The BBC | Tim Davie resigns as Director General over Trump documentary edit (p 187)

meltonblue said:
And like I said, that’s exactly what the other side are saying too. As you said, people see what they want to see.

It’s hard not to see at least some validity in a plan that has been around for 20 years. Both can be true at the same time.
Click to expand...

With respect that's immaterial, a plan, no plan, 20 years, 20 seconds, sharks in the water, piss in the water, it's all noises off.

The BBC is institutionally captured, these "mistakes" are not random, there is a common theme to them, this isn't a few bad apples, this isn't a blooper reel, there's consistency to this bias and that speaks to the culture of the place.
 
Last edited:
Bazzmand Show said:
its a fucking joke, the hysteria whipped up by the right over this has been absurd.
Click to expand...
Of course, but like with the flags, some "outrages" from the right are entirely manufactured, in fact most are, they burn out like a cheap firework, but some persist, they have traction, which means they have resonance beyond the pages of the Daily Mail and GB News shite.
 
One potential and relatively simple answer is scrap the charter and mandatory licence fee so that they can then broadcast whatever they like based on whatever ideologies or political perspectives that they wish to support/promote. Those that share such persuasions will subscribe, those that don't, won't. This will remove the need to pretend that they don't carry deep-rooted bias in their coverage of certain topics, they can just be up-front and transparent.
 
The perfect fumble said:
With respect that immaterial, a plan, no plan, 20 years, 20 seconds, sharks in the water, piss in the water, it's all noises off.

The BBC is institutionally captured, these "mistakes" are not random, there is a common theme to them, this isn't a few bad apples, this isn't a blooper reel, there's consistency to this bias and that speaks to the culture of the place.
Click to expand...

It’s not immaterial though, part of the reason for it is the bbc has become as polarised as everything else. The other side would say exactly the same but it’s been captured by Gibb and other right wing forces. Both can be true at the same time.

Israel Gaza being a prime example, there’s plenty that would vociferously argue the opposite to Prescott.

There’s also the fact there’s multiple dropped bollocks in all of this.
 
Metal Biker said:
You've said what I said, you just took longer to say it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I must have misread you. By saying ‘We are forced to pay for the BBC…’ ‘…why should we be forced to pay for content we don't want, to gain access to the content that we do?’, I thought you were saying that we are all forced to pay the Licence Fee.

I thought I’d let people know that we are still able to watch many avenues of television without paying the Licence Fee.
 
The perfect fumble said:
I repeat....

Pro Palestinian, pro gender ideology, anti Trump.

Doesn't look like right wing capture to me and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Click to expand...

No it won’t do, because you agree with those sentiments and Prescott and Gibb’s views. There will be plenty that agree and plenty that think the complete opposite and, to reiterate, both of them can be true.

What looks like left wing capture is the sentiments in Prescotts report. What looks like right wing capture is Gibbs appointment in the first place, and now his friends writing a report that aligned exactly with what he said at the board previously and leaking that report to the telegraph.

Both need to be gotten rid of.
 
Last edited:
.db. said:
We don’t have to pay the Licence Fee. We only have to if we watch any BBC content or any live TV.

However, if all we do is stream non-BBC content on apps or online from ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, UTV, Freevee, Plex, Pluto, Tubi, Netflix, Now, Prime, Disney, Paramount, YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, ihavenotv, Rumble etc… we can go to http://www.tvlicence.co.uk and go to Declare No Licence Needed and tell them we do not need a licence.

It is not a legal requirement to pay the Licence Fee. There’s £174.50 a year we can save.

I get why it’s annoying when people do watch live TV but not the BBC. Say they have Sky for the live sport but never watch the BBC, they still have to pay the Licence Fee, which is annoying.
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is me ! I watch live tv but ( i think ) dont watch any bbc live. Yet to watch itv live i have to pay the bbc. Yet to watch live bbc i dont have to pay itv.

It's fucking ridiculous I have to pay the bbc to watch live tv on from another station. In what other world would this be expected ?
 
meltonblue said:
No it won’t do, because you agree with those sentiments and Prescott and Gibb’s views. There will be plenty that agree and plenty that think the complete opposite and, to reiterate, both of them can be true.
Click to expand...

It's not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with Prescott and Gibbs views, as this matter is clearly a case of if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Gibbs appointment and Prescott's sentiments are not responsible for the doctoring of that Trump speech, they were not the drivers of the BBC's pro Palestinian stance or their support for gender ideology. The fact that Gibbs and Prescott may disagree with these sentiments is not relevant to the crux of the matter, in fact its only relevance is that clearly it's only someone with Prescott's politics working within the BBC that could've exposed all this, so in this sorry matter his politics is clearly a positive otherwise we might be none the wiser. You clearly want Prescott and Gibbs removed because of their political bias and see this bias as having some form of equivalence to the matter at hand, but that is plainly a nonsense and seeks to deliberately muddy the waters in order to distract from the matter itself and that matter is the clear and obvious BBC bias that Prescott exposed. In fact were it not for Prescott's politics the far more important matter of the BBC's political stance on these issues, and after all that's what makes it to our screens, would never have been exposed.

meltonblue said:
What looks like left wing capture is the sentiments in Prescotts report. What looks like right wing capture is Gibbs appointment in the first place,
Click to expand...

Right wing capture? Prescott and Gibbs were appointed because the BBC was clearly already captured, and not by their ilk and their politics, this is as obvious as the nose on your face, all Prescott has done is his job, he was sent there to expose it and he has exposed it.

The only significance to this matter that Gibbs and Prescott's politics has, or the reasoning behind their appointment, is that without their appointment and without Prescott's politics these matters would never have been exposed.

There is no six of one and half a dozen of the other here and your insistence that there is smacks of desperation.
 
Last edited:
bluethrunthru said:
I very much doubt it will come to anything. Apologise and move on. If he wants to go to a court in Florida then fine - the BBC will be able to explain in their defence everything Trump said and did on the 6th - I doubt he will want that to happen. If he silences them through his court don't pay anything. He will have to come to a UK court to enforce a judgement where it can all be played out.

Trump is old and ill. Trump has 3 years as president after that ........? I am genuinely surprised by the gloating reaction of the BBC rivals to be honest. Trump has forced US media to bow to his will with financial threats. If he were to win here do they think thats it? He and his cronies will clamp down on anything he doesn't like. Is that what they want? Is that what the people of the UK want? Our media openly controlled by a foreign power?
Click to expand...

Starmer can always make him a Duke. A vacancy has occurred since his last royal visit.
 
It is many years since I trusted the BBC. I rarely watch their news now, although I get a quick summary from BBC on line. I see the last words of the head of news on her departure were:” We are not institutionally biassed.”
They just can’t see their own faults.
 
KS55 said:
It is many years since I trusted the BBC. I rarely watch their news now, although I get a quick summary from BBC on line. I see the last words of the head of news on her departure were:” We are not institutionally biassed.”
They just can’t see their own faults.
Click to expand...
Who do you trust mate?
 
Lowtower said:
Who do you trust mate?
Click to expand...
A difficult question, given there is so little choice of comprehensive news organisations. I am sceptical about most. US is easier due to the growth of independent on line news organisations but UK has few if any of these.
Crazily, the one that comes nearest to fair reportage is The Times. Good old Murdoch!!
 
bluethrunthru said:
I very much doubt it will come to anything. Apologise and move on. If he wants to go to a court in Florida then fine - the BBC will be able to explain in their defence everything Trump said and did on the 6th - I doubt he will want that to happen. If he silences them through his court don't pay anything. He will have to come to a UK court to enforce a judgement where it can all be played out.

Trump is old and ill. Trump has 3 years as president after that ........? I am genuinely surprised by the gloating reaction of the BBC rivals to be honest. Trump has forced US media to bow to his will with financial threats. If he were to win here do they think thats it? He and his cronies will clamp down on anything he doesn't like. Is that what they want? Is that what the people of the UK want? Our media openly controlled by a foreign power?
Click to expand...
Who controls the media in the UK as it is right now? The media was lost to money a long time ago. The bbc will offer a payment to a ‘trump’ charity and behave moving forward.
 
KS55 said:
A difficult question, given there is so little choice of comprehensive news organisations. I am sceptical about most. US is easier due to the growth of independent on line news organisations but UK has few if any of these.
Crazily, the one that comes nearest to fair reportage is The Times. Good old Murdoch!!
Click to expand...
The Times?

Sweet baby jesus
 
So if they pay a fine to him it comes fro our license fee, they’ll put that up to recover the money, they need to scrap that licence fee now and this would be a good excuse to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top