Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

Chippy_boy said:
It's true in principle. I didn't realise you had to post pages of small print and disclaimers, which would divert from the point of the post:

If you want to watch TV in the UK, you need to pay for a TV license. You know that very well.
Click to expand...

That's quite simply false. Nobody is forcing you to watch the BBC, nor pay for it.

If you don't wish to pay to be robbed, you may block out BBC from your receiver (most likely a digibox these days) and you will therefore not have to pay for such a service.

You pay for your TV subscription, you pay for your TV. If you wish to be subscribed to the BBC too, THEN you also pay for that subscription in the form of the so-called ''Licence Fee''.

There have been some, more worryingly, likening this to Tax Avoidance, or even Tax Evasion, but these are completely different things. It is not a Tax and it's a dangerous conflation to make.

Whilst the BBC does also receive funding from our tax pot (as does C4), this is unrelated to the licence fee which is a subscription to a service and has nothing to do with our Tax System in any way, shape, or form. It is also completely optional, in that you may opt out of those channels, and only pay for those actually worth a dime.

Screw the paedophilic, morally corrupt, biased, and deplorable company that is the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation.
 
ProFunk said:
That's quite simply false. Nobody is forcing you to watch the BBC, nor pay for it.

If you don't wish to pay to be robbed, you may block out BBC from your receiver (most likely a digibox these days) and you will therefore not have to pay for such a service.

You pay for your TV subscription, you pay for your TV. If you wish to be subscribed to the BBC too, THEN you also pay for that subscription in the form of the so-called ''Licence Fee''.

There have been some, more worryingly, likening this to Tax Avoidance, or even Tax Evasion, but these are completely different things. It is not a Tax and it's a dangerous conflation to make.

Whilst the BBC does also receive funding from our tax pot (as does C4), this is unrelated to the licence fee which is a subscription to a service and has nothing to do with our Tax System in any way, shape, or form. It is also completely optional, in that you may opt out of those channels, and only pay for those actually worth a dime.

Screw the paedophilic, morally corrupt, biased, and deplorable company that is the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation.
Click to expand...

License is exactly what it says, it's not a subscription fee for the BBC

Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use or install TV receiving equipment to:

  • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, including programmes streamed over the internet and satellite programmes from outside the UK, or
  • watch or download BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer without being covered by a TV Licence.
Apologies for been of topic felt that this needed to be corrected
 
Gordyola said:
License is exactly what it says, it's not a subscription fee for the BBC

Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use or install TV receiving equipment to:

  • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, including programmes streamed over the internet and satellite programmes from outside the UK, or
  • watch or download BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer without being covered by a TV Licence.
Apologies for been of topic felt that this needed to be corrected
Click to expand...

Only applies to BBC programming. Which is why the block is provided.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I think the original complaint was firmly brushed under the carpet. Certainly the e-mail I had back basically said it was a a genuine mistake, and no offence was intended. I think everyone on BM knows that's b***ocks.
Click to expand...

Swept under the carpet via a catalogue of lies and misinformation- originally claimed the picture was sourced with the comments already attributed- when that was disproved a further set of lies were rolled out Bertie was a name plucked at random! Yeah right. Some Rag did this as a bit of fun at Pete’s expense - everyone knows what happened but the culture at the BBC is to cover things up and to lie. We saw that with Stuart Hall, Jimmy Saville etc and nothing has changed. They are too arrogant to admit they are ever wrong. A really bad culture that’ll lead to more and more issues.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Yes. They rejected the complaint on the grounds that they had no jurisdiction over social media content iirc. A real cop-out. I'll see if I've still got the email.
Click to expand...
It was BBC social media content which one of their Rag Muppet employees posted. I'm f**ked if I can fathom how on earth the they've worked out they weren't responsible for it.

They are the worst kind of corporate organisation. One that seems to operate without consequence or fear of reprisals for their actions.
SCUMBAGS!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Can't find the email but it was Ofcom who said that they (i.e. Ofcom) couldn't rule on BBC social media content.
Click to expand...
OFCOM?

The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, Telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.

The BBC is a statutory corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen from April 2017 by the BBC Board and regulated by Ofcom.

Both from wiki.

IIRC the offending article was before April 17, so probably not covers by the new charter, but if OfCom can't rule over over all output by broadcasters, then who can?
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
It was BBC social media content which one of their Rag Muppet employees posted. I'm f**ked if I can fathom how on earth the they've worked out they weren't responsible for it.

They are the worst kind of corporate organisation. One that seems to operate without consequence or fear of reprisals for their actions.
SCUMBAGS!
Click to expand...

Yes the BBC have fallen into the gutter.

In a more recent example, I thought it was a disgrace that our licence fees were used to fund a media onslaught against Mark Sampson, in support of one of their pundits. Sampson might have deserved the sack but the Beeb were going to make sure it happened, regardless of the rights and wrongs.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
Yes the BBC have fallen into the gutter.

In a more recent example, I thought it was a disgrace that our licence fees were used to fund a media onslaught against Mark Sampson, in support of one of their pundits. Sampson might have deserved the sack but the Beeb were going to make sure it happened, regardless of the rights and wrongs.
Click to expand...
The BBC systematically drove him out. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of the Sampson report well in advance but held on to it, waiting for the most newsworthy time to make it public. The BBC sports reporters were all over the story like a rash; none more than that sanctimonious prick Dan Roan.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
The BBC systematically drove him out. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of the Sampson report well in advance but held on to it, waiting for the most newsworthy time to make it public. The BBC sports reporters were all over the story like a rash; none more than that sanctimonious prick Dan Roan.
Click to expand...

Spot on mate. There was little or no mention of support for Sampson in the squad.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I think the original complaint was firmly brushed under the carpet. Certainly the e-mail I had back basically said it was a a genuine mistake, and no offence was intended. I think everyone on BM knows that's b***ocks.
Click to expand...

What about the complaint regarding the BBC's blatant advertising of the United watches in one of its articles? I thought that was the stronger of the two.
 
jaigurugoat said:
What about the complaint regarding the BBC's blatant advertising of the United watches in one of its articles? I thought that was the stronger of the two.
Click to expand...
They decided it wasn't substantive enough to warrant action. I've found the email:

We have carefully reviewed the material you are concerned about, your complaint and the BBC’s final response to you on it. Ofcom considers that your complaint does not raise a substantive issue under the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines that requires our further consideration. We will therefore not be pursuing your complaint.

With regard to your comments about the Match of the Day Facebook page and a BBC employee’s Twitter feed, I should be clear that Ofcom has no role in the regulation of BBC social media pages. More information can be found here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/101893/bbc-online-procedures.pdf
Click to expand...
 
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