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 official BBC complaints thread.

Browneye

Crow
This thread is about the BBC

The BBC is a genuine public service broadcaster, with programme-making rather than money-making as its core function. It does not have to sell advertising or win ratings battles to survive, since it is funded by government (through the Licence Fee) and operates on a fixed budget. It competes with other broadcasters, for sure: but the competition is more about prestige and bragging rights than about money. Therefore the BBC can make content that concentrates on quality rather than on mass appeal. It seldom panders to the "lowest common denominator." Also the BBC is a formidable innovator, especially as regards technology, such as iPlayer (Internet content delivery). The BBC is often criticized: but seldom by anyone who has had to spend time stranded in hotel rooms in other countries watching what passes for TV in those places

*Or is the BBC as a whole, is liberal, painfully woke and pushing a multicultural line that the majority of Britains do not recognize?

*As some twat on here claims.
 
Bye. Don’t let the door etc....

Maybe they were trying to start a thread that would allow comments on the BBC in general and wouldn't then be detracting from the BBC political bias thread?
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Maybe they were trying to start a thread that would allow comments on the BBC in general and wouldn't then be detracting from the BBC political bias thread?
Maybe you they better re-read the forum rules and amend their posts before a CA mod sees it.
 
Maybe you they better re-read the forum rules and amend their posts before a CA mod sees it.
Ah... good point. I must admit that I didn't read that section. Can we take Browneye out and shoot him please?
 
Maybe they were trying to start a thread that would allow comments on the BBC in general and wouldn't then be detracting from the BBC political bias thread?
They? A joint enterprise?

My initial notion was that the ‘they' to whom you refer was you following your comment in the original thread and the similarity of user names.
 
Last edited:
They? A joint enterprise?

My initial notion was that the ‘they' to whom you refer was you following your comment in the original thread and the similarity of user names.
Yes, thanks Sherlock..

As it happens steps are being taken to dispose of the interloper, who was no doubt (ill) conceived after too much lunch time sherry.
 
This thread is about the BBC

The BBC is a genuine public service broadcaster, with programme-making rather than money-making as its core function. It does not have to sell advertising or win ratings battles to survive, since it is funded by government (through the Licence Fee) and operates on a fixed budget. It competes with other broadcasters, for sure: but the competition is more about prestige and bragging rights than about money. Therefore the BBC can make content that concentrates on quality rather than on mass appeal. It seldom panders to the "lowest common denominator." Also the BBC is a formidable innovator, especially as regards technology, such as iPlayer (Internet content delivery). The BBC is often criticized: but seldom by anyone who has had to spend time stranded in hotel rooms in other countries watching what passes for TV in those places

*Or is the BBC as a whole, is liberal, painfully woke and pushing a multicultural line that the majority of Britains do not recognize?

*As some twat on here claims.

I am not the person you refer to in the last sentence, but I agree with the sentiment. That said, a) I would never use that word in Current Affairs here, because it’s against the rules, and b) I would never use the term ”woke”, because it arose after I emigrated and I have only a vague idea of its true meaning and usage.

The BBC used to be a true public service broadcaster, but those days are long gone. It is now a shadow of its former self. I disagree that it makes content concentrating on quality over mass appeal. If it makes a period drama, say a modern “Upstairs Downstairs”, then everyone in it should be white. No token non-white people, because there were very, very few non-white people in the UK at the turn of the 19th/20th century. But it can’t do that, because it appeals to the masses. It thus compromises the historical integrity of the production for the sake of popular appeal.

“the BBC is a formidable innovator, especially as regards technology, such as iPlayer (Internet content delivery)” - are you having a giraffe? Companies such as Akamai had been building out edge content delivery platforms for 10 years before iPlayer came out, and even then, iPlayer was wedded to ancient Windows technology. It took years to move to HTML 5. Services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and of course YouTube were and are streets ahead of the BBC’s technological capability.

I do agree that the BBC has been a technological innovator, its Computer Literacy initiative in the 1980s was a very laudable thing, and even led to its own branded computer. But that was 35-40 years ago. The BBC micro:bit successor is a laudable project, but turns out to be yet another example of the BBC’s obsession with race. Look at their homepage: Micro:bit Educational Foundation There are nine children featured on that page. Four of them are white, five are non-white. 45%/55% (round figures). The actual population of the UK is 86%/14%. I originally went there to get production figures for the device, but frankly the appearance of the homepage makes a better point about the BBC’s failings.

It’s clear to me that the BBC is a racist organisation, promoting race as issue as a matter of policy. That is not its job. Its job is:

”The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.”

My main interaction with the BBC is their news website, I look at it every day. It is painfully left-wing, and panders to “trends”. It’s supposed to be an impartial news source. Pretty difficult to justify that position when it says “Fact-checking Trump’s claim”. Or “Brexit fears realised as border closes”. It’s pathetic in its institutionalised liberal-politicised reporting. Honestly, I don’t think they do it deliberately, they just don’t know how to do it any differently.

Finally I’d like to qualify my remarks according to your “The BBC is often criticized: but seldom by anyone who has had to spend time stranded in hotel rooms in other countries watching what passes for TV in those places” statement.

I’ve flown nearly two million miles, more than 95% on business. I was Diamond status with both Delta Airlines and Hilton Hhonors for over 10 years. I’ve crossed the Atlantic 180 times. I have been that man in that hotel room, hundreds of times. Very rarely did I turn the TV on; I went and found something more interesting to do - something that was never difficult as a visitor to a foreign land.

The BBC is not fit for purpose.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
In the spirit of goodwill to all men (apart from the bellends), I've punted this to the Int Cell rather than zapping it.
 
What I've found with the BBC is that reporters and newsreaders are virtually ALL from ethnic minorities.
Completely unrepresentative of the areas they are reporting in. There's an Asian lass does outside broadcast stuff for BBC Wales, she seems nice enough, but outside of Newport and Cardiff there are very few ethnic minority groups, especially up in the valleys, I can count on one hand the amount of ethnic minority people in the area that I live. Its as if the BBC are ramming the diversity agenda down my throat at every opportunity, its got to the stage that I don't bother with the news now.
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
@Browneye

20210103_150654.jpg
 
In the spirit of goodwill to all men (apart from the bellends), I've punted this to the Int Cell rather than zapping it.
Gawd Bless you Guv'nor, you're a proper Gent and no mistake!

(He then meanders down the Old Kent Road, softly singing Knees Up Mother Brown whilst hoping to find a troupe of cheeky Cockernee chimney sweeps that all spontaneously start singing and dancing)
 
I am not the person you refer to in the last sentence, but I agree with the sentiment. That said, a) I would never use that word in Current Affairs here, because it’s against the rules, and b) I would never use the term ”woke”, because it arose after I emigrated and I have only a vague idea of its true meaning and usage.

The BBC used to be a true public service broadcaster, but those days are long gone. It is now a shadow of its former self. I disagree that it makes content concentrating on quality over mass appeal. If it makes a period drama, say a modern “Upstairs Downstairs”, then everyone in it should be white. No token non-white people, because there were very, very few non-white people in the UK at the turn of the 19th/20th century. But it can’t do that, because it appeals to the masses. It thus compromises the historical integrity of the production for the sake of popular appeal.

“the BBC is a formidable innovator, especially as regards technology, such as iPlayer (Internet content delivery)” - are you having a giraffe? Companies such as Akamai had been building out edge content delivery platforms for 10 years before iPlayer came out, and even then, iPlayer was wedded to ancient Windows technology. It took years to move to HTML 5. Services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and of course YouTube were and are streets ahead of the BBC’s technological capability.

I do agree that the BBC has been a technological innovator, its Computer Literacy initiative in the 1980s was a very laudable thing, and even led to its own branded computer. But that was 35-40 years ago. The BBC micro:bit successor is a laudable project, but turns out to be yet another example of the BBC’s obsession with race. Look at their homepage: Micro:bit Educational Foundation There are nine children featured on that page. Four of them are white, five are non-white. 45%/55% (round figures). The actual population of the UK is 86%/14%. I originally went there to get production figures for the device, but frankly the appearance of the homepage makes a better point about the BBC’s failings.

It’s clear to me that the BBC is a racist organisation, promoting race as issue as a matter of policy. That is not its job. Its job is:

”The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.”

My main interaction with the BBC is their news website, I look at it every day. It is painfully left-wing, and panders to “trends”. It’s supposed to be an impartial news source. Pretty difficult to justify that position when it says “Fact-checking Trump’s claim”. Or “Brexit fears realised as border closes”. It’s pathetic in its institutionalised liberal-politicised reporting. Honestly, I don’t think they do it deliberately, they just don’t know how to do it any differently.

Finally I’d like to qualify my remarks according to your “The BBC is often criticized: but seldom by anyone who has had to spend time stranded in hotel rooms in other countries watching what passes for TV in those places” statement.

I’ve flown nearly two million miles, more than 95% on business. I was Diamond status with both Delta Airlines and Hilton Hhonors for over 10 years. I’ve crossed the Atlantic 180 times. I have been that man in that hotel room, hundreds of times. Very rarely did I turn the TV on; I went and found something more interesting to do - something that was never difficult as a visitor to a foreign land.

The BBC is not fit for purpose.
Perfect.
Nothing sums up the modern BBC as well as this does.
 

Snowy.

On ROPS
On ROPs
Screw the BBC and dont pay them a penny for their licence extortion scheme... End of!.. Remember the law is vague between common law and "acts" of parliament which the TV License falls into.. and because its an act, it's a contract and if you dont consent you have not broken any law... There is a big difference between legal and lawful... If these w@nkers turn up at your house with a search warrant, the police cant do anything because its a civil matter even though acts are also laws ie the road traffic act.. If you are not operating in commerce, then they don't have your consent and you have not broken any laws...

I will break it down... Your Birth Certificate is a document of maritime admiralty jurisdiction and it pertains to the sea of commerce, and it comes from the process of ships carrying cargo on the high seas... You and everybody essentially came from the waters, you were all once "seamen" in your fathers trousers.. Your mothers went into "labour", and your mother was "contracting".. and when you were born you got your citizen"ship"...

The word "commerce" literally means sexual intercourse... So a ship carrying cargo on the high seas comes to "birth", its called the birth of a ship... The ship comes to port and the "waters break" and it goes down the " birth canal" and reaches the dock... Then the "Doctor" signs a certificate for the ships resources, and when you go to court you get in the "dock".. The "banks" control the flow of the "current" hence currency and you make "withdrawals" and leave "deposits" in the "bank" jsut like the tide, its the sea of commerce... So basically your birth certificate is documentation that a man or woman had sex and is connected to a juristic person with "legal" status and certifies than a human resource was born for purposes of commerce and if you agree to being that legal title you are operating under commerce...

So, if you go to Court because you dont have a TV license and the Court Clerk calls "your name" you just don't answer or acknowledge them.... If the judge says, "are you 'your name'", and you just say, "No"... And if the judge says, "who are you then", you just say, "I'm a sentient being, and I can be whoever I choose to be", the judge can't refute that fact...

If the Judge calls "your name" and you don't answer and he wants to know what " your name" is, you just produce your birth certificate pertaining to " your name", and tell the stupid Judge, "this is the Legal Fiction, 'your name', but this Legal Fiction is not who I am", and the judge cant proceed...
 

Latest Threads

Top