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.

From the Times or at least the bit that isn't paywalled:

1596673250819.png

1596673348495.png

Pensioners revolt over end of free TV licence
 
What is amusing is the BBC at no point, really makes any effort to sell itself as a content producer for a disaffected demographic, or those who object to the BBC political tone and resent subsidising an propaganda arm of the progressive liberal movement. If you persist in whinging, then the clueless suggest you remove the telly all together. Which is the equivelent of bricking up your windows to dodge a tax, but plunging your house into darkness as a result.

I certainly get the theory, that the government has set the BBC up and that nothing can be done until the bbc charter is up for renewal, but why ? the government we elected, are averse to conflict and its the people who forced through brexit and likely the people who will force through the bbcs demise. But once in awhile it would be nice to see our leaders actually been on point.
 
Not necessarily so. By 1917 most of the local battalions had replacements from places other than their recruitment area. For instance, the book I reviewed recently 12 Days on the Somme makes the point that the reinforcements were not from West Yorks but London area and accents to match.
Indeed, this was a deliberate policy of the War Office to avoid the mistake of the 'Pals Battalions' - recruited from the same workplace or small town - being wiped out, which didn't go down well on the Home Front. This policy of mixing up recruits was continued during Workd War II - something the Americans learned during their civil war, and subsequently ensured that Bns were geographically diverse (although this didnt apply to African-American troop formations).
 
Last edited:
Indeed, this was a deliberate policy of the War Office to avoid the mistake of the 'Pals Battalions' - recruited from the same workplace or small town - being wiped out, which didn't go down well on the Home Front. This policy of mixing up recruits was continued during Workd War II - somethingvthe Americans lear we during their civil war.

Vodka on Weetabix is so moreish, don't you find?
 
It's a notorious case, though, and still the subject of much discussion across the pond. I was working in Atlanta when it happened. As I recall, the details were even worse (if that's possible) than those on RafBrat's post.

That being said, I am a fairly regular consumer of news – at least back then, before the BBC became the vacuous entity it now is – and don’t recall picking up on that 13 years ago, in the UK
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
What is amusing is the BBC at no point, really makes any effort to sell itself as a content producer for a disaffected demographic, or those who object to the BBC political tone and resent subsidising an propaganda arm of the progressive liberal movement. If you persist in whinging, then the clueless suggest you remove the telly all together. Which is the equivelent of bricking up your windows to dodge a tax, but plunging your house into darkness as a result.

I certainly get the theory, that the government has set the BBC up and that nothing can be done until the bbc charter is up for renewal, but why ? the government we elected, are averse to conflict and its the people who forced through brexit and likely the people who will force through the bbcs demise. But once in awhile it would be nice to see our leaders actually been on point.
The government has set the BBC up? How so? When signing this deal the BBC said it was a good deal. They are now reneging on that deal.
 
Growing up in British East Africa in the 50s, we were so taught. It was not pretty, particularly the Arab contribution to civilisation on the Coast.

Said this before, but the uninformed love affair by the right on with kiSwahili as an African language has me giggling into my cocoa.
 
The results aren't broken down to areas there are they? Yon lassie getting awarded 2 As and 3 Bs after getting 5 As in her prelims is right to be aggrieved - not sure of the art grading but this guy's work doesn't look C grade to me...

Scots school leaver 'thanks' SQA for C in Art as he shares incredible sketches
They are the inevitable result of a nation wide process. Even if it was 99.99% fair that still leaves hundreds of students who will have been adjusted incorrectly, many of whom will have been awarded better grades than they should have got given that the pass rate across all qualifications is higher than previous years. The SQA seem to have erred on the side of caution in terms of the overall grades awarded which is more generous than what I expected to happen in England.

As I understand things the grades were not adjusted on an individual student by student basis but by national rankings and then further to take into account the school's previous results. The alternative would just be to accept whatever teachers said students would get, leading to a massively higher pass rate than normal and devaluing those grades, or go through every single student comparing evidence for every subject they took which would be unworkable in the time frame.

That's why there is an appeals process and, at least in England, the opportunity to sit an exam instead of accepting the recommended grade. What's happened is someone has got a set of results they don't think are fair (and they almost certainly aren't in those two cases) but rather than appeal the results, write to the university asking them to reconsider giving the evidence etc. have gone whining to the media. Like I said, I can't see the outrage.
 
Last edited:

Truxx

LE
As has most of UK, I have up to this point given Britbox a damn good ignoring. However a couple of things about the Britbox scheme have occurred to me:

1) How is it funded? I assume it's supposed to make a profit and fund itself, but there must be some seed investment from BBC & ITV to get it going. In which case, License fees are being used to set up a pay per view channel, so if you pay for a license and then pay for Britbox, you have effectively been double charged.

2) A large proportion of the Britbox output is old BBC shows which were funded by license payments. Is this BBC investment compensated, and if so can we expect a rebate on the license fee (no laughing at the back)?
Yes - I will add that to the list of "Questions the Guardian isn't asking".
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Said this before, but the uninformed love affair by the right on with kiSwahili as an African language has me giggling into my cocoa.

I found trying to learn Maa far too difficult and never learned any because, like the Dutch, it seemed they could speak English better than me.
 
How is it funded?
To access the service, punters will need a paid subscription - even though BBC content is funded by the TV Licence, which is £150.50 a year.
 
The results aren't broken down to areas there are they? Yon lassie getting awarded 2 As and 3 Bs after getting 5 As in her prelims is right to be aggrieved - not sure of the art grading but this guy's work doesn't look C grade to me...

Scots school leaver 'thanks' SQA for C in Art as he shares incredible sketches

Artwork seems competent enough, although

Compo McCompoface said:
"As soon as I seen the C, my parents and I appealed. "

I'd say a C for English would be more than fair.
 
Not disagreeing with you but in my case i grew up knowing how the Ghurkas, Sihks, Bombay Lancers etc were elite units in John Company and then the British Army,
I also switched on R5 a few days ago to catch the news headlines and as usual i had to listen to a few minutes of verbal garbage first, in this case about how some one who had got a job was 'horribly white'. That in my opinion is anti indigenous population racism.

In SA, seeing AA, BBBEEE, equal opportunity or other similar acronyms and doublespeak in a job advert means white folks need not bother to apply. Seems things are heading the same way in the western world.

Used to be a name for that kind of thing in the past that had folks quite fired up. Wonder why it no longer excites the right on.
 
Averse to conflict, or dealing with a pandemic?
Both. The government seems to go on long radio silences and have failed to pick a fight with anyone since the election, apart from saving cummings hide. I personally think, its been very poor at leadership and I'm afraid the BBC licence fee story is a good example of that weakness.

We should be seeing a lot more anger from government and we saw the same weaknesses in the statues falling and other instances of failure to have a spine in public, the government seems terrified of the media.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top