INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Save the BBC!

For news of events, petitions and campaigns that may be of interest to humanists and secularists.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#61 Post by Altfish » July 21st, 2015, 7:35 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Whoever is in Government wants to control the BBC, the Tories do it by threatening and culling; Labour by calling its reporting into question. (The Hutton Enquiry and Alistair Campbell)

I find it amazing that the BBC is right wing when the Labour Party is in control and left wing when the Tories are in. In actual fact it is critical of the Government of whichever colour, which is good. The control and fear that the Tories induce in the BBC is like a totalitarian state; but to a lesser degree Labour did it; and for that matter the SNP tried it on during the Independence election last year. They are all at it.
And all the more reason to ensure politicians stop meddling with it.
Spot on, exactly what I was getting at

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#62 Post by Nick » July 26th, 2015, 10:08 am

Alan H wrote:Nick. I'm not trying to fucking say anything! I posted the original link to the review FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT. Why is that not clear to you?
For a couple of reasons, Alan. First, that you continue to post links critical of the Tories, almost whatever the subject, rather than being from a humanist perspective. (As an aside, if humanism is to mean much we must keep a broad approach. Thus, we should be critical of faith schools, but not just label it a Tory policy. We need the Tories on board too. Gratuitous criticism doesn't help.) On this occasion, maybe you just provided a link to oil the wheels of debate, but I misjudged that because of your posts elsewhere, as being critical. Secondly, whereas you could have initially replied with something like "No condemnation or criticism implied, Nick, just for info.", you responded with vague emoticons, which led me to conclude that you did have something to say, but were, sadly, not sharing it with the rest of us!
Do expect me to provide my thoughts on everything when I post a link?
You can post what you like, but some words of your own would make it much more interesting. ISTM that where text is linked without any comment, then it doesn't really lead anywhere. It is the personal thoughts and comments of posters which leads to discussion. If I just posted links to the Adam Smith Institute (say) I don't think that would add much to the forum, as a forum for humanist ides and friendships..
Do I need to have a fully thought-out position of the subject before pointing it out to the folks here? Why are we - again - having these facile meta conversations instead of discussing the actual topic?
One reason might be that you have so far declined to do so. I asked 2 questions
, which could have been answered as part of the discussion of the actual topic, but received back a couple of emoticons...
Now, can we actually discuss the BBC and the Government review???
Certainly! Let's begin! (Another aside: Why describe it as a "Government" review....? But let's press on.)

Some things which I would like the review to consider.

Does the BBC have to try to be so comprehensive? For example, do they need to be seen to broadcast imported programmes which could be available on other networks? How many channels should it actually have? BBC5, anyone? And why is half the output of BBC3 and BBC4 broadcast when most of the country are asleep?

Access to the BBC should be controlled technologically, rather than by threats of imprisonment, and should extend to internet access too.

Subscription to BBC programmes should be available world-wide. This could potentially double the numbers viewing, cutting the costs for UK residents.

I regard the BBC as a good influence in the world, especially its news coverage, so some world-wide freebies should be available.

The BBC run commercials for themselves on their networks. Personally, I would not object to limited advertising on the BBC (so long as they don't come in the middle of programmes). "Escape to the Country is sponsored by RightMove...."

And given the power of the BBC to create stars (Jamie Oliver, say...) where every one of his shows in an advertisement for his books, would paid-for promotions be so polluting to the BBC? And they do acknowledge sponsors names in sporting contests.

Rugby internationals should be a protected event, like the boat race and FA Cup final. :D

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#63 Post by Nick » July 26th, 2015, 10:11 am

Oh! And an end to the religious monopoly on Thought for the Day!

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#64 Post by Altfish » July 26th, 2015, 10:16 am

Nick wrote:I regard the BBC as a good influence in the world, especially its news coverage, so some world-wide freebies should be available.
:hilarity: :pointlaugh:

But I thought every one at the BBC was a left wing loony

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#65 Post by Alan H » July 26th, 2015, 10:36 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick. I'm not trying to fucking say anything! I posted the original link to the review FOR INFORMATION AND COMMENT. Why is that not clear to you?
For a couple of reasons, Alan. First, that you continue to post links critical of the Tories, almost whatever the subject, rather than being from a humanist perspective. (As an aside, if humanism is to mean much we must keep a broad approach. Thus, we should be critical of faith schools, but not just label it a Tory policy. We need the Tories on board too. Gratuitous criticism doesn't help.) On this occasion, maybe you just provided a link to oil the wheels of debate, but I misjudged that because of your posts elsewhere, as being critical. Secondly, whereas you could have initially replied with something like "No condemnation or criticism implied, Nick, just for info.", you responded with vague emoticons, which led me to conclude that you did have something to say, but were, sadly, not sharing it with the rest of us!
What? The poor, the disabled, the misfortunate being downtrodden time after time after time (by whoever, but in this case it is entirely avoidable harm caused by the Government) isn't a Humanist issue??? Good grief. That's what Humanism is all about - caring about other humans, not casting them aside and telling them to fend for themselves, worrying how they are going to feed themselves and their kids. Yes, we should criticise a Government for doing that to people. In this case, at the moment, for the time being, we have a Tory Government that's doing this, so they, rightly, are the targets. It would be pointless attacking, say, the LibDems for a policy they did not implement and can do nothing about. The Tories are the ones who are doing this to people: they should take the flak for it.
Do expect me to provide my thoughts on everything when I post a link?
You can post what you like, but some words of your own would make it much more interesting. ISTM that where text is linked without any comment, then it doesn't really lead anywhere. It is the personal thoughts and comments of posters which leads to discussion. If I just posted links to the Adam Smith Institute (say) I don't think that would add much to the forum, as a forum for humanist ides and friendships..
Sorry you don't seem to like links to news articles, etc that inform and perhaps even educate: those can lead to discussion as much as possibly ill-informed opinion.
Do I need to have a fully thought-out position of the subject before pointing it out to the folks here? Why are we - again - having these facile meta conversations instead of discussing the actual topic?
One reason might be that you have so far declined to do so.
I asked 2 questions
, which could have been answered as part of the discussion of the actual topic, but received back a couple of emoticons...
Good grief.
Now, can we actually discuss the BBC and the Government review???
Certainly! Let's begin! (Another aside: Why describe it as a "Government" review....? But let's press on.)
Because it isn't a review by the Women's Institute or the United Nations Security Council, it's a fucking Government review, Nick! Why on earth shouldn't I call a Government review, a Government review? Shall we have yet another meta discussion about that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#66 Post by Nick » July 31st, 2015, 9:05 am

And then along comes 38 Degrees with this.... :wink:

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#67 Post by Altfish » July 31st, 2015, 10:55 am

The man directing the Tory policy on the BBC...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28769.html

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#68 Post by Alan H » July 31st, 2015, 11:01 am

Altfish wrote:The man directing the Tory policy on the BBC...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28769.html
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#69 Post by Nick » July 31st, 2015, 5:47 pm

Oh for a Labour government, when things like this would never happen! Just as Tony!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#70 Post by Alan H » July 31st, 2015, 6:04 pm

Nick wrote:Oh for a Labour government, when things like this would never happen! Just as Tony!
:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#71 Post by Alan H » August 18th, 2015, 10:37 pm

Tomorrow's BBC

A straightforward survey to complete to make your views known.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#72 Post by Alan H » August 23rd, 2015, 11:18 am

Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract after 93 years
The Met Office has lost the contract it has held for close to a century to provide weather forecasts to the BBC.

The weather service said it was disappointed by the BBC’s decision to tender the contract – which has been in place since the corporation’s first radio weather bulletin on 14 November 1922 – to outside competition.

The broadcaster said it was legally required to open up the contract to outside competition to secure the best value for money for licence fee payers.
A new provider is expected to take over in the next year. Dutch and New Zealand firms are said to be in the running for the contract, which is believed to make up a sizeable share of the £32.5m a year the Met Office receives from commercial organisations, according to the Mail on Sunday.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#73 Post by Altfish » August 23rd, 2015, 12:42 pm

If I'm being honest I didn't know there were other forecasting organisations in the UK.
I assumed the Met Office was a government run thing that everyone bought into.

I suppose the BBC will be their main funding stream and may now have to shut down.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#74 Post by Altfish » August 23rd, 2015, 12:45 pm

Actually, reading the article on the BBc website it doesn't say who's taking over and talks of going out to tender in November. Surely the Met Office will be able to tender?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#75 Post by Alan H » August 23rd, 2015, 1:44 pm

Altfish wrote:Actually, reading the article on the BBc website it doesn't say who's taking over and talks of going out to tender in November. Surely the Met Office will be able to tender?
Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract

It certainly isn't clear whether it's just going out to tender or whether the MetOffice will not be in the running. Could well be the firmer in which case the MetOffice could still win it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#76 Post by Alan H » August 23rd, 2015, 1:47 pm

Altfish wrote:If I'm being honest I didn't know there were other forecasting organisations in the UK.
I assumed the Met Office was a government run thing that everyone bought into.

I suppose the BBC will be their main funding stream and may now have to shut down.
There are quite a few and there's even one run by Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers. However, his page in Wikipedia says he doesn't believe climate change is predominately man made...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#77 Post by Dave B » August 23rd, 2015, 4:56 pm

Altfish wrote:If I'm being honest I didn't know there were other forecasting organisations in the UK.
I assumed the Met Office was a government run thing that everyone bought into.

I suppose the BBC will be their main funding stream and may now have to shut down.
Chap from the met office said it was not a significant part of their income. I would have thought their market was as much global as parochial.

Just don't bother with Google weather, last time I tried it I got four different results for the local current weather in as many looks over as many minutes!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#78 Post by Altfish » August 23rd, 2015, 5:22 pm

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:If I'm being honest I didn't know there were other forecasting organisations in the UK.
I assumed the Met Office was a government run thing that everyone bought into.

I suppose the BBC will be their main funding stream and may now have to shut down.
There are quite a few and there's even one run by Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers. However, his page in Wikipedia says he doesn't believe climate change is predominately man made...
He's nothing but a charlatan, we have one that does the same in our local paper. A big blaze of glory in January when he predicts a wet June, warm August, etc. The nothing at the end of the year when it is has proven to be all bollox

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#79 Post by Alan H » August 23rd, 2015, 5:46 pm

Altfish wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:If I'm being honest I didn't know there were other forecasting organisations in the UK.
I assumed the Met Office was a government run thing that everyone bought into.

I suppose the BBC will be their main funding stream and may now have to shut down.
There are quite a few and there's even one run by Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers. However, his page in Wikipedia says he doesn't believe climate change is predominately man made...
He's nothing but a charlatan, we have one that does the same in our local paper. A big blaze of glory in January when he predicts a wet June, warm August, etc. The nothing at the end of the year when it is has proven to be all bollox
I suspect there is the usual problem of general scientific ignorance. Weather forecasting isn't what many might think it is but a highly complex mathematical modelling and science-based discipline that requires highly skilled individuals and one hell of a lot of computing power. If you want someone to use a piece of string to forecast the weather, then that'' certainly be cheaper. It'll also certainly be right some of the time. Another factor is that the Met Office doesn't just provide info for the Michael Fishes of this world to present to TV viewers, but they provide valuable information to farmers, fishermen, etc, etc.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#80 Post by Alan H » August 23rd, 2015, 11:51 pm

I asked Ben Bradshaw MP on Twitter and included the Met Office:
How can [the Met Office] have been ruled out if it's not gone out to tender?
The Met Office replied:
Hello, the tender process is already underway. The BBC made the decision not to take us forward to the next stage.
I've asked why the BBC has made that decision.

Still too many questions.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#81 Post by Altfish » August 24th, 2015, 6:20 am

Ah, I understand now.

A two stage tender, we use them a lot in construction.

It sounds like the Met Office were too complacent

Post Reply