Time for the BBC to go?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Time for the BBC to go?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 8 · Next
Author Message
bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,653,680
RAC: 3,014
United States
Message 1290287 - Posted: 2 Oct 2012, 3:56:37 UTC - in response to Message 1290268.

Welcome to the world of the conspiracy theorists. We have the whack jobs over here spouting the same nonsense.

Nobody in washington DC can keep a secret but yet we are to belive that 9-11 was planed years in advance. Yeah right.


Common sense would seem to suggest this is true. It's too big (not in the I'm Worried Guy big gubment, necessarily, but, big in some sense) for secrets not to get out.
But, wait. Where's the evidence?
Any data to back this up?
If not, well, I am comfortable believing that they can keep a lot more secrets than most of you could believe, and this whole "gubment's too big for us to keep a secret" has been a major part of their disinformation scheme.


Abu Ghraib, wireless wiretaps, even Valerie Plame, Wikileaks, that departmental bash in Vegas, secrets the government could not keep, and that's only the past 10 years with no U.S. citizens as fatalities. Not to say there are no government secrets, that would be idiotic, only that there's likely to be someone to leak should there be an attempt to hush up something clearly against the public interest.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290462 - Posted: 2 Oct 2012, 23:19:16 UTC

Ah yes, that famous old quote: - "Freedom of speech". Yep, can't argue with that whatsoever.

However, what about responsibility? Wasting licence payers money on 4 nutjobs just to give them 60 minutes of fame before disappearing into the background.

The USA has seen this freedom of speech at work a la "innocence of muslims".

Now that cost lives, so freedom of speech without responsibility is acceptable?
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13542
Credit: 29,418,189
RAC: 16,032
United States
Message 1290474 - Posted: 2 Oct 2012, 23:44:13 UTC - in response to Message 1290462.
Last modified: 2 Oct 2012, 23:47:34 UTC

We have court systems to hold people responsible for their actions. Speech allows us to see what is inside someone's mind by their way of thinking. Showing the world what they think and why it's wrong is perhaps the most responsible thing to do.

If we want to hold people responsible for their speech, then we have lost that freedom to highlight it and show that it is wrong. Who then becomes the thought police, and at what point are people held accountable for their words?

So which do you advocate: that we allow the hatred to continue to boil within these extremists, while they sow their hate within new recruits? Or that we put them on national television and make them understand how wrong they are in front of possibly millions of viewers?

60 minutes of fame? Yeah, most of us want it showing the best side of us. I'll bet those that changed their mind by the end of the program will now have to live with not only their guilt of having been wrong and advocated taking human lives, but now the entire world will have seen who they really are at that point in time, and they will have to carry that around with them for the rest of their lives. Not exactly the type of fame they wanted, right?

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290479 - Posted: 2 Oct 2012, 23:55:23 UTC - in response to Message 1290474.

We have court systems to hold people responsible for their actions. Speech allows us to see what is inside someone's mind by their way of thinking. Showing the world what they think and why it's wrong is perhaps the most responsible thing to do. Have yet to see that stop the killing.

If we want to hold people responsible for their speech, then we have lost that freedom to highlight it and show that it is wrong. Who then becomes the thought police, and at what point are people held accountable for their words?Continue as we are doing & who repairs the damage?

So which do you advocate: that we allow the hatred to continue to boil within these extremists, while they sow their hate within new recruits? Or that we put them on national television and make them understand how wrong they are in front of possibly millions of viewers? Hasn't stopped the killing yet

60 minutes of fame? Yeah, most of us want it showing the best side of us. I'll bet those that changed their mind by the end of the program will now have to live with not only their guilt of having been wrong and advocated taking human lives, but now the entire world will have seen who they really are at that point in time, and they will have to carry that around with them for the rest of their lives. Not exactly the type of fame they wanted, right?
That's reality TV for you. Nothing will be said by their compatriots - they were on TV will be all that matters to them
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13542
Credit: 29,418,189
RAC: 16,032
United States
Message 1290483 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:04:45 UTC - in response to Message 1290479.
Last modified: 3 Oct 2012, 0:06:20 UTC

Sirius, nothing will ever stop the killing. Yes, some people will think they were superstars since they were on TV. But a larger group of people will have seen their horror of their thoughts, and learn to recognize it and challenge those that are starting to think that way.

If you're more worried about the small percentage that will idolize them, then you are focusing on the wrong group of people. These people always hide who they truly are because most of society doesn't accept their way of thinking. Their minds can be changed, but only if we bring it out into the open.

I'm happier focusing on those that are converted away from the line of thinking than by worrying about what a bunch of idiots think is 60 minutes of fame. How many people are converted away by not talking about it?

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290484 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:06:34 UTC - in response to Message 1290483.

Sirius, nothing will ever stop the killing. Yes, some people will think they were superstars since they were on TV. But a larger group of people will have seen their horror of their thoughts, and learn to recognize it and challenge those that are starting to think that way.

If you're more worried about the small percentage that will idolize them, then you are focusing on the wrong group of people. These people always hide who they truly are because most of society doesn't accept their way of thinking. Their minds can be changed, but only if we bring it out into the open.

I'm happier focusing on those that are converted away from the line of thinking than by worrying about what a bunch of idiots think is 60 minutes of fame.


Thanks, never looked at it that way.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,653,680
RAC: 3,014
United States
Message 1290485 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:07:54 UTC - in response to Message 1290462.

However, what about responsibility? Wasting licence payers money on 4 nutjobs just to give them 60 minutes of fame before disappearing into the background.


I thought you said you changed channel after 5 minutes. Did you record and watch the show later? Having watched the thing from start to finish, it was not giving 4 nutjobs 60 minutes of fame, and I'd imagine the majority of viewers will not recall the names of the individual conspiracy theorists in a week's time.

What viewers will likely remember is the father (Graham Foulkes) who lost a son, the woman (Jacqui Putnam) who was on the next carriage to one of the bombers, and the destructive power of home made explosives. They may also take away how ordinary folks can end up believing the nonsense theories in the first place.


____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13542
Credit: 29,418,189
RAC: 16,032
United States
Message 1290486 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:08:59 UTC - in response to Message 1290485.

^^^ Even better response.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290492 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:24:12 UTC - in response to Message 1290485.


What viewers will likely remember is the father (Graham Foulkes) who lost a son, the woman (Jacqui Putnam) who was on the next carriage to one of the bombers, and the destructive power of home made explosives. They may also take away how ordinary folks can end up believing the nonsense theories in the first place.


Most ordinary folk don't believe that anyway. However, from the actions of those that were there that day, to this day, makes me wonder.

You can continue to state your case, but I still can't see why the BBC wasted time broadcasting this crap - haven't they got anything better to do than that?

There is a hell of a lot more they can do, but don't. If one then says, you don't have to watch it or switch off, then that comes back to to point, why have a licence then? After all they are only one channel. all the rest are SKY or Cable which we pay for anyway.

Get rid of the BBC as a licence funded organisation then they can broadcast whatever crap they like.
____________

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 6824
Credit: 24,652,712
RAC: 26,824
United Kingdom
Message 1290496 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:51:57 UTC - in response to Message 1290492.


What viewers will likely remember is the father (Graham Foulkes) who lost a son, the woman (Jacqui Putnam) who was on the next carriage to one of the bombers, and the destructive power of home made explosives. They may also take away how ordinary folks can end up believing the nonsense theories in the first place.


Most ordinary folk don't believe that anyway. However, from the actions of those that were there that day, to this day, makes me wonder.

You can continue to state your case, but I still can't see why the BBC wasted time broadcasting this crap - haven't they got anything better to do than that?

There is a hell of a lot more they can do, but don't. If one then says, you don't have to watch it or switch off, then that comes back to to point, why have a licence then? After all they are only one channel. all the rest are SKY or Cable which we pay for anyway.

Get rid of the BBC as a licence funded organisation then they can broadcast whatever crap they like.


The BBC is more than one channel, I assume you know that, and they broadcast diverse programs across BBC1,2,3 and 4. This program was on BBC4, so not mainstream. You might say they are all rubbish, that is your view. But is is BECAUSE they are a public broadcaster that they can and should show all types of programs featuring all types of people with differing and sometimes unpalatable views.

The commercial channels would steer clear of this sort of thing as it would not be popular with advertisers. Channel 4 as the other public service broadcaster has enough problems with funding.

The BBC has a job to do and it can never please everybody. It is important that there is some form of broadcasting in the UK that does not have to please its advertisers.

As I have said I hate adverts disturbing program, they are banal and just grate on my senses. I would gladly pay more so that all channels could be provided advert free.



____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290498 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 0:55:42 UTC - in response to Message 1290496.

My mistake, meant one organisation like Sky, with Sky 1,2 etc etc. Actually it was broadcast on BBC3.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13542
Credit: 29,418,189
RAC: 16,032
United States
Message 1290515 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 1:48:35 UTC - in response to Message 1290492.

You can continue to state your case, but I still can't see why the BBC wasted time broadcasting this crap - haven't they got anything better to do than that?


Isn't this essentially the same as asking what God did before He created the Universe? Our case is the answer. I respect that you don't agree with it, as I disagree with you're wanting to hide it because you're afraid of giving 'nutjobs' 60 minutes of fame.

To some extent, I can't argue much with you because I feel the same way about trashy talk shows here in the US, but I also know that even if I don't like them, they might do some good for other people. I would suggest the same applies here to you.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290516 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 1:51:44 UTC - in response to Message 1290515.


To some extent, I can't argue much with you because I feel the same way about trashy talk shows here in the US, but I also know that even if I don't like them, they might do some good for other people. I would suggest the same applies here to you.


Quite true. However, as I'm paying for it along with "most" everyone else, I'm entitled to run them down & praise them when they're good.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13542
Credit: 29,418,189
RAC: 16,032
United States
Message 1290517 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 1:56:50 UTC - in response to Message 1290516.


To some extent, I can't argue much with you because I feel the same way about trashy talk shows here in the US, but I also know that even if I don't like them, they might do some good for other people. I would suggest the same applies here to you.


Quite true. However, as I'm paying for it along with "most" everyone else, I'm entitled to run them down & praise them when they're good.


Understood. And we're entitled to run down your bad ideas and praise your good ones. ;-)

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290519 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 2:05:34 UTC - in response to Message 1290517.


To some extent, I can't argue much with you because I feel the same way about trashy talk shows here in the US, but I also know that even if I don't like them, they might do some good for other people. I would suggest the same applies here to you.


Quite true. However, as I'm paying for it along with "most" everyone else, I'm entitled to run them down & praise them when they're good.


Understood. And we're entitled to run down your bad ideas and praise your good ones. ;-)


Exactly.
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31148
Credit: 11,357,898
RAC: 21,375
United Kingdom
Message 1290647 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 9:23:24 UTC

If any UK TV channel should go it's Channel 4, some of the stuff they have put on over the years has been unbelievable. As to funding for TV channels, commercial stations have to have adverts to raise the revenues to fund their operations. If you want advert free viewing then effectively you are paying for it via a licence and the BBC channels. I think we should keep the BBC but it needs to have a top down culture change from being an institution, to listening to its viewers.

But these days there are clever PVR's out there that can record a program and play it back skipping the adverts. In time TV's will probably have inbuilt time shifting to achieve the same thing. Bit of a headache for the advertisers, no point paying for your adverts to be broadcast if no one is going to see them.

We have a system in the UK that you buy a TV licence if you have an operational TV set in your house, even if you never watch the BBC. It is the premises that are licenced for using receiving equipment, not the TV set itself. If someone manufactured a TV that simply couldn't receive BBC signals, but could everything else, you would still have to pay for a licence, as you do with Cable TV.

And don't forget also that the licence fee covers radio broadcasts as well. It also covers the cost of Transmitting stations, relay stations and TV masts. BBC spending

You need a valid TV Licence if you use TV receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV. ‘TV receiving equipment’ means any equipment which is used to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. This includes a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device.

Licence

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8688
Credit: 245,114
RAC: 136
Canada
Message 1290793 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 15:52:57 UTC - in response to Message 1290647.

If any UK TV channel should go it's Channel 4, some of the stuff they have put on over the years has been unbelievable. As to funding for TV channels, commercial stations have to have adverts to raise the revenues to fund their operations. If you want advert free viewing then effectively you are paying for it via a licence and the BBC channels. I think we should keep the BBC but it needs to have a top down culture change from being an institution, to listening to its viewers.

But these days there are clever PVR's out there that can record a program and play it back skipping the adverts. In time TV's will probably have inbuilt time shifting to achieve the same thing. Bit of a headache for the advertisers, no point paying for your adverts to be broadcast if no one is going to see them.

We have a system in the UK that you buy a TV licence if you have an operational TV set in your house, even if you never watch the BBC. It is the premises that are licenced for using receiving equipment, not the TV set itself. If someone manufactured a TV that simply couldn't receive BBC signals, but could everything else, you would still have to pay for a licence, as you do with Cable TV.

And don't forget also that the licence fee covers radio broadcasts as well. It also covers the cost of Transmitting stations, relay stations and TV masts. BBC spending

You need a valid TV Licence if you use TV receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV. ‘TV receiving equipment’ means any equipment which is used to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. This includes a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device.

Licence

Channels funded by advertising have to appeal to lowest common denominator. You never struck me as someone who wants to watch back to back episodes of "Survivor".

Channel 4 has made some remarkable programs and films...and their 7pm news is very good. I can think of very few really top quality programs produced by any of the non-funded channels. Sky just mostly shows the best of US TV, which actually gives you a distorted view of the quality of US TV. There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of unmitigated sh*te broadcast on US TV. You really have to sift through to find the good stuff.

Be careful what you wish for. I don't think you actually understand the full implications and what you will be left with.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 6824
Credit: 24,652,712
RAC: 26,824
United Kingdom
Message 1290797 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 16:10:28 UTC

There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of unmitigated sh*te broadcast on US TV. You really have to sift through to find the good stuff.


I hadn't wanted to say anything in case I upset anyone in the US. However having tried to watch US TV on several visits, I would say that our worst TV on a good day is better than most US TV.

Also it seems that "anything" can be advertised, lawyers, doctors, and lots of "wonder medical treatments". Because advertising has to be fair, the adverts spend more time listing the possible side effects of these wonder drugs than they do advertising. For someone who hates TV advertising it is really really bad. I am glad I can come home to bearable TV.

I would really hate the UK to go they same way. Long live the BBC and all means.
____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8555
Credit: 31,500,861
RAC: 57,688
United States
Message 1290802 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 16:17:20 UTC - in response to Message 1290797.

There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of unmitigated sh*te broadcast on US TV. You really have to sift through to find the good stuff.


I hadn't wanted to say anything in case I upset anyone in the US. However having tried to watch US TV on several visits, I would say that our worst TV on a good day is better than most US TV.

Also it seems that "anything" can be advertised, lawyers, doctors, and lots of "wonder medical treatments". Because advertising has to be fair, the adverts spend more time listing the possible side effects of these wonder drugs than they do advertising. For someone who hates TV advertising it is really really bad. I am glad I can come home to bearable TV.

I would really hate the UK to go they same way. Long live the BBC and all means.


Bernie you wont upset me in the least. US TV SUCKS!!!! And the adds SUCK WORSE!!!!!
I dont watch the networks at all. The shows I do watch are on PBS, Discovery, History, and the Military channel.

The wife and I do enjoy some shows on BBC America to. Now if they would start repeats of Ground Force.
____________

Old James

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10274
Credit: 1,530,392
RAC: 255
United Kingdom
Message 1290852 - Posted: 3 Oct 2012, 18:01:00 UTC

I'm not 100% positive about this as it was some time ago.

In the 1st quarter of this year, one of the cable channels (can't recall which one), did a similar programme but regarding 9/11 instead of 7/7.

Again, if memory serves correctly, it was about 4 "nutjobs" on a coach trip to the affected sites of that day.

The main reason why I switched channels was that I'm pretty sure that 2 of those whackos on the BBC3 programme were on that 9/11 programme.

So, why those nutjobs BBC? Why not pick others?
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 8 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Time for the BBC to go?

Copyright © 2014 University of California