The BBC cuts - an opportunity missed?

Chat Forum

The BBC cuts - an opportunity missed?

124 posts & 36 voices | Started 7 months ago by ohnohesback | Latest reply from grantway

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1…34

swedishmatt - Member

2tyred - Member

This is my point, the BBC makes the UK, as a whole, believe in one side of the story. And the sooner you realise that the better. you will of course ridicule me, which I don't particularly mind. But seriously, this country suffers from a serious dose of "I don't give a shit about politics I'll go watch X-factor and maybe question time and that's the news for me!".

The UK is brainwashed and the BBC plays a great part.

Codswallop, sir.

If the BBC is so left wing and so adept at shaping the views of the public to fit its own agenda in such a sinister fashion, then how come we've ended up with a right-leaning government?

Because Labour elected a grinning fool for its leader and people realised Labour again, completely and utterly, spunked up money on the wrong things? Of course they weren't helped by the global crash, of which the Labour government had absolutely nothing to do with.

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future … the UK should not return to the instability, speculation and negative equity of the 1980s and 1990s" Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, November 1997

Sorry I'm also trying to find his glowing review of the financial services in the 2000's. Something about innovation and.....hold on, you mean CDS?

Posted 7 months ago #
grum - Member

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'.

I'm sure not all of them are, just most of them.

There's a lot of bad pro-MMGW science out there

Unlike the anti-MMGW science, which is all beyond reproach?

Posted 7 months ago #
gonefishin - Member

Because Labour elected a grinning fool for its leader and people realised Labour again, completely and utterly, spunked up money on the wrong things?

That assumes that the Labour party are left wing, which they haven't been for a very very long time.

Posted 7 months ago #
2tyred - Member

Because Labour elected a grinning fool for its leader and people realised Labour again, completely and utterly, spunked up money on the wrong things? Of course they weren't helped by the global crash, of which the Labour government had absolutely nothing to do with.

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future … the UK should not return to the instability, speculation and negative equity of the 1980s and 1990s" Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, November 1997

Sorry I'm also trying to find his glowing review of the financial services in the 2000's. Something about innovation and.....hold on, you mean CDS?

So this was something the BBC missed out on then?

Sounds like the Brainwashing Department are pretty incompetent and lazy after all.

Posted 7 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'.

I think most are idiots if that helps

There's a lot of bad pro-MMGW science out there

we are lucky to have so many journalists and right wing politicians with no science background to point this out to us.

Posted 7 months ago #
wrecker - Member

To be fair, I don't believe any of us here are environmental scientists and as such will have formed our opinions on MMGW by what has been fed to us by the media. A media which is not neutral and that is my major complaint.
Anyway, this is a thread on the BBC not MMGW so its not right that the thread is deviated this far IMHO.

Posted 7 months ago #
project - Member

After the death of steve jobs yesterday(a lot of other people also died buut didnt get a mention)i honestly thought bbc, was owned by apple, as itjust seemed one long advertising plug for that comapny.

Top save cash sack a lot of the talentless presenters, especially 2 off radio 1,

Posted 7 months ago #
retro83 - Member

grum

I'm sure not all of them are, just miost of them.

Unlike the anti-MMGW science, which is all beyond reproach?

No, of course not and I said nothing of the sort. Point is that it is the pro mmgw (or 'anthropogenic climate change' or whatever they're calling it now) which is heavily pushed by the bbc. It is spoken if as if it is undeniable fact, and at this point it is not.

Posted 7 months ago #
Pimpmaster Jazz - Member

Strangely enough no, I don't think they would. I wouldn't pay for sky either way though, so this is totally irrelevant.

If you don't watch TV or have any sort of receiving equipment in the house then you don't need a licence either.

Everyone's happy.

Posted 7 months ago #
DaRC_L - Member

ahh SwedishMatt you should balance yourself and find some balancing quotes from Major etc....

But hmmmm a Swede arrives here and starts bashing the BBC
<takes a quick look under the bridge>

Posted 7 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

It is spoken if as if it is undeniable fact, and at this point it is not.

Nothing in science is a fact or ever undeniable and this confuses non scientists who want true or false. For example some people dont accept evolution yet the BBC speaks about it like it is a fact, also gravity etc.
It is largely accepted by scientist and doubted by some members of the general public, some non qualified journalists and some politicians - you decide who you think knows best on this issue science or Clarkson and Palin. Hell even the petroleum industry accepts it these days.

Posted 7 months ago #
teamhurtmore - Member

I love how anybody who criticized the MMGW movement is a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'denier'. You cannot be objectively critical without being tarred as an idiot. It's the opposite of how science should be.

Ditto the Euro - if you criticized it (not hard to do) you were a narrow minded Little Englander (sorry to my Scottish, Welsh and NI friends). Not to mention the Financial Times' pro-Euro bias.

Posted 7 months ago #
retro83 - Member

Junkyard - Member

Nothing in science is a fact or ever undeniable and this confuses non scientists who want true or false. For example some people dont accept evolution yet the BBC speaks about it like it is a fact, also gravity etc.

I think implying that MMGW is at the same status as Natural Selection and G/S Relativity both of which have been extensively tested for over 50 years and are experimentally proven (with the exception of some edge cases) is ludicrous.

Posted 7 months ago #
Mike_D - Member

Just trying to work out how the BBC can simultaneously be "state-controlled" and also exhibit "left-wing bias". I'm thinking that one of these things (and possibly both) may be untrue

Posted 7 months ago #
Zulu-Eleven - Member

It is largely accepted by scientist and doubted by some members of the general public, some non qualified journalists and some politicians - you decide who you think knows best on this issue science or Clarkson and Palin. Hell even the petroleum industry accepts it these days.

So, by that basis, the BBC should have stuck with the scientific consensus that Einstein was right, and ignored recent findings which suggest otherwise...

Posted 7 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

You cannot be objectively critical without being tarred as an idiot. It's the opposite of how science should be.

Science wirls with data and peer reviewed and replicated study. Why not get some of your "critical thinking" published then if you want to be taken seriously rather than giving me an emotive argument about what science is as that is not data and that is not science
People did criticise it initially and doubt it and look for other causes but the data is overwhelming to all but a few.
retro 83 I did not imply anything I said that all scientific theories have doubt and dissenters. Are you denying this is true? Are you denying that science does not find facts?
Your point [ minus the imply] is probably a fair one [ re which are more robust given longevity] but only last week it has been suggested we have particles travelling faster than light so perhaps Einstein is incorrect with relativity. There are no certainties in science it can all be disproved with data/new observation etc
I suggest that is what you do provide data and in particular i would like you to explain how the thermal forcing effect on carbon is negated* and by which process..good luck
I wish you the very best of luck in thinking about something that the worlds leading experts have not considered, accounted for and discounted but hey it is just possible some folk on a mtb forum will disprove AGW.
Perhaps next week we can find a cure for cancer ?

* I assume you accept that C02 is both rising and also a green house gas.

Before Watson an Crick we had no method for Evolution dso it was in doubt for a while
You seem to think longeivity
the effects of C02 as a greenhouse gas are well documented I assume you accpet that point
C02 is increasing - I assume you accept that burning fossil fuels releaseses stored carbon in th eform of Co2
I as

Posted 7 months ago #
retro83 - Member

Junkyard - Member

(Stuff)

The FTL particles recently shown experimentally was one of the 'edge-
cases' I mentioned.

I'm going to come back to the other stuff later.

Posted 7 months ago #
Junkyard - Member

greter minds than us are on the case

Posted 7 months ago #
grantway - Member

What I don't understand the BBC saying they may have to sell the Iconic building
But it belongs to the Licence payer does it not ?

Posted 7 months ago #