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.

TamH70

MIA
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?

Nah, just sack the idiots and tell them to whistle for their pensions, etc.

Then when they're on their way out the door, have the fuzz waiting for them. I'm sure that some charges or others would be able to make stick.
 

O Zangado

War Hero
As someone reaching the conclusion of a career in the public sector which has spanned more than three decades, I can tell you that the old/traditional bad, young/new good mindset is increasingly pervasive. I’ve known senior managers opine that experience now counts for little, even though that assertion has been demonstrably shown to be absurd on numerous occasions, and that issues which have seemed intractable have been resolved by the application of a little common sense grounded in years of knowledge.
Moreover, the sector in which I work is now having to revisit practices which were abandoned years ago and relearn lessons and re-adopt systems which were once dismissed as anachronisms. This has come about following some pretty significant events.
The BBC and its current hierarchy are just another manifestation of the notion that everything in the past was bad or wrong and must be changed or scrapped regardless of efficacy, content or context, and that new progressive ideas and beliefs are unquestionably better. Rather ironic, given how much of their scheduling relies on repeats and re-runs.

Points taken and no argument there from me. Personally I don't want change just for change's sake - that was Anthony B. Liar's mantra back in the day. I want improvement, which was not in his script.

Is it too much to ask?

OZ
 
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)
I think it’s a bit simplistic just to assume the immigrant population are behind any rise in cases. Wrt people breaching lockdown, having guests in their homes etc...I’ve said before, it would take a legal team weeks to decipher the average Jeremy Kyle contestant’s family and where they stand wrt support / childcare bubbles. Police are expected to make instant judgment based upon a pissed off neighbour, disgruntled at their parking space being taken up.
 
Strangely, auntie doesn't seem to be highlighting that St Nicola of Krankie isn't doing very well with her vaccination programme (nor are the sheep-worriers for that matter). Anyone think Boris or Hancock would get that sort of free ride?
_116622952_vaccine_doses_eng_over8021jan-nc[1].png
 

Awol

LE
You can have a translator attend meetings and documents translated
You just have to pay for it

The frogs wont provide translations in umpteen languages etc.

What they will do is give you language lessons fre of charge,
The lessons aren’t free. Even though I offered to pay, my wife, who had the brains of a ship’s anchor, didn’t even bother. I taught her ‘bonjour’, ‘merci’ And the big one (this took her two weeks to master).’ Puis je avoir’
For everything else, I did the talking and I made a point of ALWAYS speaking French amongst the locals, albeit tortured and wrong half the time. There was no morality about it, I just thought it would be outrageously arrogant to speak anything else. It was apparent they genuinely appreciated the effort (when they stopped laughing, that is).
 
The lessons aren’t free. Even though I offered to pay, my wife, who had the brains of a ship’s anchor, didn’t even bother. I taught her ‘bonjour’, ‘merci’ And the big one (this took her two weeks to master).’ Puis je avoir’
For everything else, I did the talking and I made a point of ALWAYS speaking French amongst the locals, albeit tortured and wrong half the time. There was no morality about it, I just thought it would be outrageously arrogant to speak anything else. It was apparent they genuinely appreciated the effort (when they stopped laughing, that is).

I did the same when I worked in Milan, and like you say, the locals appreciated my efforts. I was told that I sounded like Eddie Irvine speaking Italian, which kinda makes sense.

While the French don't appear to like anyone (even each other), the Milanese seemed to be genuinely fond of the British.
 

Awol

LE
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
One of the best posts on this thread.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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?
100 percent.

A BAME acquaintance was quoting something from Norway on social media last week. Vaccination of the over-80s has started. Some people had died after being given the vaccine. This apparently calls into question 'whether the vaccine is safe or not'.

The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

A big clue is in 'the over-80s'; there's probably a good chance that they were towards the ends of their lives anyway.

A professional acquaintance and good friend pointed out to me some weeks back that the average age of those who've died of Covid is greater than the average life expectancy in the UK.

As I pointed out to SWMBO: that being the case, and if people are going to start applying pseudo-science, one could argue that if dying of Covid on average happens at an age greater than the average life expectancy, then surely catching Covid is a good thing as it increases your life expectancy?

That's no more stupid logic than we're seeing from some of the idiots who're crápping on on the internet.

It needs gripping.
 
100 percent.

A BAME acquaintance was quoting something from Norway on social media last week. Vaccination of the over-80s has started. Some people had died after being given the vaccine. This apparently calls into question 'whether the vaccine is safe or not'.

The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

A big clue is in 'the over-80s'; there's probably a good chance that they were towards the ends of their lives anyway.

A professional acquaintance and good friend pointed out to me some weeks back that the average age of those who've died of Covid is greater than the average life expectancy in the UK.

As I pointed out to SWMBO: that being the case, and if people are going to start applying pseudo-science, one could argue that if dying of Covid on average happens at an age greater than the average life expectancy, then surely catching Covid is a good thing as it increases your life expectancy?

That's no more stupid logic than we're seeing from some of the idiots who're crápping on on the internet.

It needs gripping.
I believe Norway issued a statement that the deaths were not due to the vaccine and due to natural causes.

Norway says no link between vaccine and post-jab deaths (medicalxpress.com)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I believe Norway issued a statement that the deaths were not due to the vaccine and due to natural causes.

Norway says no link between vaccine and post-jab deaths (medicalxpress.com)
Precisely.

But the pseudo-scientists will be in there with, "Well, they would say that wouldn't they? They don't want us to know the truth."

I genuinely think that there needs to be sanction for not having the jab done.

There are plenty of people on furlough or out of work at the moment who'd be happy of the work.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
Precisely.

But the pseudo-scientists will be in there with, "Well, they would say that wouldn't they? They don't want us to know the truth."

I genuinely think that there needs to be sanction for not having the jab done.

There are plenty of people on furlough or out of work at the moment who'd be happy of the work.
No doubt Local Authorities will not put elderly clients into care homes where there are unvaccinated staff. So, destroy your employer's business and blame the Government because you lost your job?
 
But again the BBC didn't report this nor have I seen it in MSM in the UK, unless it was a footnote to a footnote.
 

syrup

LE
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?


They have no dramas making sure everyone knows they are in the care industry when skipping the queues at Tesco
Manky twats should be made to take their uniforms off also when leaving work.
Some of them should be genuinely headbutted into deep space.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
They have no dramas making sure everyone knows they are in the care industry when skipping the queues at Tesco
Manky twats should be made to take their uniforms off also when leaving work.
Some of them should be genuinely headbutted into deep space.
About three weeks ago, there was a legitimate story somewhere about how 28 percent of the BAME population is refusing vaccination.

That same day, I walked into the supermarket to see a headline about how the care sector is screaming that the government has abandoned it/let it down.

The friend I'm talking about above works in homes which are for those with mental health issues, as distinct from the elderly.

Nevertheless, how can a private company which is looking after the elderly look those people's relatives in the eye and state that it's doing the best it can/the right thing when it can't guarantee that its carers have been vaccinated/aren't carrying in the virus?

The bit of the conversation from yesterday that I haven't related yet - SWMBO has just reminded me of it - is that the friend I'm talking about also said that of the eight staff members who've gone down with Covid, all have been black.
 

syrup

LE
About three weeks ago, there was a legitimate story somewhere about how 28 percent of the BAME population is refusing vaccination.

That same day, I walked into the supermarket to see a headline about how the care sector is screaming that the government has abandoned it/let it down.

The friend I'm talking about above works in homes which are for those with mental health issues, as distinct from the elderly.

Nevertheless, how can a private company which is looking after the elderly look those people's relatives in the eye and state that it's doing the best it can/the right thing when it can't guarantee that its carers have been vaccinated/aren't carrying in the virus?

The bit of the conversation from yesterday that I haven't related yet - SWMBO has just reminded me of it - is that the friend I'm talking about also said that of the eight staff members who've gone down with Covid, all have been black.


Big argument up here in York also
We've Ubers coming from Bradford and Leeds which were in their own Lockdown pre National Lockdown
All BAME drivers who are reportedly more likely to catch COVID yet they can drive 40 miles to work in another area.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Big argument up here in York also
We've Ubers coming from Bradford and Leeds which were in their own Lockdown pre National Lockdown
All BAME drivers who are reportedly more likely to catch COVID yet they can drive 40 miles to work in another area.
If you're locked down then they should be staying at home. It's as simple as that.
 

Truxx

LE
Strangely, auntie doesn't seem to be highlighting that St Nicola of Krankie isn't doing very well with her vaccination programme (nor are the sheep-worriers for that matter). Anyone think Boris or Hancock would get that sort of free ride?
View attachment 542754
Different priorities apparent. Whist england is concentrating on the old folks, the Scots and Welsh are concentrating on care homes.

Full of old folks.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Different priorities apparent. Whist england is concentrating on the old folks, the Scots and Welsh are concentrating on care homes.

Full of old folks.
In which people, in theory, at least, are quarantined and at less risk.

Dilemma, here.

Do you vaccinate the BAME populations because they are most at risk, when a lot of that risk is down to people's own poor behaviour?

You then effectively reward poor behaviour (stand fast for a moment on people's refusal to have the jabs).

Or do you vaccinate those who need protecting from the poor behaviour (to wails of 'racism' from those with a vested interest in retaining the political support of certain communities/those too thick or selfish to see or acknowledge the realities)?

If you're looking to not over-stress the NHS, you concentrate on those who are behaving most poorly.

Pragmatic but not really fair.
 

Latest Threads

Top