United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
moh said:
It might not be a big number to you but how many pensioner’s licence fee went to pay just that trip

If you spend the public money you have to be prepared to be held to account
Click to expand...

Agree & that opens a whole debate. My own opinion is pensioners don’t pay for licenses.

I live overseas so I can get partial bbc access for free & it’s funded by adverts. Maybe that’s why it’s become sensationalist & bantzy to sell adverts but it should certainly find it for pensioners.

I’ve already made my point he shouldn’t have been there.
 
dadnlad said:
i worry for his back as i noticed he doesnt bend his knees when picking the ball up from back of the net which looks like he does quiet often
Click to expand...
I actually thought utds keeper was disabled....,I'd not seen him use his hands effectively.
I also thought copycat utd were getting a sweeper keeper just like ours
Turns out ederson is behind the meanest defence ,at the top of the league,whilst noisy neighbours, last time I looked were 13th.

Unlucky for some.
 
Blueboy73 said:
I'm glad that you agree with my point about the licence fee and this is the key thing which angers so many about this organisation and the lack of accountability yet nothing ever gers done about it as those in a position to do anything about it won't as it may endanger their position on the BBC gravy train.
Personally I don't think that the BBC is particularly biased one way or the other politically however certain employees use their positions as BBC employees to push their own agendas for example Richard Sharp appointed as chairman after loaning Boris Johnson the thick end of £1 million without declaring it and Gary Lineker airing his views on social media with the subsequent fallout.
I'm not particularly political myself as I believe they all piss in the same pot but these two examples were jumped on by those of a left and right wing persuasion respectively.
Had the BBC not been publically funded this would not even be a debate.
The worst of the lot is BBC Sport, employing ex MUTV employees at BBC Salford a stonesthrow away from The Swamp with numerous well documented digs at our club on their publically funded platform.
Dan Roan, the first "journalist" to be banned from The Etihad who uses his position as a BBC employee to promote his views on social media and Simon Stone, self confessed Rag again with numerous well documented little digs.
Roan and Stone would have been sacked from any other organisation for their comments about Leicester's deceased owner and using their job to promote and sell Rag branded Tag watches.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think that the BBC is particularly biased one way or the other politically
Click to expand...
I'm not particularly political myself
Click to expand...
I suspect the latter leads you to believe the former. Those that are political have as strong views on the BBC political bias as you do on football.
Just for clarity the BBC Chairman is not a BBC employee nor is he/she appointed by the BBC. It's a government cabinet office role typically appointed by the culture and media department. His/her role is to hold the BBC to account on behalf of the government. He is head of the BBC trust which is also made up of people not employed by the BBC.
 
Last edited:
blueste41 said:
I suspect the latter leads you to believe the former. Those that are political have as strong views on the BBC political bias as you do on football.
Just for clarity the BBC Chairman is not a BBC employee nor is he/she appointed by the BBC.
Click to expand...
The point remains that if the BBC wasn't publically funded by a licence fee that you can be prosecuted for not having even if you don't access the BBC, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Individuals employed by the BBC are funded by the licence fee payer with an obligation to remain impartial and many have openly ignored and abused this using their position as BBC employees to air political views or to make childish digs or tell lies about a football team they don't like, over publicise some and ignore the achievements of others knowing full well they can do so with complete impunity.

If the chairman isn't appointed by the BBC then who appoints them?
If it's the government, they are leaving themselves and their organisation wide open to calls of bias, interference etc, particularly if the government appoints an individual who loaned £800,000 to the prime minister and fails to declare it.

All of the above, coupled with them covering up of the conduct of paedophiles and sexual deviants on their payroll both past and present, the BBC has shown it is not fit for purpose or deserving of any public funding.
 
Last edited:
Blueboy73 said:
The point remains that if the BBC wasn't publically funded by a licence fee that you can be prosecuted for not having even if you don't access the BBC, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Individuals employed by the BBC are funded by the licence fee payer with an obligation to remain impartial and many have openly ignored and abused this using their position as BBC employees to air political views or to make childish digs or tell lies about a football team they don't like, over publicise some and ignore the achievements of others knowing full well they can do so with complete impunity.

If the chairman isn't appointed by the BBC then who appoints them?
If it's the government, they are leaving themselves and their organisation wide open to calls of bias, interference etc, particularly if the government appoints an individual who loaned £800,000 to the prime minister and fails to declare it.

All of the above, coupled with them covering up of the conduct of paedophiles and sexual deviants on their payroll both past and present, the BBC has shown it is not fit for purpose or deserving of any public funding.
Click to expand...
It was in the post you replied to, it came immediately after your cut off!
The rest of your post is subjective opinion, although with regards to the part about Boris Johnson it's an opinion I couldn't agree more with.

hit house.jpg
 
jacko74 said:
Yes I spotted that latest little dig at City and Pep from the snivelling snide little shit that is Stone.

I attempted to lodge a complaint with the BBC regarding Stone going to Madrid to cover Greenwood's debut for Getafe... after filling out all the form, providing a required link to the offending article and outlining my complaint on their website it says the complaint can only be registered by clicking on the validation link in an email that they'll send me.

Never received any email from them, I suppose that's one way for them to keep the complaint stats low, devious twats.
Click to expand...

Turns out we were all wrong and they arent at all biased against City. Here's the response for my complaint about Stone's "few neutrals will have sympathy for Guardiola" comment...1000009558.jpg
 
blueste41 said:
It was in the post you replied to, it came immediately after your cut off!
The rest of your post is subjective opinion, although with regards to the part about Boris Johnson it's an opinion I couldn't agree more with.

View attachment 94098
Click to expand...
So the examples of BBC employees who are supposed to be impartial posting political rhetoric on Social Media for self promotion of their views or advertising merchandise with the intention of gaining financially whilst knowing full well that people will view their posts because they are in the public eye because of their employment with the BBC is just subjective opinion?
Is the fact that the BBC covered up for Jimmy Saville for several years also subjective opinion?

I don't have any ties to the BBC or any other media outlet but at least I can choose whether to pay to watch or listen to individuals in the WhatsApp group or the likes of Neville, Carragher etc and if I don't like their opinions or if they're spouting factually inaccurate and at times slanderous and libellous bollocks.
I don't have this option with the BBC whether I access their output or not and can be prosecuted if I don't pay for something I don't want to or have any intention of using.
Perhaps the fact that you have a vested interest in and financially gain directly from the BBC had coloured your judgement somewhat?
 
mattcity5 said:
Turns out we were all wrong and they arent at all biased against City. Here's the response for my complaint about Stone's "few neutrals will have sympathy for Guardiola" comment...View attachment 94111
Click to expand...
Remarkable isn't it.

It's just plain and simple gaslighting, looking you straight in the face and telling you that something isn't what it blatantly is and you're just imagining it if you think otherwise.

Have you followed it up by asking if any of the reports on united's "injury crisis" has included a similar line about how "few neutrals will have any sympathy given the riches lavished on the squad"
 
Blueboy73 said:
So the examples of BBC employees who are supposed to be impartial posting political rhetoric on Social Media for self promotion of their views or advertising merchandise with the intention of gaining financially whilst knowing full well that people will view their posts because they are in the public eye because of their employment with the BBC is just subjective opinion?
Is the fact that the BBC covered up for Jimmy Saville for several years also subjective opinion?

I don't have any ties to the BBC or any other media outlet but at least I can choose whether to pay to watch or listen to individuals in the WhatsApp group or the likes of Neville, Carragher etc and if I don't like their opinions or if they're spouting factually inaccurate and at times slanderous and libellous bollocks.
I don't have this option with the BBC whether I access their output or not and can be prosecuted if I don't pay for something I don't want to or have any intention of using.
Perhaps the fact that you have a vested interest in and financially gain directly from the BBC had coloured your judgement somewhat?
Click to expand...
TBH I missed the last paragraph regarding paedophilia and for that I apologise. But to be clear, examples of employee misconduct and enabling behaviour at the BBC are on the public record and therefore not subjective opinion.
I don't recognise the allegations in your fist paragraph so I can't offer a qualified response, however if you provide links to examples I would be happy to do so?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top