Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

Most students have been told not to return to their halls of residence because of the Covid crisis, so it begs the question, who are these 'revellers', are they bona fide students and while the BBC report blurs their faces, their hands are exposed. Again, lots of facts missing or just not being reported.

The BBC and the MSM constantly remind us who is most at danger in this pandemic...
 
Most students have been told not to return to their halls of residence because of the Covid crisis, so it begs the question, who are these 'revellers', are they bona fide students and while the BBC report blurs their faces, their hands are exposed. Again, lots of facts missing or just not being reported.

The BBC and the MSM constantly remind us who is most at danger in this pandemic...
Students.
For the most part, what bloody use are they?
 
Are the BBC really stating that different races have different physical characteristics?
How very dare they. Its so white supremacist to point out the vigour of the white race in defeating the kung flu versus the inherent weakness of brown people.













Yes I am being sarcastic for the erasure of any Snowflake doubt.
 
Are the BBC really stating that different races have different physical characteristics?
How very dare they. Its so white supremacist to point out the vigour of the white race in defeating the kung flu versus the inherent weakness of brown people.













Yes I am being sarcastic for the erasure of any Snowflake doubt.
Flucist.
 
As usual, BBC News fails to report all of the facts...

"Krystina Arielle, the host of the newly announced Star Wars: The High Republic Show, has a history of anti-white, racist tweets."​

McCartyism comes back.JPG
 
Most students have been told not to return to their halls of residence because of the Covid crisis, so it begs the question, who are these 'revellers', are they bona fide students and while the BBC report blurs their faces, their hands are exposed. Again, lots of facts missing or just not being reported.

The BBC and the MSM constantly remind us who is most at danger in this pandemic...

"Covid-19 is a disease that kills fewer than one in 100 people it infects, so the more people contract it, the greater chance of a fatality occurring. And the risk of serious complications is driven up by the fact ethnic minorities are more likely than white people to suffer from pre-existing health conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

It comes amid fears that BAME Brits will refuse the coronavirus vaccine, with surveys showing up to 70 per cent say they are 'unlikely' to accept it."

It's a funny old game, Saint.
 
BMA are right up there with whatever the NUT is called these days.

These are the people consistently peddling the "underfunded NHS" myth, which which actually means "increase NHS budget by 4% pa in real terms" irrespective of affordability.
It rather sticks in the craw, especially coming from a Corbynista Hospital Consultant (retd) in my immediate family.

Btw, a bit more on the 'retd' bit...

Left aged 55, on full whack final salary plus enough of a lump sum to buy a sizeable chunk of England's green and pleasant land.
I'm not critical of his life choices , but I was brought up with the saying.
"Don't speak when your mouth's full"

He shouts!
There's alot of it about.
Aunty loves 'em.
 
Most students have been told not to return to their halls of residence because of the Covid crisis, so it begs the question, who are these 'revellers', are they bona fide students and while the BBC report blurs their faces, their hands are exposed. Again, lots of facts missing or just not being reported.

The BBC and the MSM constantly remind us who is most at danger in this pandemic...
I have a relative at one of the prestigious universities and I have it from them that a large amount of students are know aboutand are using mental health loophole claims to return. Obviously some have genuine issues but the test are either lying or just feeling a bit down and sorry for themselves and being the selfish twats they are all they think about us themselves.
Also they said they are all ignoring the rules and having parties and that they know they can just tell the police they are in there bubble if they call or question large groups when out and about.
These are the people that will be running the country in 25 years !
 

gung_hobo

Old-Salt
I use a couple of well known programs that prevent stupidity in terms of scripts and adverts, with no issues from BBC except that a few months ago I had to allow 3 sets of cookies to enable me to view the news that they offer. Today, serious 404 messages. Apparently I have to allow all cookies and agree to everything in order to view the content that I have paid for by paying the license fee. I do resent paying the massively overpaid tykes but I resent even more being asked to open my computer to assault by third parties, mindless advertising and the harvesting of more than my metadata. I've already paid, so my view is that I should now avoid advertising and the sale of my data to unknown third parties. If the BBC feels that their presenters should be paid in the millions then I do not see that I should be effectively charged again. Reduce the bloated salaries of many thousands and the books will balance and enable educational programs to flourish.

I have already paid to support the bloated expectations of a host of people who really are not that talented (and a few that actually are, but I'd dispute their computation of their financial recompense with my view) i.e. try to earn that in real market conditions.

I have reached the rubicon. I use BBC for relatively few things (sports results) other than that I want to understand what the woke views on news are. The BBC is superb at informing me of this. However I will not allow "unlimited" access to my computer to the BBC and whomever they choose to require me to allow. Of course no-one (at present) is going to bother to "raid" my computer at random, but they might if my reasonable (and erudite though arguable by two people interested in learning from each other's views) beliefs are determined to be against policy by some faceless department at some time in the future.

BBC, does my license fee enable me to "enjoy" the output of the BBC or do I have to secretly pay more money to "enjoy" what almost everybody would think that they have already paid for? As the BBC clearly thinks people like me are anathema to what they do (as opposed to are supposed to be doing), I think that the time is coming when I will cease paying a license fee and will avoid the BBC totally. I find it hard to believe that I am actually saying this. I have found sources of news that are more accurate and less biased than the BBC in that they are aggregators of news sources. It is worrying (for BBC) that very few of their links go to the BBC. I can now quickly and accurately find data on a global, continental, grouping, national level with numerous different views.

It is a crying shame (IMO) that the BBC slants information (makes it difficult to find), stacks questions/audiences with members of specific groups/parties (or fails to conduct even cursory checks), and/or has gone for "gotcha" questioning. I would like to be (and was), proud of the BBC but it seems to have morphed into a self-sucking teat of avarice. Please explain how publicly paid "personalities" can be paid 10-50 times the average wage just for doing their job when the taxpayer is paying. I'm sure it is all terribly hard for the poor lambs.

Ah well. If the BBC wants to be paid twice then I will be off very shortly. I have a few months until my license is up. Any ideas as to how to very legally threaten their 3rd party collection companies (of course this is not an integral part of the BBC), with censure, litigation and serious damages should they fail to cease an d desist will be most gratefully received.

When is the BBC going to produce the free licenses to over 70's as they previously agreed to do? Note: If it was 75 then the same question applies. Shame on them. The very small amount from the elderly could be re-couped by terminating a handful of overpaid "stars" and functionaries.

GH
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
"Covid-19 is a disease that kills fewer than one in 100 people it infects, so the more people contract it, the greater chance of a fatality occurring. And the risk of serious complications is driven up by the fact ethnic minorities are more likely than white people to suffer from pre-existing health conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

It comes amid fears that BAME Brits will refuse the coronavirus vaccine, with surveys showing up to 70 per cent say they are 'unlikely' to accept it."

It's a funny old game, Saint.
Talking this afternoon with a friend who’s a manager at several local homes for those with learning difficulties and other mental conditions. Thus far, apparently all their staff of African origin have refused to be vaccinated.
 
Think of them as stage one recruits. They need to be shown how to wipe their own arrse and how to use an iron, but they should eventually be a useful member of society. It's an investment in the future.
Yes we need as many Media Studies graduates that we can get
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Re this strange 'Orange Man Bad....Grrr' trope some folk on this thread seem to have adopted.

You don't have to be a paid up member of the Broken Biscuit Corporation to be at least faintly aware that the Late Incumbent was without question the most damaging US president in the past 150 years....try this , non-BBC source for example:

Fauci on What Working for Trump Was Really Like

As the coronavirus ravaged the country, Dr. Fauci’s calm counsel and commitment to hard facts endeared him to millions of Americans. But he also became a villain to millions of others. Trump supporters chanted “Fire Fauci,” and the president mused openly about doing so. He was accused of inventing the virus and of being part of a secret cabal with Bill Gates and George Soros to profit from vaccines. His family received death threats.

On Jan. 21, appearing in his first press briefing under the Biden administration, Dr. Fauci described the “liberating feeling” of once again being able to “get up here and talk about what you know — what the evidence, what the science is — and know that’s it, let the science speak.”

The people around him, his inner circle, were quite upset that I would dare publicly contradict the president. That’s when we started getting into things I felt were unfortunate and somewhat nefarious — namely, allowing Peter Navarro to write an editorial in USA Today saying I’m wrong on most of the things I say. Or to have the White House press office send out a detailed list of things I said that turned out to be not true — all of which were nonsense because they were all true. The very press office that was making decisions as to whether I can go on a TV show or talk to you.



Tell the truth - and shame the devil Doc.
 
Its probably beyond recovery and if it isnt then the medicine will be just to bitter - because the doctor to save the show will have to be a (straight) white man, anything else and the audience will see a continuation of the current - red shirt syndrome** regardless of promises made by writers.

and thats a pill the BBC will not swallow - a straight white male doctor will never be acceptable again because thats not diverse and they dont see the problem - they fail to see it isnt that the doctor isnt a white man - its the fact that a white mans unnacceptable and that cultural position has permeated the whole show.
Instead as they did with Captain Marvell - If you dont like it youre the problem . You dont like empowered female Leads - carefully ignoring the success of Alita battle angel and Wonder woman in the same time frame.

And if one more person tells me that the problem is men dont like to see a strong female lead and Bree Larson is the 1st so bound to be attacked, I swear i will shove life sized replicas of Sigorney Weaver, Angelina Jolie, milla jovovich amongst others somewhere it will require a team of skilled surgeons and an industrial sized tub of vaseline to remove as I hammer home the point that no she bloody isnt

**In this instance straight white male = villan


And once again The Critical Drinker hits it on the head.

 
I use a couple of well known programs that prevent stupidity in terms of scripts and adverts, with no issues from BBC except that a few months ago I had to allow 3 sets of cookies to enable me to view the news that they offer. Today, serious 404 messages. Apparently I have to allow all cookies and agree to everything in order to view the content that I have paid for by paying the license fee. I do resent paying the massively overpaid tykes but I resent even more being asked to open my computer to assault by third parties, mindless advertising and the harvesting of more than my metadata. I've already paid, so my view is that I should now avoid advertising and the sale of my data to unknown third parties. If the BBC feels that their presenters should be paid in the millions then I do not see that I should be effectively charged again. Reduce the bloated salaries of many thousands and the books will balance and enable educational programs to flourish.

I have already paid to support the bloated expectations of a host of people who really are not that talented (and a few that actually are, but I'd dispute their computation of their financial recompense with my view) i.e. try to earn that in real market conditions.

I have reached the rubicon. I use BBC for relatively few things (sports results) other than that I want to understand what the woke views on news are. The BBC is superb at informing me of this. However I will not allow "unlimited" access to my computer to the BBC and whomever they choose to require me to allow. Of course no-one (at present) is going to bother to "raid" my computer at random, but they might if my reasonable (and erudite though arguable by two people interested in learning from each other's views) beliefs are determined to be against policy by some faceless department at some time in the future.

BBC, does my license fee enable me to "enjoy" the output of the BBC or do I have to secretly pay more money to "enjoy" what almost everybody would think that they have already paid for? As the BBC clearly thinks people like me are anathema to what they do (as opposed to are supposed to be doing), I think that the time is coming when I will cease paying a license fee and will avoid the BBC totally. I find it hard to believe that I am actually saying this. I have found sources of news that are more accurate and less biased than the BBC in that they are aggregators of news sources. It is worrying (for BBC) that very few of their links go to the BBC. I can now quickly and accurately find data on a global, continental, grouping, national level with numerous different views.

It is a crying shame (IMO) that the BBC slants information (makes it difficult to find), stacks questions/audiences with members of specific groups/parties (or fails to conduct even cursory checks), and/or has gone for "gotcha" questioning. I would like to be (and was), proud of the BBC but it seems to have morphed into a self-sucking teat of avarice. Please explain how publicly paid "personalities" can be paid 10-50 times the average wage just for doing their job when the taxpayer is paying. I'm sure it is all terribly hard for the poor lambs.

Ah well. If the BBC wants to be paid twice then I will be off very shortly. I have a few months until my license is up. Any ideas as to how to very legally threaten their 3rd party collection companies (of course this is not an integral part of the BBC), with censure, litigation and serious damages should they fail to cease an d desist will be most gratefully received.

When is the BBC going to produce the free licenses to over 70's as they previously agreed to do? Note: If it was 75 then the same question applies. Shame on them. The very small amount from the elderly could be re-couped by terminating a handful of overpaid "stars" and functionaries.

GH
They settled on 75. The new scheme will cost the BBC up to £250 million by 2021/22 depending on implementation.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Talking this afternoon with a friend who’s a manager at several local homes for those with learning difficulties and other mental conditions. Thus far, apparently all their staff of African origin have refused to be vaccinated.
...to follow on from this, there is apparently currently no framework in place to deal with staff in the care sector who refuse vaccination. No sanction for not getting the jab, nothing.

Meanwhile, in the two facilities I refer to, outbreaks have happened because of (they think) staff using public transport.

Meanwhile, Labour still blames racial discrimination. Not culture, not ignorance.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
...to follow on from this, there is apparently currently no framework in place to deal with staff in the care sector who refuse vaccination. No sanction for not getting the jab, nothing.

Meanwhile, in the two facilities I refer to, outbreaks have happened because of (they think) staff using public transport.

Meanwhile, Labour still blames racial discrimination. Not culture, not ignorance.
And this shows where the largest rises are in C-19 infections are, is it coincidence that the top 2 also have a large immigrant population?

Revealed: The 10 Areas Of England Where Covid Cases Have Risen Again (msn.com)
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Talking this afternoon with a friend who’s a manager at several local homes for those with learning difficulties and other mental conditions. Thus far, apparently all their staff of African origin have refused to be vaccinated.
...to follow on from this, there is apparently currently no framework in place to deal with staff in the care sector who refuse vaccination. No sanction for not getting the jab, nothing.

Meanwhile, in the two facilities I refer to, outbreaks have happened because of (they think) staff using public transport.

Meanwhile, Labour still blames racial discrimination. Not culture, not ignorance.
They should all be put under disciplinary measures then, gross misconduct springs to mind. Why gross misconduct you may ask, surely putting someone's life in danger during the course of your work puts it in that bracket?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top