United Thread - 2023/24

[Blueboy73]

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.

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.

 

[blueste41]

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.

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.

 

[blue44]

 

[Protein Junkie]

Please, please very politely please








Fuck off to the Media thread and let us butcher the Rags in peace.

 

[mattcity5]

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.

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...

 

[Blueboy73]

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

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?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

View attachment 94110
Please, please very politely please








Fuck off to the Media thread and let us butcher the Rags in peace.

Bump

 

[blueste41]

Do you think neutrals do have sympathy for us then ;)

 

[jacko74]

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

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"

 

[blueste41]

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?

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?