Glastonbury and Politics

[clarkete]

6 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

If you think im going to come out as a supporter of the bbc your badly mistaken the reasons above are what turns me away from that....never watch the crap anyway, sod em so much better content on other channels(bbc is nothing but `talent` shows like strictly, soaps and reruns of 80s sitcoms....quite frankly I cant believe they still ask people to pay for it!(another reason I `dont`) also whittingdale has had little to say about the way the bbc presents the news....wonder why that is? 

Saying that sort of nonsense about the content makes you sound like exactly the sort of numpty who writes into the express or mail about the bbc being run by lefties, which is the pressure they've been trying to resist for the last decade or two.

Personally I like the content, especially stuff which would never be made on commercial alternatives and value radio and telly without ads.  I'm not a parent, but kids having channels sponsored by ads is something that has mushroomed over my life.

Furthermore, if you don't think that Whittingdale hasn't had an impact, or members of the cabinet going for private meetings with the dirty digger and his inner circle, then you're simply deluded

He's a founder member of the freedom association, who used to slag off Mandela back in the day and have always advocated getting shot of the licence fee.

http://www.tfa.net/the-rt-hon-john-whittingdale-mp-is-the-freedom-associations-parliamentarian-of-the-week/

http://www.tfa.net/campaigns/axe-the-tv-tax/

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, p.pete said:

I think the initial (journalistic) investigation included Labour - also there's very short deadlines for bringing a case against this stuff - I think the ball got rolling just in time on this so presumably too late for labour?

Labour were bus-ing activists around the country and charging it to the national campaign. There's no difference.

Yep, I believe there's a time limit of a year, tho I'm not entirely sure what has to be done within that year .... and just because nothing has been heard about anything to do with Labour doesn't mean nothing is happening around them. The police don't necessarily make announcements of criminal complaints they might have had.

I'd be incredibly surprised if the tories have sat back and only bothered to defend themselves, without trying to turn the same onto other parties. They all know what the others have been doing.

[RichardWaller]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The point I was getting at is that whatever you and I might think, there's more than enough people still around from back then who lived thru it and don't regard nationalisation as particularly successful. And if we to go even further to what you're suggesting, there's all of the extra lost opportunity costs to factor in - for example, it'll be harder for people to start and succeed with their own businesses.

Yeah, it could be harder for people to start and succeed with their own business, but you're creating employment anyway. It ought to be at least (not necessarily with this government...), more in the interests for a government to see see high unemployment figures, when there are mass redundancies whether private or public, it harms the public. It doesn't harm a bank to cut 10,000 jobs and have people rely more on automated services. That's probably my main reason for supporting nationalisation. And no, that doesn't mean that I want every business in every sector nationalised. There are things that I think should never have been privatised but if the government wanted to open a chain of gyms, why not?

Quote

There can be an argument about whether the world of business might be better or not via nationalisation and whether the country would benefit, but there's no argument to be had around the idea that removing or reducing the freedoms of people to be able to do what they do now would be unacceptable to a significant proportion of the population.

I'm not sure you've really thought this thru, to consider the wider effects. It's just not the case that govt goes into business and everything else remains unchanged.

It's not like if the government decided to open a coffee shop they'd be saying nobody else is allowed to. 

Course there are different businesses and there are different pros and cons to each sector, I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am. Or as clever as you accused me of implying I am, actually. Sometimes, I think there's absolutely no good to come from privatisation, I work in the NHS and the rip off is rife every day. On the other hand, private businesses have created so much that we take for granted now. I accept privatisation has its place, just not when you end up paying £50 for a meal deal. And when you've got businesses bidding for government contracts thinking ok we're gonna make, I dunno, 10% profit on this, that's 10% that could be better spent elsewhere I think.

Quote

No, I'm just someone who feels he knows what he's talking about, due to a strong interest in chasing facts and information, giving them strong consideration even when they might not suit my prejudices, and where I think about the effects on far more than just me. I'll always call someone out on something wrong they might post as I did with your "the deficit has grown" claim and how you chose to treat the different and correct info you were given. The best ideas come from the best considerations.

If I ruled the world (ha! ) I'd nationalise all land as the very first thing. From where I'm sat it's a no-brainer.... but nothing of that stops me from realising that the vast majority of the country would find that idea horrific as well as finding most else of what I might do the same. There's what I think is the solution, and then there's what the country would go along with.

Don't forget that we live in a democracy, how a large proportion chooses to vote within that democracy, and almost everyone chooses to act and think. These things can't be ignored unless a person thinks other people have less right to a say.

If bullying is correcting someone which causes them embarrassment then yes I'm a bully.... but I'm not going to sit back and let wrong rule the world when I have the easy opportunity to help nudge it back towards the truth.

I've never managed to get my head around the idea of land ownership. As with everything, there must've been a first time. What the hell happened, did someone just decide one day that they owned it? Obviously a bit more violent than that back in the day but even today, someone's decided they've got the right to sell the moon. What bloody chancer dreamt that one up? 

It's a kind of democracy. It's one with people being, in my opinion, deliberately disenfranchised. It's one with ongoing investigations into electoral fraud and I'll be amazed it's the first time. It's a democracy where what we vote for needn't have any relation to what we get. And no, I'm not justifying anything. 

As I said before, I'm not above being wrong. I'm not even embarrassed, I'm human, anyone can be wrong and it isn't the worst thing in the world. I re-read where I misread and accepted I was wrong, if I'd re-read and continued to insist I was right on the other hand, as people so often do, then fair enough. I'll put my hand up and say it so don't be making out that I'm not. You on the other hand have sought fit to cast all kinds of aspersions on my character, telling me that I've said things I haven't and mean things that I don't, I've lost count of how many times I've told you I've not said this or that. You've been telling me how Corbynistas want everything their own way and when we started to talk about compromise you've been telling me that there's one way and one way only. If you oppose A, you support B. If I want to see the British government copying something the French government have been doing, it means I want to see them copying something completely different too. I've asked you loads of questions about the conclusions you're jumping to with me and you've ignored them - this, after you told me that I was trying to hide the fact I was wrong on something. It's a very Digital Spy way of debating and for some reason I expected better here, spirit of Glastonbury and all.

Edited June 2, 2016 by RichardWaller

[RichardWaller]

9 hours ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Its shameful (another example of this was the bbcs desperate attempts to avoid even mentioning the tory expenses scandal on air until AFTER the recent local elections!) but not surprising, look at who runs the news division of the bbc. James Harding their chief of news is a vocal tory supporter and ex editor of The Times known to be a rag with many conservative sympathy's and then you have people like Nick robinson involved with the network in top positions.....the same nick robinson who in his younger years was a Tory party activist and has been criticized numerous times for his perceived bias towards the party when conducting interviews etc

Then you have Robbie gibb the daily politics show executive editor....brother of tory mp Nicolas gibb and former deputy chair of the federation of conservative students and chief of staff for a tory minister. and lets not forget Andrew Neil chairman of `the spectator` a fiery pro Tory publication, All of them highly biased towards the tory party all of them in top positions in bbc news!

When you see the above you start to see a pattern....and you wonder...how is this allowed? the bbc has a duty to remain unbiased especially in its political reporting  that is set out in their charter and for good reason being public funded....would they be allowed to get away with it if they were biased against the current government? highly doubtful! They are as trustworthy as fox news its sad to say!  I simply refuse to pay my license fee anymore and I have done for a while now because of this, Im not contributing to a channel which uses its funding in part to promote a conservative political viewpoint and breaks there own charter time and time again.

BBC is in such a weird place right now... I've got a bit of a love hate thing going on with it too at the moment. It seems that all sides think the BBC is biased against them, they'll still get called lefty luvvies in spite of their coverage (or lack of) things like strikes, protests, election fraud etc.. I suppose they'll be hard pressed to find political editors and correspondents who haven't been involved in one party or another, not sure what the way around it is. Not sure a quota system would work, if people and presenters were openly declaring their membership/bias I'd imagine people and parties would be up in arms on other sides. Bias, but only on our terms please. 

But even now, I don't want to lose the BBC. I am losing faith in them, but I don't want to lose them.

[waterfalls212434]

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

Saying that sort of nonsense about the content makes you sound like exactly the sort of numpty who writes into the express or mail about the bbc being run by lefties, which is the pressure they've been trying to resist for the last decade or two.

Personally I like the content, especially stuff which would never be made on commercial alternatives and value radio and telly without ads.  I'm not a parent, but kids having channels sponsored by ads is something that has mushroomed over my life.

Furthermore, if you don't think that Whittingdale hasn't had an impact, or members of the cabinet going for private meetings with the dirty digger and his inner circle, then you're simply deluded

He's a founder member of the freedom association, who used to slag off Mandela back in the day and have always advocated getting shot of the licence fee.

http://www.tfa.net/the-rt-hon-john-whittingdale-mp-is-the-freedom-associations-parliamentarian-of-the-week/

http://www.tfa.net/campaigns/axe-the-tv-tax/

 

wow did you ever get the wrong end of the stick......no im not attacking the bbc for being left wing mate im attacking the bbc because they particularly the news team seem to be on an offensive against all things left wing! as for the lisence fee! bloody good! its an antiquated system.....I never watch the bbc mate.....so tell me why then I should be forced to pay for it? its completely anti freedom of choice and makes no sense what so ever in an age where a good number of people pay for cable/satellite tv anyway so are essentially having to pay twice! maybe not scrap it totally but give people the choice! itd be pretty simple with modern technology to block bbc content from people who hadnt paid the license fee and Id be more then willing to have that block if it meant I could stop paying for something I never use!

Im no fan of whittingdale but I detest the bbcs current direction....and not because its full of `lefties` but because its completely the opposite, its turned into nothing but a government propaganda channel. simple as. and I dont care if the content is `ad free` whats the point of it being `ad free` if its total crap? im not going to watch rubbish just because its rubbish with no adverts......what would I miss? oh eastenders and strictly! who sodding cares! 

and dont you ever and I mean ever call me a sodding express or mail reader....there is no greater insult! 

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[clarkete]

15 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

wow did you ever get the wrong end of the stick......no im not attacking the bbc for being left wing mate im attacking the bbc because they particularly the news team seem to be on an offensive against all things left wing! as for the lisence fee! bloody good! its an antiquated system.....I never watch the bbc mate.....so tell me why then I should be forced to pay for it? its completely anti freedom of choice and makes no sense what so ever in an age where a good number of people pay for cable/satellite tv anyway so are essentially having to pay twice! maybe not scrap it totally but give people the choice! itd be pretty simple with modern technology to block bbc content from people who hadnt paid the license fee and Id be more then willing to have that block if it meant I could stop paying for something I never use!

Im no fan of whittingdale but I detest the bbcs current direction....and not because its full of `lefties` but because its completely the opposite, its turned into nothing but a government propaganda channel. simple as. and I dont care if the content is `ad free` whats the point of it being `ad free` if its total crap? im not going to watch rubbish just because its rubbish with no adverts......what would I miss? oh eastenders and strictly! who sodding cares! 

and dont you ever and I mean ever call me a sodding express or mail reader....there is no greater insult! 

 

No I knew which end  of  the stick you were on, I was saying that because of your desires the outcome you want is exactly the same as theirs. 

It's the funding that stops it being like the commercial competition and makes it pretty much unique in the world as far as I'm aware,  hence why I'm a passionate supporter of it. 

I've got other friends who share your view about its politics,  personally I think once it's been neutered then they'll go for C4 

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

im attacking the bbc because they particularly the news team seem to be on an offensive against all things left wing! as for the lisence fee! bloody good! its an antiquated system

PMSL at the non-joined-up thinking.

The BBC isn't left wing enough, so let's abolish the most left-wing thing about it.

[waterfalls212434]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL at the non-joined-up thinking.

The BBC isn't left wing enough, so let's abolish the most left-wing thing about it.

since when is forcing people to pay a fee for a service they dont wish to use left wing? or for that matter forcing people to pay a fee for an organisation which goes on the attack regularly against left wing politics? wake the fuck up, you can call the beeb `left wing` all you wish to it wont make it so. Freedom of choice however is very much left wing, and that is what is denied us by the license fee

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

since when is forcing people to pay a fee for a service they dont wish to use left wing?

what have you missed about the left-wing ideals of common cause and solidarity?

And what do you think is left wing about your preference of commercial?

Jeez.

Edited June 2, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Freedom of choice however is very much left wing

You're as far off-course as it's possible to be when you give the right wing ideal as something from the left.

I'd already been thinking that many of those praising Corbyn would freak right out if they actually realised what left wing actually was.

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by eFestivals

[clarkete]

32 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

since when is forcing people to pay a fee for a service they dont wish to use left wing?

I think as Neil says, in some ways you're pretty much spouting the current tory government's agenda there:-

Why pay for NHS if you can go private?

Why pay for state schools if you can go private?

Why should everyone pay for the university system when you can just charge the student directly?