Defund the BBC.

[midnight_rendezvous]

OMG, you really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?

Why do you think every solution to the (supposed) global warming is CO2 reduction? Doh!

Actually, my money is on the wall winning the debate with you.

So methane, which is about 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth, on a 100-year timescale, and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years - isn’t something to concern ourselves about? Obviously not because it didn’t come up once in you’re science denying diatribe. For someone who says they didn’t want to debate climate change, you’ve done an awfully bad job at avoiding doing so.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Actually, I did very well at school. Never had the opportunity to go to uni, but have been running my own company for 25 years and been making a six figure income for years. Started another company a few years ago too.
.

The point was that didn’t do well at school. Which you have challenged; which fine. But why then bring your salary into the argument? What was the point of this? What does this prove? I know some exceedingly bright people who don’t earn much, or even want to. Equally the opposite, I know many people who didn’t do well and earn a fortune.

 

[Eeyore]

In the words of one of its ex-reporters wHen in Brighton.......

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/54399...news-reports-while-working-as-bbc-journalist/

He was a reporter indeed. Didn't get the news presenter job he wanted.

He also claimed that the BBC had a right wing bias....

Here's some evidence he claimed that for you (that neither your entry or The Sun could offer of bias)

https://bit.ly/2OdQETV Hansard, July 2019

 

[Gazwag]

Is this another one of those campaigns made up to see how many sheep they can attract because they think they are being controversial, bit like the can't make me wear a mask campaign

The joys of being English nowadays

 

[vegster]

Oh dear, your complete moronic post again fails to realise that you don’t need a TV license to listen to the radio, whatever the station. Do keep up gammon.

So, how does the BBC fund those BBC radio stations Mr Moron? Do they do it with advertising or sponsorship? No, you don't need a TV licence to listen to the radio, but please explain how radio stations get broadcast ?

 

[larus]

So methane, which is about 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth, on a 100-year timescale, and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years - isn’t something to concern ourselves about? Obviously not because it didn’t come up once in you’re science denying diatribe. For someone who says they didn’t want to debate climate change, you’ve done an awfully bad job at avoiding doing so.

So you agree then that CO2 is not the biggest culprit in the minor warming which has occurred.

Also, water vapour is much more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Excellent. Well done for that small step.

Maybe you can explain what caused the Ice Fairs on the Thames in the past and why they stopped (before man started emitting that nasty CO2).
Also, why were scientists saying in the 1970’s that we were heading towards a new ice-age (well, sharply lower temperatures anyway)? It’s because temperature do fluctuate naturally over decades due to the natural cycles within nature, which we still don’t understand.

Again, I’m NOT DENYING the planet has warmed. I question the leap from that change to CO2.

And there are lots of scientists who also question the narrative (but whenever they speak out they get accused of being ‘Big Oil’).

 

[stewart_weir]

I think you are missing the point as the BBC claims to be unbiased where as other news outlets don't. The Guardian is Labour supporting, Telegraph Tory etc etc..

The BBC during this pandemic has been a disgrace. They report death stats as fact rarely giving any other information like age, underlying health etc.. Where is the balance to challenge Sage and the political opinion about lockdown? On the BBC news website they ran a story about Van Morrison being dangerous as he's releasing an anti-lockdown song ffs! Now they are reporting positive test results without mentioning if the people have symptoms or not, let alone the amount of false positives?

Why aren't Panorama or other investigative news shows looking into hospital numbers or lack of cancer care?

The BBC news is just a Government mouth piece promoting the agenda and not challenging it. If you don't agree you are basically branded a conspiracy theorist. One phone in on Radio 5 was titled 'Do you mind losing civil liberties to save lives' - show me the balance in that?

I don't blame people turning off the BBC and I can only see the Defund movement growing

Anyone can find examples of 'bias' whether left or right from any number of reports. The point is that within the BBC charter it is unbiased. To get rid of the BBC's Royal Charter and for it to become 'private' would remove the last point of reference for unbiased reporting. Funny how the left shout how right biased the BBC is and the right shout how left biased the BBC is. Its all about perspective.

 

[larus]

So, how does the BBC fund those BBC radio stations Mr Moron? Do they do it with advertising or sponsorship? No, you don't need a TV licence to listen to the radio, but please explain how radio stations get broadcast ?

I don’t care as I don’t listen to the radio (hardly ever). Let them go commercial for all I care.

The fact is it’s a TV licence. It’s an outdated tax to receive live TV, but I don’t want to watch the BBC. Make it self-funding/subscription, then the woke/lefties can sit there and knock themselves out slagging off Brexit/conservatives all they want.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

So you agree then that CO2 is not the biggest culprit in the minor warming which has occurred.

Also, water vapour is much more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Excellent. Well done for that small step.

Maybe you can explain what caused the Ice Fairs on the Thames in the past and why they stopped (before man started emitting that nasty CO2).
Also, why were scientists saying in the 1970’s that we were heading towards a new ice-age (well, sharply lower temperatures anyway)? It’s because temperature do fluctuate naturally over decades due to the natural cycles within nature, which we still don’t understand.

Again, I’m NOT DENYING the planet has warmed. I question the leap from that change to CO2.

And there are lots of scientists who also question the narrative (but whenever they speak out they get accused of being ‘Big Oil’).

The minor warming that will make parts of the planet uninhabitable for humans and animals you mean? And even though there have been three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience that use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades, you claim it’s all a load of nonsense? The temperature rises during the late 20th Century were the most rapid in the past two millennia.

Previous studies have shown near unanimity among climate scientists that human factors – vehicle exhausts, factory chimneys, forest clearance and other sources of greenhouse gases – are responsible for the exceptional level of global warming.

The notion re 97% scientists agree, that you attempt to discredit, comes from 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters which found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Since then that 97% figure has risen to 99%.

You can attack the scientific consensus all you like, attempt to paint this picture that you’re merely going against the narrative, but as you have no credibility in this matter, and most of those who go against the consensus do so for political rather than scientific reasons, you simply come across as another climate change denier who is more interested in conspiracy theories than reality

Anyway, enough of this. I best get back to my brick wall. It claims the earth is flat you know...

 

[cunning fergus]

He was a reporter indeed. Didn't get the news presenter job he wanted.

He also claimed that the BBC had a right wing bias....

Here's some evidence he claimed that for you (that neither your entry or The Sun could offer of bias)

https://bit.ly/2OdQETV Hansard, July 2019

Well, first off he is a politician and there are few if any honest ones, whatever flavour.

He may say the BBC is a public good, however in my view he is wrong, and that is referencing how non payment criminalises the poor. Frankly a sentiment that is pretty shameful for a supposedly progressive. In any event the BBC will have to change and it may be forced to change as a consequence of events outside its control.

The BBC is shortly going to confront a wave of non payment from over 75s and people like me, the cost to the BBC of policing that is going to be significant, and the PR cost of criminalising them or pursing them through the civil courts will be equally significant, all the while they pay Lineker (and others) over a million.

Personally I can’t wait.

 

[Eeyore]

Well, first off he is a politician and there are few if any honest ones, whatever flavour.

He may say the BBC is a public good, however in my view he is wrong, and that is referencing how non payment criminalises the poor. Frankly a sentiment that is pretty shameful for a supposedly progressive. In any event the BBC will have to change and it may be forced to change as a consequence of events outside its control.

The BBC is shortly going to confront a wave of non payment from over 75s and people like me, the cost to the BBC of policing that is going to be significant, and the PR cost of criminalising them or pursing them through the civil courts will be equally significant, all the while they pay Lineker (and others) over a million.

Personally I can’t wait.

That's where I pull out the debate. I think there are a host of views on the BBC role in modern media and I see it from all sides really.

All I would say is that some of the BBC investigative work is phenomenal and it has been/was a great public service broadcaster that I have enjoyed across the planet.

BBC News is my most visited and trusted news page. I'm regarded as left of centre but rarely read such publications as I don't want to confirm my own bias.

 

[stewart_weir]

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/124422/BBC-annual-report.pdf

Perhaps those who are moaning could look through Ofcom's report about the BBC dated October 2018. This is the only media organisation that gets scrutinised. For all you people who whine on about how biased they are - please show me a news outlet that isnt impartial to an agenda and who is scrutinised by a 3rd party. The BBc has its faults and there will always be issues BUT they are publicly accountable which is something no other media outlet is in the world as far as Im aware. Lose the BBC at your peril. As for the subscription - Go add up all the channels, radio stations, recordings, podcasts and everything that's on iPlayer and tell me the licence fee isnt worth it.

 

[vegster]

Typical left-wing modus operandi - attack the man with snide comments. (Gammon, racist, conspiracy theory nutter, etc.).

Rather embarrassing for you then to be reminded of your post #59 " As per usual, your complete lack of intelligence shines through. It’s called a TV license " and your post #101 "Oh dear, your complete moronic post again fails to realise that you don’t need a TV license to listen to the radio, whatever the station. Do keep up gammon."

I know you are rather busy with your two companies and your 6 figure salary but try to remember when you insult people first and then claim that it is a typical " Left Wing " thing to do when patently its a right wing thing too.

So, back on track, you don't pay a TV license fee and you don't listen to BBC radio stations so why are you so passionate and insulting about something that has no bearing on your life ?

 

[dingodan]

There are a lot of very good examples that the BBC does have a left wing bias, you could right a book on it (someone probably already has).

The only argument I have heard that the BBC has a right wing bias is the number of interviews and air-time right wing polticians recieve.

But you have to remember, when you are a journalist or news presenter interviewing a politician, it's a probing and proding, hope to trip up, pants pulling down exercise. The idea is to give the guest a "grilling", a hard time. If you are a politician and you go on the BBC for an interview the aim is to come out of it without egg on your face. It's an antagonistic exercise. That is understandable, that is part of political journalism, it couldn't be any other way. But what that means is that more interviews/air time for right wing politicians is not a demonstration of bias in their favor.

The BBC had Nigel Farage on more than Corbyn (for example) not because they like Farage more than Corbyn, but because they wanted to do battle with Farage more than they did corbyn. When you are in an interview situation on a news program and you are a politican, the journalist always comes across as the good guy, the prosecutor, and the politician comes across as the bad guy, the accused. Farage was on more than Corbyn (for example) for those reasons. Nobody really believes that the BBC liked Farage and his politics more than they liked Corbyns.

So, the only given "example" of right wing bias at the BBC is actually a further example of left wing bias when you really look closely at it.

Anyway, if the BBC get's defunded, it won't come a day too soon IMO.

 

[Guinness Boy]

In the words of one of its ex-reporters wHen in Brighton.......

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/54399...news-reports-while-working-as-bbc-journalist/

A Sun article from 2018? ****s sake.

 

[cunning fergus]

Anyone can find examples of 'bias' whether left or right from any number of reports. The point is that within the BBC charter it is unbiased. To get rid of the BBC's Royal Charter and for it to become 'private' would remove the last point of reference for unbiased reporting. Funny how the left shout how right biased the BBC is and the right shout how left biased the BBC is. Its all about perspective.

Perspective in this kind of debate is everything, those seeking to reduce the power of the establishment will always be left wing.

It’s the “conservatives” that want to keep it as is..........the Tory shithouses that they are!!

 

[stewart_weir]

Perspective in this kind of debate is everything, those seeking to reduce the power of the establishment will always be left wing.

It’s the “conservatives” that want to keep it as is..........the Tory shithouses that they are!!

But the BBC is accountable to Ofcom and everyone has ability to complain to them. You don't get that kind of accountability with a privately owned media company. Try complaining about The Sun or the Mail. Point is that the BBC has issues yes. BUT when its gone it will never come back. The debate should be about strengthening its unbiased opinion not removing it.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I will make one short reply to this and I don’t want this to become a global warming thread.

Yes, the planet has warmed slightly.
Yes, CO2 has increased.
Yes, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
CO2 has increased from (approx) 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere.
The 97% of scientists figure is garbage - there’s no such survey been carried out.

Water vapour is much more potent greenhouse gas.
The models continually overstate the warming effect based on CO2, based on the output/observations for the last 30 years.

Should we protect the planet? Yes.
Should we stop pollution? Yes.
Should we stop plastic waste? Yes.

Do I believe that a 1 part in 10,000 increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is going to destroy the planet? No.
CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm (compared to the current 405 ppm) and the planet did OK.
We are currently still in an ice-age. (An ice age is defined as when the planet has ice at both poles and mountain glaciers).

Climate changes all the time.

And, I won’t reply on this anymore as this is a BBC licence fee thread.

Not saying you did - but how ironic it would be if you'd gleaned any of this knowledge from the BBC ....

 

[cunning fergus]

But the BBC is accountable to Ofcom and everyone has ability to complain to them. You don't get that kind of accountability with a privately owned media company. Try complaining about The Sun or the Mail. Point is that the BBC has issues yes. BUT when its gone it will never come back. The debate should be about strengthening its unbiased opinion not removing it.

It won’t go, it will change.

You will continue to happily pay for it and and derive all the benefits you outline above.

I and millions of others won’t and we will all happily go on with our lives.

Difficult to see any problem with that at all is there?

 

[cunning fergus]

A Sun article from 2018? ****s sake.

I see, when you said evidence I thought that what you wanted.

No problem.