on Channel 4 future (BBC news item)
Channel 4 was launched in 1982 as a publicly-owned, commercially-funded public service broadcaster. It does not receive public funding and has a remit to be "innovative, experimental and distinctive".

Freedom of Information Response from C4
Channel 4 Annual Report (pages 198 & 207 details revenue).

We Own it
This success is linked to Channel 4’s public service broadcasting remit – producing innovative and quality content. Many people do not realise that Channel 4 is publicly owned. It is commercially run which means it funds itself through advertising and doesn’t cost us a penny. In fact, Channel 4 makes up to £2 billion for the economy each year. Profitable and high quality​
As a reminder... in criticising another contributor you said:


Is Channel 4’s public funding a fact rather than just something you perhaps erroneously believe? Could you be 'factually wrong' in fact? Hello pot...
Factcist.
 
BBC: "The trees & virus are racist man, they are saying black lives don't matter" - Oh the horror

Is the countryside racist? BBC sparks race row after claiming BAME community feel unwelcome
Phone in Simon was good too

Charity boss Nick Buckley MBE has stood by his comments criticising the Black Lives Matter organisation after his views cost him his job

White man loses his job because he made a justified comment about the BLM. Yet black Cambridge Gopal tweets a comment “white lives don’t matter” and not only does she keep her job, she gets a promotion

It's whites not non-whites who face discrimination

Nigel nails it
Boris Johnson needs to get out of this woke PC agenda
Its basically a numbers game.
Screech and holler and jump up and down as much as you like, the silent majority are viewing you with mildly concealed contempt.
An 80 seat majority far outweighs free broadband for all.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Not yet. I live in hope that the incumbent government acknowledges the reality that not only are the BBC increasingly biased, particularly towards the political left, but also recognises that a funding stream, which is effectively a legalised protection racket dressed up in quaint terms is an unacceptable and unjustifiable anachronism.
Say it like it really is. The BBC is racist. It is anti-white , in the sense that it is fully prepared to attack the majority population for all of its 'endemic' and 'systemic' failings, yet it won't criticise anyone else.

And that is not okay.
 
Maybe that money will be used to make Deadenders more realistic by replacing the gorblimey pasty characters with actors of more vibrant hues?
3 stabbings per episode, a cannabis farm replacing Arfurs allotment and pidgin subtitles.
Oh, not forgetting to replace the theme music with a call to prayers.
 
Top