There is a view within Labour that their party should not have to compromise it’s ideals for the sake of winning a General Election. In other words, if the Labour Party becomes only a pressure group, then so be it.
The same can be said of the BBC. They exist within their own left-wing political utopia and don’t represent the views of the British population. Integrity therefore does not matter to them.
Alan, I’m sorry but you are wrong; the BBC spokesperson wasn’t lying.
“No EU money was used in the making of the programme being aired on the BBC” is factually correct. The EU grant was for translating the finished English language film (as shown by the BBC) into other languages.
Thus, whilst the foreign language versions received EU funding, the English version did not. This is old news. The TPA are desperately flogging a dead horse.
That is desperate misdirection. EU money went to the people who made that film. The money was allocated for that film. The BBC showed that film, therefore EU money was used for the making of the programme being aired on the BBC. Translating the film is a subset of the activities required in producing or “making” that film.
I have created many websites over the last 20 years. If I receive money purely to fund the cost of translating one of those websites, then that money comes under the allocation of cost of producing that website. Translation is NOT a separate activity from production of the finished product, but is a sub-set of production activity.
All programs are made with an eye on foreign sales. Certainly a program from an Independent producer is more likely to be made if the production company can demonstrate it can be part funded by overseas money. Hence why there are so many overseas companies credited at the end of BBC productions – also why so many productions are insipid and asinine, but that’s another story.
Why does the BBC accept any funding from the EU as it clearly compromises the BBC’s supposed impartiality ? Wherever the money is spent it releases an equivalent amount to fund EU propaganda.
This is the big argument over switching the Licence Fee into some sort of overall taxation (notwithstanding that some may not wish to access television AT ALL but will still end up paying) because the BBC will always be dependent on the Party in government to maintain the payment, increase the payment or make changes including terminating the arrangement. The provider > consumer relationship changes.
That apart, just taking money (especially when you do not really have need of it with £3.6bn guaranteed income) must compromise the BBC however ‘arms length’ the transaction may be.
“Left Hand, let me introduce you to Right Hand. You don’t seem to have met, much less know what you are each doing!”
Its desperate stuff, and symptomatic of a large organisation with multiple viewpoints.
Its just a shame that in this instance, the organisation in question is the country’s largest communication/ broadcasting company, and that we have become used to this kind of behaviour.
It should be: “left hand, let me introduce to even lefter hand”.
10 likes
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
Emmanuel GoldsteinJul 1, 16:41 Start the Week 30th June 2025 Milligram’s latest idea is to cover lakes in solar panels. Surely this will kill off a huge amount of plant/insect/fish…
AlthepalerpJul 1, 15:52 Start the Week 30th June 2025 The fall of the British Empire started after the second war. Bit like the Roman empire did about 250 AD.…
BRISSLESJul 1, 15:40 Start the Week 30th June 2025 I feel sick seeing the images. By Christmas it will be close to 100,000. Call me bigot or racist they’re…
wwfcJul 1, 15:06 Start the Week 30th June 2025 29 June 2025 585 8 0 30 June 2025 879 13 0 1464 rats have arrived across the channel in…
Fedup2Jul 1, 14:49 Start the Week 30th June 2025 Is the BBC DG still hiding ? Hoping that the Islamic Glastonbury thing will become old news ? People forget…
moggiemooJul 1, 14:36 Start the Week 30th June 2025 Now the price of rocks will go up in supermarkets, just like everything else.
moggiemooJul 1, 14:30 Start the Week 30th June 2025 I would say there is absolutely a place in society for hate. But only when it’s from the approved demographic.
Guest WhoJul 1, 14:18 Start the Week 30th June 2025 Government Of All Talents https://x.com/artemisfornow/status/1939936554262135000?s=12 Held to account by media of all first cousins in the same great City. Mostly…
vladJul 1, 14:11 Start the Week 30th June 2025 Ring a bell, BBC? “Let’s be clear: NPR and the federally funded Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) aren’t neutral media institutions.…
But at least they did with the by now renowned BBC integrity. Apparently. A BBC spokesperson has said…
There is a view within Labour that their party should not have to compromise it’s ideals for the sake of winning a General Election. In other words, if the Labour Party becomes only a pressure group, then so be it.
The same can be said of the BBC. They exist within their own left-wing political utopia and don’t represent the views of the British population. Integrity therefore does not matter to them.
The fact that the BBC lied (what’s new) is supported here.
“The BBC denied ‘The Great European Disaster Movie’ was EU-funded: that was untrue”
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/the-bbc-denied-the-great-european-disaster-movie-was-eu-funded-that-was-untrue.html
Alan, I’m sorry but you are wrong; the BBC spokesperson wasn’t lying.
“No EU money was used in the making of the programme being aired on the BBC” is factually correct. The EU grant was for translating the finished English language film (as shown by the BBC) into other languages.
Thus, whilst the foreign language versions received EU funding, the English version did not. This is old news. The TPA are desperately flogging a dead horse.
http://wp.me/p5QbXs-aM
That is desperate misdirection. EU money went to the people who made that film. The money was allocated for that film. The BBC showed that film, therefore EU money was used for the making of the programme being aired on the BBC. Translating the film is a subset of the activities required in producing or “making” that film.
I have created many websites over the last 20 years. If I receive money purely to fund the cost of translating one of those websites, then that money comes under the allocation of cost of producing that website. Translation is NOT a separate activity from production of the finished product, but is a sub-set of production activity.
The BBC lied. The TPA are telling the truth.
Not quite Jason.
All programs are made with an eye on foreign sales. Certainly a program from an Independent producer is more likely to be made if the production company can demonstrate it can be part funded by overseas money. Hence why there are so many overseas companies credited at the end of BBC productions – also why so many productions are insipid and asinine, but that’s another story.
This horse still requires a little more flogging.
Why does the BBC accept any funding from the EU as it clearly compromises the BBC’s supposed impartiality ? Wherever the money is spent it releases an equivalent amount to fund EU propaganda.
Exactly Grant.
The EU is a political organisation campaigning for its survival and ought not be funding programs fluffing its worth.
Scribbling, yes the EU and the BBC have a lot in common !
This is the big argument over switching the Licence Fee into some sort of overall taxation (notwithstanding that some may not wish to access television AT ALL but will still end up paying) because the BBC will always be dependent on the Party in government to maintain the payment, increase the payment or make changes including terminating the arrangement. The provider > consumer relationship changes.
That apart, just taking money (especially when you do not really have need of it with £3.6bn guaranteed income) must compromise the BBC however ‘arms length’ the transaction may be.
“Left Hand, let me introduce you to Right Hand. You don’t seem to have met, much less know what you are each doing!”
Its desperate stuff, and symptomatic of a large organisation with multiple viewpoints.
Its just a shame that in this instance, the organisation in question is the country’s largest communication/ broadcasting company, and that we have become used to this kind of behaviour.
It should be: “left hand, let me introduce to even lefter hand”.