Toby Young was on 5Live (13:20) the other day talking about Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and telling us of his very far left credentials, he rattled off the identifiers….support for Hamas and Hezbollah, a Stop The War fanatic, someone who wants to hand the Falklands to the Argies….and let’s not forget an end to austerity.
I thought hang on….that’s pretty much a run down of much of what the BBC supports.
John Humphrys has said we should surrender the Falklands, or is that the Islas Malvinas?, to the Junta…
‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’
Peter Allen relates to Nicky Campbell how when as a young journalist he asked Mrs Thatcher this about the Falklands War:
‘Why are you bothering to fight this war when you know perfectly well that you will have to give them back to the Argentinians eventually.‘
and today we have a reminder of what Maggie thought of the BBC’s deadly coverage of the Falklands War…
Margaret Thatcher thought the BBC “assisted the enemy” during the Falklands War by broadcasting “the next likely steps” in the campaign before they took place, documents published for the first time on Friday will disclose.
The former prime minister wrote that she was “very angry” at some of the corporation’s coverage, which she thought placed more value on reporting the latest developments than on “the safety of our forces”.
“My concern was always the safety of our forces. Theirs was news.”
The BBC has long been a propagandist for the terrorist group Hamas, making strenuous efforts to turn Israel, not the terrorists, into a pariah state. Here Yolande Knell gives us a good example of how the BBC tries to rework Hamas’ reputation and that of the Muslim Brotherhood….Can Hamas hold back Islamic State in Gaza?
What is a squabble between two fanatical Islamist groups is portrayed as ‘moderate’ Hamas defending itself from extremist ISIS elements in Gaza…..we are still fed the old lie about a moderate Muslim Brotherhood…So far, Hamas, which has its ideological roots in the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, has been largely able to contain them.
Here’s news for you Yolande…the Muslim Brotherhood is the intellectual and spiritual home of Al Qaeda and therefore of ISIS, as well as Hamas. AQ and ISIS are putting Muslim Brotherhood beliefs into action.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not ‘moderate’.
As always with BBC reports about Gaza there is the obligatory mention of this...Last year’s 50-day conflict killed some 2,200 Palestinians, mainly civilians, according to the UN, and 73 on the Israeli side, mostly soldiers. The BBC shoehorns in the casualty figures whatever the story is. Israel is of course to blame for the rise of ISIS in Gaza…Some observers see Israel’s approach as potentially playing into the Salafists’ hands.
As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…well it’s back to John Humphrys again I suppose…as a starting point.
The BBC plays a dangerous game. It’s all too often British troops who pay the price for that.
Has anyone from the bbc ever visited the Falkland Islands, stayed for some time and developed an understanding of the people who live there, who they are, what they believe and who they want to be? Maybe they could also take a trip to Argentina and tell them they should be handed back to Spain? The bbc are wantonly stupid when it suits them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11684868/Margaret-Thatcher-papers-BBC-assisted-the-enemy-during-the-Falklands-War.html
this is big stuff. I have read how extra troops on the ground were killed because of the bbc’s reporting but to hear it from the then PM is shocking. They are literally traitors and worth half the men who serve on the front line
“We are not Britain. We are the BBC.”
Have to ponder the semantics of the first word in the brand acronymn after this.
Such loyalty to party over country above all has really proven a winner of late.
They consider themselves “Britain” when it comes to raiding our bank accounts for their funding though.
If Argentina had won there would have been empty champagne bottles at Broadcasting House. Many of those who are forced to pay for the BBC view them with utter contempt. The “revelation” that they assisted the enemy causing the deaths of British soldiers surprises that section of the population not one jot. So why should they be forced to pay for them just because sanctimonious Guardian reading mediocrities like Jonathan Dimbleby think we ought?
But not British when it comes to paying tax on their license fee funded mega salaries.
That is the worrying thing for Britain’s reputation around the world, the bbc are THE BRITISH broadcasting corp, end of, they have had that arrogant stance of ‘we speak for the people of the UK and know what is best for them’ since they hijacked the TV.
So what they broadcast around the world is what people perceive Britain to be and with record numbers of immigrants coming to the UK it’s safe to assume what the bbc world service are telling them…”come to the UK and be looked after”.
The world service is the first contact with Britain for many foreign nationals, I don’t feel comfortable with that at all. Another worry is that if Maggie couldn’t get rid camoron won’t.
One way to shake up the BBC, is to use the time honoured tactic of “modernisation”. The “modernisation” tactic in this instance would be to use two primary reasons.
1. In these times of austerity, it is necessary to streamline the BBC to get more effective use of taxpayers money.
2. An information revolution is ongoing, where the public has access to a greater variety of information outlets. The BBC has to be modernised, its management structure, news and views, to reflect the greater diversity in society, as well as information outlets.
Under these two guises, one can do virtually anything. The Conservatives are the only ones who can do this. In fact, for their very political survival and Britain, as well as offering the public a choice of sorts, it is absolutely necessary.
Any opposition from BBC apparatchiks can be dismissed as Luddite, resistant to change, old fashioned, or whatever comes to mind.
I cannot understand how the BBC think it is possible to hand something back to someone who has never, ever, been in possession of that thing. Considering that the Falkland islands have been British since before the Spanish stole the land which belonged to indigenous tribes, and called it Argentina. There is no way to be able to hand the Falklands ‘back’ to them.
You may have noticed, the BBC no longer does reports from the front, or on exercises done by the British Military. It is not that they do not want to, it is that the British Military, and Royal Navy do not want anything to do with the BBC.
The BBC seems to be running out of anyone wanting anything to do with them.
Appearance is of course voluntary, if risking an empty chair from a bbc hissy-fit production team.
The only slight quirk is paying for such a despised service is still imposed on the public by compulsion.
One way to keep an audience.
The BBC is a key part of the left,s long term plan to turn the UK into a multy culty socialist Utopia. So, of course, they seek every opportunity to undermine British achievements, British history and British culture. If the contribution of Britain to the development of the modern world was celebrated and our culture held in high regard, it would make the British people much harder to mold into the multy culty folks they want us to be. Much easier for the left’s project to make the British feel guilty about the past, to denigrate their achievements , to scoff at their culture. Generally just make them feel bad about their country.
The BBC has a central role in this project, get rid of the BBC and the project will grind to a halt. After all no one who isn’t a committed leftist or an idiot, reads the Guardian, so how will they get their message out without the fog horn of the BBC?
If the Tories want Britain to be Britain (and if they don’t who the hell does) then they need to start the process of closing down the state funded broadcaster.
Some sensible and doable first steps would be to:
a) sell off all local radio and radio 1 & 2, close the website. All of these on the grounds that these can be equally well provided by the commercial sector .
b) Then to reduce the LF as a result of the above closures and in the light of hard times, fix the LF for the next 10 years with no inflation increases and to decriminalise not paying it.
c) Make the BBC report to Ofcom. Insist they respond to all FOI requests fully and promptly and that they publish minutes of any meeting or other communications with any political parties or lobby groups. In other words the BBC should become fully transparent to those of us who pay for it.
d) Finally, put a maximum salary cap in place of around 150K with no extras being payable. That should see the rats leaving the ship . I am unsure if you can have a stampede of rats but we would see something like it!
Doublethinker, I think you are right but I’d suggest that the destruction of the bbc would have to occur during the life of one Parliament, because sure as eggs is eggs if the commies were returned to power and the sodding bbc was still in existence, the first thing they’d do is pump billions into it and pass a law to put the cost on general taxation. No, I’d say reduce their income each year over 5 years so that by the end of the Parliament they have no income from Licence Fee taxation. What happens then, well I don’t think I need to care about it because they can fend for themselves; they’re such a wonderful organisation we’ll rush to keep them afloat with voluntary funding.
Eminently sensible suggestions.
But “If the Tories want Britain to be Britain (and if they don’t who the hell does)”… The Tories do not want Britain to be Britain, at least not in any meaningful sense that most readers of this website would understand. It was the Tories that took us into Europe. Their policies on immigration, globalisation, equality and diversity, interventionist wars, bogus environmentalism and so on are no different from Labour and the BBC. We need to think of these people as members of the family; despite the occasional bickerings, arguments and renegade sons and daughters, they manage to live together quite comfortably and thrive. The most you can expect from the Tories is the occasional ‘tut tut’ at the antics of the BBC, but they will never in a million years do anything other than superficial about it. Families stick together.
You can either have the BBC or a free society. The two are incompatible. The BBC were granted privileges. They have abused them; so scrap it. The BBC does not encourage plurality, it suppresses it. It does not enrich our cultural life, it impoverishes it. They are a cancer in our national life.
The BBC is a key part of the left,s long term plan to turn the UK into a multy culty socialist Utopia.
ISIS in Britain may have other ideas. And they are not averse to beheadings with a blunt instrument.
It,s the sheer , sneering arrogance of bBC which surely, now has dropped all pretence that it upholds British values.
This from a bunch of public servants, paid for by an outrageous licence tax, lavishing its senior managers in private health insurance……………….346 of the bastards.
These are benefits junkies on a completely different scale to the cretins on the Benefits Street show.
Time to get rid of it……….
“John Humphrys has said we should surrender the Falklands, or is that the Islas Malvinas?, to the Junta…”
Except he didn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. You have carefully quoted without the context to make it look as if he is expressing a personal opinion. He isn’t. He’s explaining what *some people* think. Here’s the full quote; emphasis is mine:
“Most of all, THOSE WHO THINK the current situation should not persist argue that Britain’s wider interests require a change in the status of the Falklands. It is much more important, THEY SAY, that we should have good relations with emerging powers such as Brazil and vestiges of our imperial past should not be allowed to jeopardise such relations. Even our ties with the United States, THEY SAY, would be improved if we were to cut a deal with Argentina over the islands. At the time of the 1982 war the American government, although ultimately supportive of Britain, was divided, with the secretary of state, Alexander Haig (who died last week), taking a much more pro-Argentinian position against what he saw as British imperialism. So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.
WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? Should Britain ignore Argentina’s protests, carry on drilling for oil and maintain in perpetuity its sovereignty over the islands? Or should it open negotiations with Argentina?”
Oh, and just before this passage he has explained exactly the opposite point of view, again taking great care to distance himself from the views expressed. Note in particular the concluding appeal for his readers to make their own minds up.
In other words, it’s a rigorously impartial piece that allows the reader to form their own view. But that doesn’t fit in with your narrative, so you deliberately distorted and misrepresented him.
Happy days!
All I’d say is that the bbc doesn’t reflect the views of those people who actually live in the Falkland Islands. However it is spun, the bbc doesn’t want to know that the Falkland Islanders want to remain a member of the British Overseas Territories, just as Gibraltar wants to remain a British Crown Colony. But the bbc will never accept that the inhabitants of these places count for anything, while the bbc goes about its socialist plan to destroy Britain, England and everything we stand for.
“They say” “Those who think”.
Classic way of insinuating the BBC view point into a discussion without actually articulating it?
As I understand it the Falklands are 700 miles from Argentina. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I could just about understand Argentina having a territorial claim if it was, say, 100 miles, not that I’m suggesting we make a claim on France. Just strikes me that 700 miles is quite a distance.
Regarding the “they say”s, everybody knows that that is a distancing device. You use this as a fig leaf of impartiality. The confirmation bias is beyond Devil’s Advocate because there are many different “they say” viewpoints that are not flagged up by the BBC. We see this smokescreen deployed time and time again by BBC on a large range of contentious topics. Haven’t heard a “they say” supporting death penalty or enforcement of border controls.
Of course the BBC wants the Falklands given to Argentina. They see it as Empire and that is enough.
C&CD
“He’s explaining what *some people* think.”
Even by the standards of the extreme Marxist left-wing nut jobs who applaud the murder of 100 million people by their ilk in the twentieth century, then arrive on BBBC, this is total bollox.
More Minitrue nonsense. At least in 1984 the propaganda department worked in favour of the Government. The BBC is many fathoms below that, in the slime that accumulates in the abyss.
What JH is doing is the opposite of what the BBC canteen dweller is suggesting.
Under the guise of truth and accuracy, and, of course, “in context”.
JH created some imaginary entities. Entities who, totally unexpectedly, share his viewpoint.
JH then “explained” how these figments arrived at their viewpoints.
JH threw in a few, carefully selected, pseudofacts to demonstrate how reasonable these viewpoints were.
These “some people” think we should surrender.
JH agrees.
0/10, put on the dunces cap, stand in the corner.
Your indoctrinatiion included the inculcation that we, on the right, are stupid.
More lies
“Even by the standards of the extreme Marxist left-wing nut jobs who applaud the murder of 100 million people by their ilk in the twentieth century, then arrive on BBBC, this is total bollox.”
Wow, that’s some stretch of logic you’ve got going there. Way to go.
“JH created some imaginary entities. Entities who, totally unexpectedly, share his viewpoint.”
Er, the whole point of Alan’s formless rant is that Jeremy Corbyn holds *exactly* these views. Not exactly ‘imaginary’.
“JH then “explained” how these figments arrived at their viewpoints.”
Yes. It’s a type of article known as an ‘explainer’. Because, um, it explains stuff. If you bothered to read the whole thing – which you won’t do, because you’d rather have your prejudices confirmed – you’d see that he also *explains* exactly the opposite point of view.
“JH threw in a few, carefully selected, pseudofacts to demonstrate how reasonable these viewpoints were.”
No, he illustrates BOTH SIDES of the argument by giving examples that the people who hold BOTH VIEWS use to back up their arguments.
“These “some people” think we should surrender.”
Yes, and the OTHER “some people” he refers to elsewhere think we shouldn’t!
“JH agrees.”
No he doesn’t. He offers NO OPINION AT ALL. One clue to this fact is that his article was written for a polling organisation, not a news outlet. The irony here is that your thoroughly skewed reading of this piece is heavily coloured by your own prejudices. Which makes you singularly unqualified to make accusations of bias.
C&CD
One thing I do not believe, that the people at the BBC are stupid.
For many years, originally in smoke filled rooms, then in queer filled rooms, currently in ethnic and queer filled rooms, the BBC has struugled with a difficult balancing act.
To act in a manner according to the wishes of its management, that is Marxist. While pretending to act according to its charter, thus retaining its income, impartially.
Every act of BBC left-wing bias is created with a get-out clause. There will be, to counter the Marxism, something in the BBC production, or in another BBC production, which is there for another purpose. That purpose is to enable the BBC to point it out, and claim that their treatment is “even-handed, balanced, neutral, in a word impartial”: “Which is what people have come to expect from the world’s most trusted broadcaster”. Or some similar, lying, rubbish.
But the BBC has grown arrogant, cocky and lazy. Its makeweights have become fewer and weaker. So much so that its opponents are able to find so many holes in its “arguments” that it looks like a colander. Like we do here.
Thus we now have a new, easier to implement “strategy”. As frequently as possible, publicise as widely as possible, a real (or imaginary) report that some senior Labour Party member has complained to the BBC about its Tory Party bias.
I do not know what the future holds for the BBC. If the history of the BBC since WW2 is written accurately it will be described “as one of nastiest, most vindictive, evil, treasonous organisations created since the Big Bang, and its staff likewise”.
“One thing I do not believe, that the people at the BBC are stupid.”
Just because somebody is greedy and sanctimonious it does not follow that they are intelligent. Look at Russell Brand.
“He’s explaining what *some people* think.”
An impartial journalist is entitled to use the “some say” ploy to develop a story if he/she/it give both sides of the argument. In the example given by CCD Humphrys sets out the arguments for surrendering the Falklands but says nothing about the reasons for retaining them. The listener has heard only one side of the story – the one chosen by Humphrys. This sets up the BBC poll for those who haven’t thought about the issue in detail to support the position as outlined by Humphrys.
A typical BBC interpretation of “impartiality” to sway the undecided- when we want your opinion we’ll give it to you.
“In the example given by CCD Humphrys sets out the arguments for surrendering the Falklands but says nothing about the reasons for retaining them. The listener has heard only one side of the story – the one chosen by Humphrys.”
In fairness I think that “Corrections and Clarifications Department” is genuinely too stupid to notice that how your frame the debate is important. BBC News and Current Affairs spend most of their time (which “Corrections and Clarifications” would notice if he paid attention) trying to put events into approved narratives.
RJ: “In the example given by CCD Humphrys sets out the arguments for surrendering the Falklands but says nothing about the reasons for retaining them.”
Easy to say if you are determined to let prejudice and blind loathing get in the way of the facts.
This, from the same article, looks pretty much like a reason for retaining the Falklands, doesn’t it?
“The British government argues that our prime responsibility is to the people of the islands and, overwhelmingly, they wish the islands to stay British. As Mrs Thatcher used to put it: their interests must be ‘paramount’. Secondly, they argue that the economic benefits to Britain could be considerable.”
But go on, keep making stuff up. Don’t let me stop you.
“prejudice and blind loathing get in the way of the facts”
The BBC in short.
“But go on, keep making stuff up. Don’t let me stop you.”
“Belgrano” Cough.
CCD
Clearly I made the mistake of replying to what you quoted in your post rather than leaving this website to carry out research into who said what.
However, looking at the extra information you have now provided doesn’t change the material point, which is how the BBC manipulates the audience by the way it frames the debate.
You now say that Humphrys set out the case for retaining the islands with two points:
1) the people there wanted to remain British
2) the economic benefits could be considerable.
Note that the second point doesn’t carry much weight as the term is only “could be”, so it is easy to discount.
Against these two points you have him setting out, using the “some say” ploy:
1) our wider interests require a change in status
2) change would improve our relations with “emerging powers” – it sounds scary if “emerging powers” don’t like us
3) the Falklands are a “vestige of our imperial past” – and to the BBC “imperial past” can only be a negative
4) the Falklands imperils our good relations with the United States – it’s getting scary again
5) it is time to negotiate (a word with positive loading)
6) a deal is available where the Argentinians get the islands but the people remain British. If this point is accepted at face value the only solid argument that he gives for retaining the Falklands loses its validity
7) the deal would allow Britain to “share the spoils of oil exploration”. And there goes the second point that he gave for retaining the islands,
So two points on one side of the argument and seven on the other, with two of those seven designed to destroy the two from the other side. That is guidance on what to think with a capital G. But just in case some people are slow on the uptake the guidance is reinforced in the way the final question is phrased: “Should Britain ignore Argentina’s protest………or should it open negotiations with Argentina?” The choice is framed as between “ignore”, a negative word (to ignore is to be nasty), and “negotiate” a positive word (to negotiate is to be reasonable).
There was a time when the words of BBC journalists could be taken at face value, but now they have to be subjected to analysis to identify the manipulation.
And, as several people here have pointed out – the Argentinians don’t have any grounds for a valid claim.
It’s worse than that RJ. In the sell-out side of the argument it’s ‘some people, people, we, us’.
In the counter-argument it’s, ‘The British Government* argues’ ‘Mrs Thatcher** used to say’
‘They say, they say’.
Appealing to their core teenage supporters to do battle with the ‘forces of evil’.
ie. *Eton toffs and **the dreaded milk-snatcher. (or probably some much worse epithet that’s been drummed into their empty skulls)
C&CD
Six hours since your previous contribution.
Change of shift at the BBC canteen?
How was the halal fillet steak today?
“Easy to say if you are determined to let prejudice and blind loathing get in the way of the facts.”
My mistake, I apologise, I forgot that facts are not determined here.
The fact creating department of the universe is, naturally, with the BBC, where the policy is
“When I state that something is a fact, a fact is exactly what I want it to mean, neither more, nor less”
“When I state something is prejudiced, prejudice means exactly what I want it to mean …”.
“When I state the fact that not one person was killed by the state in the Stalinist USSR, the finest example of utopia on record …”
100 million people killed in 45 years (1917-1962) by blind loathing and prejudice, by people with your views,
You and your disgusting associates have the audacity to label the Conservatives as the nasty party.
You are the scum of the earth.
That’s just the “I’ve got this mate who……….” analogy.
“They Say” that the BBC is dominated by a very narrow section of British society, a left-wing white middle-class group with unusually low intelligence for white middle class people (due to BBC staff with Arts, Media and Language qualifications dominating the airwaves) who give the impression that they would love to turn their home into a hostel for immigrants, and live in a multicultural area. But unfortunately they tend to turn out to be members of a Labour voting minority, in hideously white Tory/UKIP areas. So they tend to turn out to be hypocrites who prefer to live next door to me and you, and patronise ethnics from a distance. “They Say” that lefties get a felling of superiority by patronising the ethnics from a distance.
“white middle-class group with unusually low intelligence”
They are the thicker, lazier, younger brothers, who envy the achievements of their older siblings. All they have is their snobbery, lack of principle, and their bottomless sense of entitlement.
Interestingly though we NEVER hear anyone from the BBC saying things like, ‘ some people think that immigration is a bad thing ‘, or like , ‘Islam creates trouble where ever it appears. They very occasionally allow some one from out side the BBC to voice such an opinion and then attack them relentlessly for having said it! But there are a lot more people in the UK who think such things than there are who think we should offer the Falklands to the Argies!
The BBC certainly does not speak for the main stream of British thought. So why do we have to pay for it??
The Argentinians have no claim to the Islands whatsoever .
‘Corrections and Clarifications Department’…shouldn’t that be the ‘Obfuscation and Misdirection Department’?….A very misleading bit of cut and paste by you…the title of Humphry’s piece gives the game away by itself….The Falklands…time to negotiate? Why raise the matter at all unless he thinks there is some merit in the argument.
As for rigorously impartial, explaining both sides of the story…no, he spends 95% of the time putting the ‘hand it to the Argies’ side.
Not sure how you can claim ‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’ is anything but Humphry’s own conclusion….he hasn’t even bothered to cover his backside with a ‘They say’ as he usually does.
This is the Humphrys who told us that 1 million Iraqis had been killed in the war when even the most determinedly pessimistic commentators were saying far, far less had been killed.
This was the Humphrys who told us that there was no sanction for the troop surge in the US ISG report when in fact it specifically mentioned the prospect of such a troop surge.
This was the Humphrys who told us that that troop surge was failing even as the troops had only just started to arrive…the surge that was an acknowledged success in eradicating the insurgents.
This was the Humphrys who nearly brought the BBC to its knees with his, and Gilligan’s, loose language and perhaps wishful thinking.
Time perhaps for Humphrys to retire as his cohosts keep hinting.
Are you familiar with the question mark, Alan? You know, the thing that changes a statement into an interrogative? You could change the headline – which was written by somebody from Yougov, not by JH – to the exact opposite, “The Falklands – should we hold on to them?” and you’re still asking the same question. What headline would you have preferred? “Let’s hold on to the Falklands”? Not a very useful way of getting a debate going, is it? Which, given that was the whole point of the article – on a POLLSTER’S website – would be rather missing the point. Do you have a better headline for a piece which is asking its readers to offer their views on whether the UK should, er, negotiate with Argentina?
“Not sure how you can claim ‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’ is anything but Humphry’s own conclusion….he hasn’t even bothered to cover his backside with a ‘They say’ as he usually does.”
We’ve already established that you are either wilfully misrepresenting the piece or just not able to grasp basic composition. As I’ve pointed out, the context to this statement is key. It is in the same paragraph as his multiple “they say”s, which are very clearly there to make clear he is articulating somebody else’s argument rather than his own. The context didn’t suit your argument, so you deliberately left it out.
It’s a bit rich being accused of selective cutting and pasting by somebody who could get a job editing the ecstatic quotes that get printed on film posters when the movie’s a total dud.
Whatever the merits of your later points, they’re irrelevant. A journalist being wrong on another occasion does not make you right this time.
The article should not exist in the first place. There is no question about the Falkands in BRITAIN – we had to go to war, the islanders have a settled wish to remain British, the arguments and doubts ended 30 years ago.
The BBC should not even be asking the question.
It is tempting to say that “Corrections and Clarifications Department” is simply being disingenuous. But in all sincerity I really think he does not understand. Are we value neutral about Hitler? The questions you decide to ask is already to take a position. To be neutral over the issue of the Falklands is already to take a position.
As a discussion of ways to treat the BBC appears to have arisen …
Here’s my two-penny’oth: turn the BBC Trust into a proper Trust with investments split between Gilts & Equities. The funds are to come in part, year to year, from regular efficiency savings and sales of programmes WHILE the Licence Fee is steadily reduced year-on-year to the point where it is a Licence Fee and not a tax, say, to £25.
The four trustees of the Trust will deal with raising the income & handing it over to the BBC. OFCOM, as already suggested above, takes over its behaviour and content supervision from the Trust.
Public spirited, BBC enthusiast-type persons, (including the Dimblebys and Rona Fairhead perhaps?) will be free to gift money into the BBC Trust if they so wish.
The most treacherous reporting was that which alerted the Argentinian Air Force to the fact they had not set their bombs for low level release meaning that fortunately on a number of bombs the fuse had not activated and despite hitting their target failed to detonate. The BBC of course reported the hits but non detonation, something that the Skyhawk crews would have had difficulty in knowing allowing the Argentinians to modify subsequent bombs and leading to an increase in deaths and damage to the task force. Should have been hanged for treason
I’d been brought up listening to the BBC so I was a true believer.
It was BBC journalists informing the Argentinians that they weren’t fusing their bombs properly that first made me wonder about their integrity. It has been down hill ever since, to the extent that now I rarely watch or listen – and when I do I then wonder why I bothered (a classic example being the current series on Napoleon).
Napoleon was an enemy of Britain and a proponent of European integration. Of course the BBC are fans.
I’ve been watching the Napoleon series in i-Player. Andrew Roberts is not a leftie (even looks like a slightly older version of Cameron!). I could be wrong but I get the distinct impression that in order to get the series made he’s had to agree to the typical Beeb agenda :
Revolution – good, European – good, Britain – bad!
posh peter allen,nicky campbell o.b.e and the rest of the middle and upper class 5 live presenters live in a world apart from the rest of us ordinary folk in this country when it comes to political views and there islamophile narrative,the narrative from 5 live presenters is always spun to accomadate there leftist listenerrs who dominate there phone ins,look at jeremy corbyn the future leader of the labour party,this man supports terrorist groups like hamas and invited the head honcho of the ira gerry adams to the house of commens for a cup of tea and biscuits,peter allen and co gave corbyn such a easy time this week on radio 5 live and did not push him on his support for extremism and that really annoyed me this week.
I’m afraid BBC Radio 5 is a lost cause. They have self-selected their audience with a constant left-leaning babble. I have boycotted the channel for some time now and feel cleansed. The only way this channel’s output could be even part justified would be for the BBC to set up a right-leaning channel called Radio 5-and-a half. Never going to happen – so scrap it. Let Labour or the Guardian launch their own radio station.
” Let Labour or the Guardian launch their own radio station. ”
They already have. And they make us pay for it.
Funny that ITV told me about Thatchers letters that were written at the time of the Falklands etc…didn`t see the BBC do anything like the job they needed to.
Maybe because she calls the BBC what it is-only in a genteel way that only shows she was a saint in comparison to a Kinnock or a Milne.
They also show her in a human light-now after Orgreave that would never do would it?
She says that her job was the security of the men who fought for this nation,whereas the BBCs job was news.
Boy-it`s got worse since then St Maggie of Grantham!
No longer even a pretence of “news” anymore-the BBC is all about virtue signals, smokescreens for the left and perpetual agitation and blank revolution!
Let`s bin the Beeb…and win one for St Margaret!