Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated!
General BBC-related comment thread:
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s Moonbat Central over at (D)HYS following Matt Frei’s article on Castro.
Thought you’d love this submission…
This has to rank as the most unbalanced article the BBC website has published to date. Mr Frei is well known for his Republican leanings, but this article is just plain unfair.
Castro was a dictator and one that not everyone agreed with. However, the poverty of the country was as much the fault of successive US regimes as his socialist policies. Unfair trade embargos that prevent Cuba’s neighbours – not just the US – from trading with her have caused this poverty.
Richard, London
Recommended by 11 people
Frei has GOP leanings! Who knew?
“We are wanting alternate NEWS CHANNELS broadcast simultaneously with scheduled BBC news and current affairs programmes”
Who’s “we” out of interest?
And why do these competing broadcasts need to be simultaneous?
80% relying on just the BBC for news isn’t too powerful? Shall we wait until it’s 100%.
…
Whenever the BBC has a chance to undermine ITV – by organising scheduling clashes for instance it seems to take it.
Hugh | 20.02.08 – 3:31 pm | #
Perhaps the former is a function of quality and accuracy? 🙂 Noone is forcing anyone to watch it, even with the (out-dated) enforcement of the license fee.
Wrt your latter point, who recently rescheduled their main news bulletin to 10pm? And while you’re on it, think about what the viewing figures since say about your first point.
Dyke did make some blatantly competitive moves with scheduling, but he is long gone.
The gorilla speech is still a good one though.
What was Bio banned for?
I remember when Pounce wished death on Hillhunt. That was funny. But he wasn’t banned.
“he’s outlasted no less than 10 US presidents” from the BBC reporter in Havana
That one really made me laugh, well because the USA is a DEMOCRACY that has an elected President, who has two terms maximum, while Castro seized power at the point of a gun and just passed power on to his brother.
Did Castro ever have a free and fair election, Castro made himself President for life (or until his health caved in) and then passes it on to his bloodline, well what do you know, another pig with his snout in the trough? How very revolutionary leftist, but then again the reporter in question is likely to be a product of our re-education system…
Stiletto | 20.02.08 – 3:32 pm
I thought you were just being playful, but I now realize you are serious about all this.
Okay – let’s give your wheeze some respectful attention.
What infrastructure are you talking about? You mention the BT example. But is this analogous?
The BBC doesn’t own any transmitters or satellites.
You still aren’t making clear whether these alternative news services you have in mind are the existing ones (Sky, ITN, etc) or some new entrants.
If the former, how is your proposal so very different to what happens today?
If the latter, who is going to pay for/invest in them? What do you think Sky and ITN will have to say about it?
“Sky has revenue of close to £5 billion.”
We’ve been through this before. Sky has to make a return for its shareholders. It cannot simply plough £5 billion into programming. The comparison would be if Sky were to be run at a £3.5 billion loss year in year out and keep operating. Doing so, it could, for instance, simply make its premium services free. In that situation of course it could grab more market share.
Ooops should have posted that in the thread below.
Hugh – the 80% is not exclusive to the BBC. I’m sure some of these people read papers and watch other TV news too.
Have you ever spent much time in commercial environments John Reith?
WoAD:
I remember when Pounce wished death on Hillhunt. That was funny. But he wasn’t banned.
Funny wasn’t the half of it. He called for a direct bomb attack on BBC staff and on the schools their children use.
Hilarious….
And redolent. But of what?
Biased BBC: You’ll laugh your head off.
“Wrt your latter point, who recently rescheduled their main news bulletin to 10pm?”
Am I meant to have forgotten how the BBC leapt in there when the News at Ten first moved and then refused to move back to 9pm to give viewers the choice?
“does a £3.5 billion subsidy not help?
Not really.
Sky has revenue of close to £5 billion.
Sky doesn’t have to pay for any national radio networks or local radio out of that and has minimal online expenses.
Yet its TV audience (and its news audience) is still lower than the BBC’s • so money can’t be the only factor worth considering.
John Reith | 20.02.08 – 3:39 pm”
Nice argument for privatising the BBC abolishing the licence fee and for the BBC to compete directly with Sky.
Its good to see, even if anonymous, a BBC employee converted to that belief.
No reply to the poll details from 2007 I see, not still relying on that 2006 stuff are you JR?
John Reith
For you to come out with what you did about Sky’s £5 billion vs the BBC’s £3.5 billion smacks of a tosser whos never had a real job.
What does it take for a racist incident to reach the front page of BBC news?
Well, it must involve racism against black people, or the funny kind of racism that isn’t racism because it involves people of a certain religion. However, racism against people who are involved in “international capitalism” (if you get my drift) don’t make the front page of BBC news, even the UK page. Instead it can be found with difficulty on the England page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7254547.stm
No, and that is why I mentioned Dyke’s aggresive scheduling – but it wasn’t limited to just news so I wasn’t specific.
…This has to rank as the most unbalanced article the BBC website has published to date…. this article is just plain unfair.
……………….
The poster can’t have seen the justin webb weblog, then.
Sarah Jane: okay, but I have to say I’m still waiting for the evidence of the BBC promoting competition.
Abandoned ship:
racism against people who are involved in “international capitalism” (if you get my drift) don’t make the front page of BBC news, even the UK page.
The Avram Grant story’s been on my UK page all day. Strap reads “Chelsea boss gets death threats” and opens with the words Anti-Semitic death threats have been sent to Chelsea football boss Avram Grant. It appears in Sports Headlines. (Grant is best known as a football manager).
Typical BBC to play down the fact that a top footie manager has had death threats by placing it in a section of primary interest to, er, footie fans.
And disgusting that they disguised the true nature of the incidents, by describing it as, oops, anti-Semitic.
Despicable. An how right of you, AbanadonedShip to get upset about it..
Biased BBC: The Whingey City
.
What was Bio banned for?
I remember when Pounce wished death on Hillhunt. That was funny. But he wasn’t banned.
WoAD | 20.02.08 – 4:00 pm
I have no idea, Andrew wouldn’t tell me. I asked at the time why hillhunt hadn’t been banned and Andrew didn’t even know who he/she was. So much for keeping an eye on your own blog.
I was unbanned then banned again almost instantky for correcting David Gregory’s use of faun when he meant fawn. david thanked me and quipped that that was why he was in broadcasting. I replied with an equally friendly quip and was banned, I imagine for “chatting”.
Funny wasn’t the half of it. He (pounce) called for a direct bomb attack on BBC staff and on the schools their children use.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 4:07 pm
That’s a lie. Either provide a link to pounce’s post or retract.
Hugh:
Sarah Jane: okay, but I have to say I’m still waiting for the evidence of the BBC promoting competition.
Hugh | 20.02.08 – 4:15 pm | #
You might be waiting a while 🙂
Anyway, I didn’t say that. Things I have said include;
Get rid of the license fee
Close BBC3 give money to C4
Get rid of digital radio stations that noone listens to
Dont make iplayer just put it on youtube with hi-bandwidth
See how we get on with £1bn instead of £3bn – at least do a strategy based on that and let the Trust test it
I might be quite different to v senior managers on a lot of these things though…
Hugh | 20.02.08 – 4:15 pm
Sarah Jane: okay, but I have to say I’m still waiting for the evidence of the BBC promoting competition.
That’s because much of the evidence is in what the BBC doesn’t do – lots of ideas bite the dust because either the BBC Trust itself, Ofcom or DCMS judge them to be anti-competitive in some way.
“What was Bio banned for?”
Not that I want BioD banned – let’s be clear on that – but in what sense are you currently banned as you post here daily under a moniker pretty much the same as before, and are clear you are the same individual who was banned?
“the BBC Trust itself, Ofcom or DCMS judge them to be anti-competitive in some way”. Only the first of those would count as the BBC promoting competition. And surely they keep records of board meetings and such that would show where they’ve clamped down on anti-competitive ideas?
Hmm I’d be a bit surprised if pounce would say something like that – he might have some good millie tant type lines but he always seems pretty decent when the real nutters get nasty.
BioD – I thought you must have done something really bad – reading that you should be allowed back on. Assuming you would want to, of course.
It’s a bit strange that myself and Reith seem to be the biggest advocate of this, since the current crop could learn a lot about effective posting from you – but that must just be Reith and I ‘suppressing free speech’ in an ironic way.
@ Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 3:02 pm
Are you expecting to be taken seriously when you say that when a scheduled BBC news or current affairs programme is broadcast you already have an amazing TV set which gives you an on-screen menu giving details of many alternative and competing NEWS CHANNELS which are THEN available being broadcast SIMULTANEOUSLY using the BBC’s infrastructure?
Do you realise that such a ridiculous and ludicrous statement fatally damages your credibility in everything else you say? Are you expecting to be taken seriously ever again?
Hillhunt, only childish people bluster childishly.
You personally are losing it, none of your arguments make sense – take a break.
We do not think that you are institutionally capable of reforming yourselves. so we want a lot more choice of SIMULTANEOUS news channels.
For instance when the BBC TV 6 o’ clock News programme comes on, a special on-screen menu comes up allowing us to know what alternative 6 o’clock News programmes are THEN available and are about to be broadcast using the BBC digital infrastructure produced by completely separate media companies. Then WE can choose.
We want the CHOICE now as we have totally lost our trust in you.
.
Stilleto
What infrastructure?
What channels?
Go on please answer this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8468469111844664321/#386001
Cockney: Well the women’s Beach Volley ball will keep me up OK 🙂
And surely they keep records of board meetings and such that would show where they’ve clamped down on anti-competitive ideas?
Hugh | 20.02.08 – 4:27 pm | #
Presumably when this becomes available this will go some way to answering a lot of questions on this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/economic_impact/index.html
the minutes are here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/meetings_and_minutes/minutes_2007.html
the one where they pinged Digital Curriculum might be interesting.
Not 100% related but some of you might find this interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/ace/
they also exist for scotland, wales and NI.
Biodegradabble:
That’s a lie. Either provide a link to pounce’s post or retract.
Absolutely not. The post was pulled within ten minutes with sharp words from the moderator, unsurprisingly.
Not that I want BioD banned – let’s be clear on that – but in what sense are you currently banned as you post here daily under a moniker pretty much the same as before, and are clear you are the same individual who was banned?
p and a tale of one chip | 20.02.08 – 4:24 pm
I’m 100% clear that I am the same individual.
Sarah-Jane, Bryan and others who have posted on another site set up by archduke and others can vouch for that.
I am banned in the sense that in order to post here I have to use a proxy server to access the haloscan pages. Andrew has banned my static IP address so if I access a comments page without using a proxy I see the following header:
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added
You’d know that if you’d read my previous comments.
BioD – I thought you must have done something really bad – reading that you should be allowed back on. Assuming you would want to, of course.
It’s a bit strange that myself and Reith seem to be the biggest advocate of this, since the current crop could learn a lot about effective posting from you – but that must just be Reith and I ‘suppressing free speech’ in an ironic way.
Sarah Jane | 20.02.08 – 4:28 pm
I’d like to be able to post here without having to jump though hoops. I wasn’t the only one banned at the time The Moderator made his appearance and Andrew seemed to have lost the plot completely. Others left in disgust at the level of censorship that was being applied.
Reith and yourself probably prefer to debate with me than find someone like hillhunt or Angry Young Alex on your side 😆
Sarah Jane:
… Noone is forcing anyone to watch it, even with the (out-dated) enforcement of the license fee.
………………..
Is that Peter Noone herding them in, or some other Noone at the BBC?
I think we should be told.
John Reith: You really are full of it. Sky has spent billions (at a loss) getting set top boxes and developing their digital network.
The fact is Sky have done what the BBC SHOULD HAVE which is create one of the worlds finest digital TV access systems.
NOTE Reith: If you want to watch BBC HD TV what choice do you have? Sky or Cable. So you STILL have to pay a third party to watch BBC.
The BBC are full of skanky liberals who seem to think the licence fee is for their fat salaries and pensions. No it is not, it’s for hardware as well as programming.
Stiletto:
For instance when the BBC TV 6 o’ clock News programme comes on, a special on-screen menu comes up allowing us to know what alternative 6 o’clock News programmes are THEN available and are about to be broadcast using the BBC digital infrastructure produced by completely separate media companies. Then WE can choose.
Don’t let anyone tell you you’re nuts. It just wouldn’t be fair.
Of course viewers need to be told, just as the 6 o’clock news starts, exactly where they can get rival news.
It’s a sad fact that many people don’t have the wit to seek out the programme menu and look for Sky News, or Al Jaz or CNN. And they certainly don’t have the nous to work out when C4News or ITN are coming on air.
It is only reasonable that this is done for them.
Even though Freeview, Virgin, BT and Sky all provide plenty of infrastructure for alternative news services, it is essential that the BBC duplicate this.
Stiletto, it’s a long hard road, but you and I have started travelling it together. And I feel proud….
.
Absolutely not. The post was pulled within ten minutes with sharp words from the moderator, unsurprisingly.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 4:41 pm
I do remember a post being deleted, but I’m sure no threats were made to bomb schools full of children.
I myself offered to give you a demonstration of Krav Maga noting that your dentist would be glad of the ensuing work.
The offer still stands.
Biodegradababble:
Pounce’s post is referenced here http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2959682555847920330/#358154
along with your generous offer of Kraftwerk, or whatever.
At the time, the moderator was pulling all reference to the exact detail. Prseumably on the grounds that it added up to incitement…
.
Martin | 20.02.08 – 4:43 pm
The BBC Trust has today approved the BBC’s proposal for a mixed-genre high definition terrestrial TV channel.
BBC HD will launch on cable and Sky satellite as soon as possible, on “Freesat” when the platform launches, and on Freeview as soon as is feasible.
..Provision of BBC HD on Freeview will be reviewed by the Trust in Spring 2008, “when it is envisaged there will be greater clarity on HD broadcast standards and the spectrum capacity available to provide the channel.”
http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2007/11/bbc_trust_appro_1.html
Stiletto:
@ John Reith | 20.02.08 – 2:35 pm
I do not know how old the BBC troll currently using the handle of “John Reith” really is – but you do not seem to be very well informed. Or perhaps you are being deliberately disingenuous and seeking to confuse. You cannot confuse me as I lived through it all. It WAS “unusual” opinion in the 1960s and 1970s to suggest that over-mighty Trade Union barons should be made subject to the law. Any one suggesting it however was ridiculed. As a solution to a dreadful problem it was attacked by reactionary and self-interested people.
Well I was alive – and active in politicsin the 60s and government in the 70s.
Bringing the unions under tighter legislative control was at one point the policy of Wilson’s (Labour) government – remember “In place of strife” – and pretty generally that of the Conservatives and there were proposals in both Heath’s manifesto in 1970 and Mrs TRhatcher’s in 1979.
Reith and yourself probably prefer to debate with me than find someone like hillhunt or Angry Young Alex on your side
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 20.02.08 – 4:43 pm | #
I’m saying nothing ;), except I am supposed to be on holiday until they get bored of trying to wind people up and I guess they are the yin to the yang that we also see here.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 3:40 pm and 4:49 pm
What are you talking about? This really is a gabble.
Did you know you have a problem with sarcasm? It seems to be your only operational method. What about discussing the issues and not flying kites to knock down that no-one is talking about.
Hillhunt you are the worst sort of troll. You do not seem to discuss anything seriously but merely attack ANYONE having a contrary view to the BBC. Today you pretty well admitted that you work for the BBC. I want to know which department you work for and who it was who authorised this performance of yours at the expense of the licence payer.
Why the HELL is the licence payer paying you for spending your day attacking us and trying to stifle argument? It seems to me that the BBC is far more dangerous and out of control that I realised.
I do not know how old and mature you are, but your arguments certainly seem to me to be childish. You obviously seek deliberately to misrepresent my words, so let me make it very simple . . . . .
When the BBC schedules a news or current affairs programme (made in house or commissioned) it is required by law to broadcast SIMULTANEOUSLY other news channels with news and current affairs programmes made by other private media companies (all of which must comply with new written standards).
All these news channels will be available by way of on-screen menu and we can CHOOSE who supplies our news!
.
Here is again: so-called “good governance”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7254077.stm
And the older story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7254077.stm
Is it a new entry in the style guide that when Bush is involved efforts to promote good governance in Africa are “so-called” and in quotes.
Stiletto | 20.02.08 – 5:02 pm
You just keep repeating yourself.
Please EXPLAIN yourself.
Also, please address MattLondon’s points.
Stiletto:
When the BBC schedules a news or current affairs programme (made in house or commissioned) it is required by law to broadcast SIMULTANEOUSLY other news channels with news and current affairs programmes made by other private media companies (all of which must comply with new written standards).
All these news channels will be available by way of on-screen menu and we can CHOOSE who supplies our news!
Point so well made, knife-man.
I must appear very stupid not to have grasped it earlier. And of course it’s so right. I look forward to this avalanche of news with great excitement.
One teensy detail: I have never worked for the BBC in any capacity. Otherwise you’re right to be concerned.
“I’m 100% clear that I am the same individual.”
I wasn’t doubting it for a moment. I mean you don’t make a pretence not to be BioD so a ban is.. somewhat academic.
Come on Andrew, do the right thing.
John Reith
Hillhunt
You BBC trolls ARE hunting in packs !
Take some time off, you have had a busy day.
.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 4:57 pm
Thanks for the link. Nothing about bombing schools.
That thread and the other one I link to further up that thread are good examples of how you monopolise and distract from sensible discussion. Perhaps it’ll serve to inform more recent posters as to the futility of trying to engage with you and encourage them to ignore you.
Stiletto
John Reith is not a troll. Although a troll has used that name once.
Biodegradababble:
Thanks for the link. Nothing about bombing schools.
Indeed. As I said earlier, the moderator took the original down with great haste.
The link above gives some sense of the disturbing nature of pounce’s posting, though, don’t you think?
.
Stiletto | 20.02.08 – 5:18 pm |
I strongly suspect that you are a BBC troll got up by some comedian in BBC 3 in order to make this blog look bad.
I don’t have a suspicious mind and I spend most of my time here arguing against conspiracy theories…. but I just can’t believe anybody can be that stupid and be legit.
I mean you don’t make a pretence not to be BioD so a ban is.. somewhat academic.
Academic perhaps for you but a real bloody hassle for me if I want to comment.
When I was first banned Andrew started banning each proxy as I used it so I had to continually find another.
There’s been no sign of Andrew here for quite some time. I know he was suffering from ill health, I sincerely hope he gets over it.