• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread BBC news reporting

catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Ah yes the "blatant "progressive" bias" so documented by that paragon of neutrality, The Telegraph....
Click to expand...

The Telegraph is allowed to be biased because it is a privately owned, viewer subscription-funded media outlet. This is no different to the left-biased Guardian (which very much acts like a "Ministry of Truth" for Labour). Not paying your Telegraph subscription won't get you prosecuted - all they will do is suspend your account login until you pay.

The BBC however, is Goverment owned and funded by a levied license fee. Not paying the fee is a criminal offense that will get you prosecuted and which carries a £1000 fine. Enforcement more often than not consists of The BBC sending their goon-squad (usually accompanied by Police for the intimidation value) around to your house to harass and threaten you, and in some cases, bully their way into your house, sometimes without a warrant, to seize your viewing equipement.

The BBC have a duty to be fair and balanced. They are clearly and obviously not, and the evidence has been overwhelming that they support a raft of left wing agenda issues
- anti-brexit
- pro-transgender ideology
- anti-Trump (which I have no problem with actually)
- pro-open borders
 
a_unique_person said:
It is evidence that Trump knew his best friend for 15 years preyed on underage girls and was around when it happened.
Click to expand...
The weird thing is that the people who were so excited about the so-called Epstein files tended to be Trump supporters (although recently many of them want to forget about them), yet Trump has made no secret that he was friends with Epstein and even more recently expressed sorrow that Maxwell would be going away for a long time. How is the cult not outraged about this but instead more upset about a sloppily edited documentary about the time Trump tried to overturn a democratic election?

I think that the Trump supporters really have a screwed up set of priorities. Let’s punish the BBC to protect Friend of the Pedos!!!
 
smartcooky said:
The Telegraph is allowed to be biased because it is a privately owned, viewer subscription-funded media outlet. This is no different to the left-biased Guardian (which very much acts like a "Ministry of Truth" for Labour). Not paying your Telegraph subscription won't get you prosecuted - all they will do is suspend your account login until you pay.

The BBC however, is Goverment owned and funded by a levied license fee. Not paying the fee is a criminal offense that will get you prosecuted and which carries a £1000 fine. Enforcement more often than not consists of The BBC sending their goon-squad (usually accompanied by Police for the intimidation value) around to your house to harass and threaten you, and in some cases, bully their way into your house, sometimes without a warrant, to seize your viewing equipement.

The BBC have a duty to be fair and balanced. They are clearly and obviously not, and the evidence has been overwhelming that they support a raft of left wing agenda issues
- anti-brexit
- pro-transgender ideology
- anti-Trump (which I have no problem with actually)
- pro-open borders
Click to expand...
The BBC is NOT government-owned. This is a common belief among the misinformed.

Also, the stuff about bullying their way into people’s homes without a warrant, they can only enter with permission or a warrant.

But yes, if someone watches TV without a license it is indeed illegal. Why would you be surprised if the police turn up to enforce a law?

You are fine with the police enforcing the law when it comes to peaceful protestors being arrested for writing a placard in support of a “proscribed organization” and you are fine with freedom of speech being curtailed by arbitrary “proscription”, so you should of course be fine with the police enforcing the law as it exists.

If you don’t like it, you can lobby your MP to have the law changed or vote for a party that promises to do so.

If the BBC license ends up getting scrapped it will be by the decision of the duly elected government of the United Kingdom, not because of some whining Neville Nobody from Nelson, New Zealand on the Internet.
 
Ziggurat said:
The victim in question is Virginia Guiffre, who has never claimed Trump did anything wrong. The BBC is participating in a smear job again, but this time their hands are legally clean.
Click to expand...
There is also the issue of Maxwell. She is in that email trail. She is deeply implicated in these crimes and has been convicted. Trump has moved her to a low security prison for reasons that no-one can explain and she has extraordinary privileges granted.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
There is also the issue of Maxwell. She is in that email trail. She is deeply implicated in these crimes and has been convicted. Trump has moved her to a low security prison for reasons that no-one can explain and she has extraordinary privileges granted.
Click to expand...
Of course, media sources are wary of stating the obvious, that Trump is clearly a Friend of the Pedos because he has been embarking on a crusade of silencing his media critics with threats of massive punitive lawsuits.

It is amazing to me how erstwhile Defenders of Free Speech are in favour of using the notorious UK courts to shut up the press. Clearly they don't believe in it at all, and are simply big supporters of their Dear Leader.
 
angrysoba said:
It is amazing to me how erstwhile Defenders of Free Speech are in favour of using the notorious UK courts to shut up the press. Clearly they don't believe in it at all, and are simply big supporters of their Dear Leader.
Click to expand...
When has freedom of speech meant no consequences for defamation? That's not what it means even under US 1st amendment jurisprudence.
 
GlennB said:
Nope
Click to expand...
Wrong! Its a case of tomayto, tomahto. While the BBC is not directly government-owned, it IS DIRECTLY overseen by the government. The government effectively owns the BBC in every way that matters.
1. It is a public corporation, not a private one.
2. The board of directors is not elected, it is appointed by the Monarch-in-Council on the advice of the UK Secretary of State.
3. It is funded by the government through the license fee.
4. It is regulated by Ofcom, a statutory body, the board of which is appointed by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, The CEO is appointed by the Chair of Ofcom with the approval of the Secretary of State.

Its government control all the way up and down... to pretend anything else is a sham.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The victim in question is Virginia Guiffre, who has never claimed Trump did anything wrong. The BBC is participating in a smear job again, but this time their hands are legally clean.
Click to expand...
The case can't be brought in the UK as the case has to be brought within 1 year of broadcast; it is time barred. The case is being brought in Florida which has a 2 year time bar, so is just within the window. The damages in the UK are much smaller as punitive damages are not a thing; even if Trump won, the award would be less than it cost him and he probably wouldn't be awarded costs. a Pyrrhic victory.
 
Ziggurat said:
When has freedom of speech meant no consequences for defamation? That's not what it means even under US 1st amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
As I said, UK courts are notoriously bad as all you have to show is that a statement was made. The costs of proving something is NOT defamation is a high bar in the UK, as you have to prove that the person received no material damage or that there was no reputation harmed, or that the statement was true. In the US, as you know, it is much harder to prove defamation. You have to prove the material damage took place and in the case of prominent figures you have to prove malicious intent. It is highly unlikely that Trump can prove those things.
 
Planigale said:
The damages in the UK are much smaller as punitive damages are not a thing; even if Trump won, the award would be less than it cost him and he probably wouldn't be awarded costs.
Click to expand...
In England and Wales it is pretty standard for the winner to get their costs.
 
smartcooky said:
...
The BBC have a duty to be fair and balanced. They are clearly and obviously not, and the evidence has been overwhelming that they support a raft of left wing agenda issues
Click to expand...
And a raft of right wing agenda issues. If only I could put you in touch with former members here you could have a lovely chat about the BBCs totally blatant bias to the left and right.
 
smartcooky said:
Wrong! Its a case of tomayto, tomahto. While the BBC is not directly government-owned, it IS DIRECTLY overseen by the government. The government effectively owns the BBC in every way that matters.
1. It is a public corporation, not a private one.
2. The board of directors is not elected, it is appointed by the Monarch-in-Council on the advice of the UK Secretary of State.
3. It is funded by the government through the license fee.
4. It is regulated by Ofcom, a statutory body, the board of which is appointed by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, The CEO is appointed by the Chair of Ofcom with the approval of the Secretary of State.

Its government control all the way up and down... to pretend anything else is a sham.
Click to expand...
To number 4.

Ofcom regulates all broadcast media, according to your logic that means the government controls all TV in the UK, all the commercial channels, GB News, Sky News, BBC News you name it. It would mean that you believe the media is similarly controlled by the government in New Zealand by the BSA. You are playing fast and loose with different meanings of control to try and paint a false picture.
 
Planigale said:
The case can't be brought in the UK as the case has to be brought within 1 year of broadcast; it is time barred. The case is being brought in Florida which has a 2 year time bar, so is just within the window. The damages in the UK are much smaller as punitive damages are not a thing; even if Trump won, the award would be less than it cost him and he probably wouldn't be awarded costs. a Pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
The publicity of a win has value of its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom