BBC Madness

[thestoon]

Originally Posted by STEED

Well I stopped last year and had three red letters and a bloke representing the BBC around knocking on my door and asking do I live here, which I answered sorry can not help you don't know the person your asking for. By the way never let them in without a warrant to inspect your home without a policeman with them.

So I'm waiting for my next letter or another visit, out of interest there is a guy in the U.K. who is doing battle with the BBC though the courts he believes the licence fee is a criminal act as it has not got the permission of the government.

He will lose, as will you. If the TV licence wasn't given to the BBC it would just go into the general government fund.

Channel 4's digital switch over is also being paid with by the license fee.. that can't be right - advertising AND your money!!!!

And as for the permission of the government - where did you get that from... its a criminal not civil matter if you chose to not pay your TV license, hence its written in law, hence the government quite clearly gave permission for it.

The BBC collects it directly now, whereas the Home Office used to, but the requirement to have one in law has not changed.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by thestoon

And as for the permission of the government - where did you get that from...

From the gentlemen who are heard on the radio some months ago and he has a case against the BBC and good luck to him. As for me I have now got rid of my TV so bring it on BBC with your letters and callers I am the one who is laughing now. :p

PS: I can watch my mates TV and yes he has a licence.

[madDdog67]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

One of the fundamental things a modern democracy must do, is protect the minority from the majority. That is why you have to have a bill of rights that apply equally to all citizens of a democracy.

So what exactly is the BBC "protecting" the muslim minority from? Persectution? Is anyone denying them the right to practice their own religion? So what does a newscaster's wearing of a small cross convey to muslims...that another religion, apart from their own, actually exists and some folks practice might it? Jeesh...heaven forbid they'd have to face THAT prospect.

Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.

[NEON DEON]

[quote=madDdog67
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.[/quote]

Yes they are.

That however has nothing to do with impartial new broadcasts.

[madDdog67]

[quote=NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by madDdog67
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.[/quote

Yes they are.

That however has nothing to do with impartial new broadcasts.

yes, but your basic premise that a broadcast is flawed merely because the news is read by someone with a cross around their neck is nonsensical. And, honestly, I would have expected someone who most likely reads the LA Times every day to have realized that the "news" is anything BUT impartial. Especially in the U.S., the "news" exists merely to sell advertising, and further the political agenda of the owner/editorial staff.

Isn't the BBC government owned? If you think they've destroyed their impartiality by allowing one news-reader to wear a cross, you should be absolutely apoplectic over the fact the the .gov *owns* the organization.

[NEON DEON]

[quote=madDdog67]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

yes, but your basic premise that a broadcast is flawed merely because the news is read by someone with a cross around their neck is nonsensical. And, honestly, I would have expected someone who most likely reads the LA Times every day to have realized that the "news" is anything BUT impartial. Especially in the U.S., the "news" exists merely to sell advertising, and further the political agenda of the owner/editorial staff.

Isn't the BBC government owned? If you think they've destroyed their impartiality by allowing one news-reader to wear a cross, you should be absolutely apoplectic over the fact the the .gov *owns* the organization.

I never said the news was flawed by wearing a cross.

I did, however, say this:

Post #23

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.

The news has to be objective.

Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.

Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.

A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.

If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.

[madDdog67]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.

[/quote]

Well, we can agree on that...but my contention is that editorializing is all we get now...but that's another story.

The dress/jewelry/accoutrements of the newscaster really don't factor into whether or not I find the content "objective". If I were to see a star of David around the anchor's neck, I wouldn't immediately assume the news is biased in favor of Israel. But that's just me. But how far do you want to take this?

For example, should I believe a newstation is biased for women's rights if they have a female presenter? Biased against women if they have a male presenter? Biased against straight people of they have a gay presenter? Religion, sex, etc, all can exert biases on a person's viewpoint.

I'd be interested to see your example of a completely unbiased news organization. I don't think one truly exists anymore...not even the beeb. And the bottom line is, if they folks think the news is biased because the newsperson sports a piece of jewelry, well...here's where it gets tricky...they don't have to friggin' watch it!! There are plenty of other news sources around.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by STEED

I have blown my top today, I am in a very angry mood that bloody PC BBC should be renamed the Muslim Political Correctness Broadcasting Corporation and here's why.

Here's another reason why:

BBC Suing to Suppress Critical Report on Mideast Coverage.

We've been calling them the Balestinian Broadcasting Corporation for decades.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Here's another reason why:

BBC Suing to Suppress Critical Report on Mideast Coverage.

We've been calling them the Balestinian Broadcasting Corporation for decades.

I am just glad I am not paying a licence fee anymore. The BBC news service is a disgrace.

[STEED]

And there is this one
BBC set to launch TV channel in Iran

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Noob

Yes.

Yes. It's heading thorwards Duck and Cover, thorwards saving my a**. No need to cause trouble if i can just shout up and continue in peace.

Wow! Good thing you don't live in my country because we don't need ideas like this or people not willing to stand up to ideas like this! They will kill you anyway since you are an infidel. Better to go fighting.

-S

PS. By the way, due to their very nature, there will never be peace. THey are animals that follow a path blindly without question.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by STEED

I am just glad I am not paying a licence fee anymore. The BBC news service is a disgrace.

It appears that the South Africans have learned from the BBC.

Or is it the other way around? :hmm:

[Abd_von_Mumit]

[QUOTE=SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Noob

PS. By the way, due to their very nature, there will never be peace. THey are animals that follow a path blindly without question.

Hmm... I was to post a long comment about this, but eventually I deleted what I wrote as I feel it's completely useless.

However, this thread makes me vomit, when I see all this hatred towards Muslims (you mess Muslims with Arabs, as well as with imigrants), expressed FREELY and without reaction of the Forum staff (imagine what would happen if anyone stated Jews were animals). Some of you are sick from hatred, guys, it needs treatment.

Have you noticed no Muslims here expressed hatred against you or Europe or Christianity, America or whatever?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What's with the zombie threads?

[Abd_von_Mumit]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

What's with the zombie threads?

Oh, you're right, I haven't noticed the dates (went here from link). My fault.