c4countdown

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:07 am My response would have been “WHEN are you really from?!” (you crazy old bat)

So, racism (even when it's not really racism) = bad.
But, ageism = good.

It is hard to keep up.

I am confused about British opinions on the BBC.
I'm not properly interested, as there's only so much culture wars one-upmanship worth getting involved with in any one day, and the BBC seems generally fine / neutral to me.

But I have seen friends putting up complaining statuses on fb.
Some complain that it has "gone woke" and thusly deserves to "go broke".
Others say it has a massive right wing bias when it comes to political coverage.

Which is true?
Is it possible both are true (or neither)?!
Has anyone got an opinion on this.

It's hugely anti-Conservative, they have been falling over backwards over Jacinda Arden despite her polls tanking, Jon Sopel claiming leaving between elections is much better than leaving at a general election, etc... which I note wasn't the line they took on Boris going.

But also they had the ridiculous situation of one Conservative London Assembly member this morning trying to debate both a Labour MP and the Labour Deputy Mayor on ULEZ. That's almost complaint-worthy on bias, as is the way the London news gives Sadiq Khan almost double the airtime than Susan Hall.

This was the fb person's comment...

"Goebbells would be proud of UK state propaganda TV.
Laura Kuntzberg having a bunch of fascists on to make excuses for Tory chancer-lor avoid prison unlike Boris Becker.
A totally disgrace that we have to fund the BBC."

Perhaps he is a bit loopy?

I've generally felt that the BBC has an economic right wing bias but a social justice warrior bias on social issues.

Anyone remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrEpFi3QOE&t=6m0s

Think that sums it up!

What someone thinks of the BBC is generally a good barometer for how nutty they are on either side of the political spectrum.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:38 pm What someone thinks of the BBC is generally a good barometer for how nutty they are on either side of the political spectrum.

That may work in a limited manner but it is definitely oversimplistic.

Also, the BBC's reporting of this Boris Johnson "had a guarantor on a loan" is such a non-story compared to the Zahawi affair which is way more serious - it just shows they had an agenda against Boris, and still do.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:09 pm Also, the BBC's reporting of this Boris Johnson "had a guarantor on a loan" is such a non-story compared to the Zahawi affair which is way more serious - it just shows they had an agenda against Boris, and still do.

Well, the main story is Zahawi. But if Boris is getting a guarantor on a loan that then gets a high profile job, then that is a story.

The whole Tory setup does look horribly corrupt - contracts for mates, money for nothing.

I hated Thatcher, but I don't believe she was corrupt. This wide scale corruption is a relatively recent development, and one that really needs stamping out.

I'm currently drunk off my ass in lanzarote so should probably stay out of it but fuck me. This thread is hilarious. You have douchebag L'oisleatch who thinks the culture war is an actual thing to be worried about and Rhys, the gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda. Keep on trucking boys. All the world needs is for billionaires to pay their taxes so we can fund society. Just share the fucking wealth you assholes. Human beings are exceptional. Look at what we've achieved and people are worried about such inconsequential bullshit.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

You have no idea about the party. It's a twink fest.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:10 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

You have no idea about the party. It's a twink fest.

It may be but do you think you are a twink? Keep dreaming. As I said, you'll be first in the fire. And the fact you can't see it is depressing. The way people vote against their interest is the most frustrating part of politics. I'm a hard core leftist in terms of rhetoric on here but brass tax, I'm just about generating the best outcomes for the vast majority. As I said, humans are fucking amazing. We've gone to the fucking moon for Christ's sake. All the best stuff we have is when people come together to make sure everyone else is looked after. Conservatism is a "me first" ideology and when taken to it's logical conclusion becomes fascism.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:40 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:10 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

You have no idea about the party. It's a twink fest.

It may be but do you think you are a twink? Keep dreaming. As I said, you'll be first in the fire. And the fact you can't see it is depressing. The way people vote against their interest is the most frustrating part of politics. I'm a hard core leftist in terms of rhetoric on here but brass tax, I'm just about generating the best outcomes for the vast majority. As I said, humans are fucking amazing. We've gone to the fucking moon for Christ's sake. All the best stuff we have is when people come together to make sure everyone else is looked after. Conservatism is a "me first" ideology and when taken to it's logical conclusion becomes fascism.

I don't know if it's a, good thing or not but you make more sense when you are drunk

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:09 pm Also, the BBC's reporting of this Boris Johnson "had a guarantor on a loan" is such a non-story compared to the Zahawi affair which is way more serious - it just shows they had an agenda against Boris, and still do.

This wasn't a story in the first place, and now it's been proven untrue. Boris and Sharp didn't meet until 3 months after the loan; the story alleged it happened it before.

That didn't stop the media from running with it. The media has got it in for Boris Johnson, it's absolutely clear.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pm I'm currently drunk off my ass in lanzarote so should probably stay out of it but fuck me.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:38 pmthe gay Conservative who will be first in the fire if his fascist party actually got to implement thier ultimate agenda.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:40 am As I said, you'll be first in the fire.

Do you want to make a more sober rephrasing of this stuff? I know you're giving your opinion on the Conservatives rather than on Rhys, but it still looks like using someone's sexuality as something to attack them with. Language like "you'll be first in the fire" - even if it is only what you imagine a political party would do - doesn't help.

Not really. I'd equate it with the voting for the leopards who eat people's faces meme.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:44 am Not really. I'd equate it with the voting for the leopards who eat people's faces meme.

Had to Google that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242
Maybe they should build a prison for trans felons

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:07 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242
Maybe they should build a prison for trans felons

They'd have to build two!!

Zahawi sacked.

Philip A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:14 am Zahawi sacked.

Yeah - but what from exactly?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64444530
Maybe they might build those prisons after all

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 5:46 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:13 pm

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 3:58 pm

As I understand it, oil prices, like all commodity prices, are determined by speculators and hedgers who are betting on price moves. OPEC can control the supply side of the supply/demand equation, but individual companies cannot. BP and Shell can't decide the spot price for oil anymore than Beaverbrooks can decide the spot price for gold.

Having said that, I do believe there is a case for a windfall tax on UK oil producing companies.

OK, thanks. I did wonder if it might be something like that. Still, the BBC article could have done a better job explaining it in the first place.

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure it would really work as a business model. If energy companies are just blindly buying and selling at the market rate, what happens if there is a fall in prices over any extended period of time? They just suck up the loss and sell to the public at the going rate?

People/companies attempt to make money buying and selling shares etc. by e.g. trying to buy when prices are down and selling when they're up. So they can hold without selling for as long as they want. But companies sellings goods to the public are in a completely different position. People need these goods at a relatively constant rate so the companies can't just hold without selling, and companies in general set the prices accordingly. Obviously they can't just make anything up because other companies can sell at a lower price, but the point is that Tesco selling a pizza is not restricted by some market speculator sitting up all night at a computer in New York. So I'm not sure that a company would for energy prices either.

Anyway, James May questioned this on Have I Got News For You on Friday (well, not in that detail), but no answer came. It's just one of many things that the news assume everyone understands when almost no-one does.

I don't think this whole thing was really ever satisfactorily answered.

Had this been a Tory the word “Conservative” would have been in the headline or in the first paragraph at the very least.

I dare you to tell me the BBC aren’t biased.

https://t.co/iKXdZC9gOb

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:42 pm Had this been a Tory the word “Conservative” would have been in the headline or in the first paragraph at the very least.

I dare you to tell me the BBC aren’t biased.

https://t.co/iKXdZC9gOb

Methinks you're suffering a bit with confirmation bias

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics - none of the current stories mention parties in their headlines

Having googled various grimy MP stories, some do and some don't - it doesn't seem to be party related e.g. -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63344752 - Labour MP Christian Matheson resigns over sexual misconduct

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60975624 - MP David Warburton admitted to hospital after sexual harassment claims


My conclusion is that MPs that have not been suspended from their parties generally get their parties mentioned, those that have do not.

Also in the news, Sandi Toksvig complaining about the Church of England's marriage policy. But there's always a risk of encountering this sort of thing if you put any credence in an arbitrary branch of an arbitrary religion. The best solution is to not acknowledge the church. It's only relevant because people make it relevant.

In other “shockingly underreported dreadful media shite”:

According to Sky, Zelensky received a standing ovation in Westminster Hall. Which he did, but this was probably down to the fact there were no chairs and the invite explicitly says standing room only. So well done Sky.

Both the BBC News at Ten and Newsnight failed to mention the fact he singled out Boris Johnson for praise.

And Sky also made the claim “the UK doesn’t have any fighter jets to send” just after the speech.

Paul Brand at ITN, whose ridiculous agenda against Boris is transparent, was also adamant Zelensky coming to the UK was a bad thing for Boris Johnson. No it’s not. Especially after he praised him specifically.

Starmer at PMQs made an interesting suggestion that Russia should be made to pay reparations for the war. Which would probably have made for a more interesting discussion on the BBC and Sky.

And whilst the earthquake in Turkey and Syria is absolutely devastating it does not require 90% of the 10pm bulletin on the same day, right?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:16 pm Also in the news, Sandi Toksvig complaining about the Church of England's marriage policy. But there's always a risk of encountering this sort of thing if you put any credence in an arbitrary branch of an arbitrary religion. The best solution is to not acknowledge the church. It's only relevant because people make it relevant.

Agreed, either take offensive or hypocritical language out of the Bible or get marriage in a progressive tolerant religion, which probably don't exist anyway.*

*Yes this is a ploy to get someone on here to present me with one

It does if there's Britain's involved.
Btw Rhys, are you part of Boris Johnson PR team.
Im not prepared to trawl through your posts (but maybe Gevin is ) but I have rarely if ever seen a post criticising the Clown Prince of bufoonery

Is it really news that he praised Boris Johnson? Something to mention as an aside maybe but no big deal.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:43 am Is it really news that he praised Boris Johnson? Something to mention as an aside maybe but no big deal.

Lol I thought yo was referring to me

The whole Nicola Bulley thing seems to be a case of missing white woman syndrome. I really don't see how it warrants this much coverage. It's bordering on the absurd (not bordering actually.)

That's as maybe, but it doesn't change how the scum media have acted.

https://twitter.com/NewsmanDan/status/1 ... 34914?s=20

We must not historically revise the original NI protocol. It was better than May’s backstop and thus was agreed to at a time when time was not on the country’s side.

May’s backstop provided no exit mechanism for Stormont and would have forced the UK into EU customs rules.

The Windsor Framework for the most part looks positive, but we won’t know until we see it in action. I remain concerned about the role of the ECJ and question how often the Stormont Brake will actually be used, but I think it’s good.

Are the chickens coming home to roost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:31 pm Are the chickens coming home to roost?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

What story are you referring to?

I think it was about Boris Johnson misleading parliament. Meakin's poor linking skills!

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:05 pm I think it was about Boris Johnson misleading parliament. Meakin's poor linking skills!

Indeed and now I can't find the page, maybe he's been exonerated already.
Paging Rhys.......

You mean about Sue Gray's stitch-up with Labour?

So is Gary Lineker a victim of "Cancel Culture"?

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:27 pm So is Gary Lineker a victim of "Cancel Culture"?

Totally ridiculous
Clarkson, Sugar and Andrew Neil have all tweeted stuff when working for the beeb without any sanctions.
Its quite funny how the right wing have embraced "Cancel Culture"

Andrew Neil never called the Government Nazis, nor was he ever party political, and Alan Sugar isn’t a BBC employee (The Apprentice is an independent production). They made Clarkson apologise in 2011 for joking - joking! - about shooting strikers.

What is ridiculous is the fact the Beeb clearly agree with him. Lineker has been rapped for his partiality before and ignored it and they said on Friday they weren’t going to take any action; the Biased Bolshevik Corporation literally had an audience member say Sunak is Hitler on Question Time and it went unchallenged; they’ve all gone on strike about this; and much of the same people defending Lineker called for Clarkson to be fired even though he had no obligation to be impartial unlike Lineker. It’s “free speech if I agree”.

Lineker has still not apologised.

If Lineker worked for BT and/or Walkers alone this wouldn’t be a problem, it’s the fact we all pay his extortionate tax-avoided wage and he has a legal obligation to be impartial.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Andrew Neil never called the Government Nazis

Nor did Gary Lineker. This is what he said, here and here:

Gary Lineker wrote: Good heavens, this is beyond awful.

Gary Lineker wrote: This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?

He said the policy was "beyond awful" and "immeasurably cruel". He said it used "language that is not dissimilar" to 1930s Germany. It's his personal view expressed in strong terms, which claims the rhetoric surrounding the policy points in a dark direction. Is that the same thing as calling the government Nazis?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pmnor was he ever party political

Nor is Gary Lineker, any more than Andrew Neil is. He might publish his own views on politics on his own platforms, but has he ever given specific support to one party or another?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pmand Alan Sugar isn’t a BBC employee (The Apprentice is an independent production).

Does it matter which production company makes the programme? What is at issue, according to the BBC Editorial Guidelines, is whether "their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality".

Would anyone who read Lineker's tweet think he was speaking for the BBC? If you think so, then why would the same principle not apply to Jeremy Clarkson's newspaper columns when he presented the BBC-produced Top Gear?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pmWhat is ridiculous is the fact the Beeb clearly agree with him.

When you say "the Beeb clearly agree with him", do you actually mean the editorial line of the BBC, or the personal views of other BBC contributors such as Alan Shearer and Ian Wright? If you mean the people at the top, then, well, I'd have a hard time believing that the BBC Chairman who has donated over £400k to the Tories and the Director General who once stood as a local Conservative Party candidate would naturally be aligned with Lineker's view.

If you mean the other sports presenters, then I would argue they have as much of a right to air their personal views off air as Lineker does.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm the Biased Bolshevik Corporation literally had an audience member say Sunak is Hitler on Question Time and it went unchallenged

I haven't watched that episode, but QT usually has at least one Labour and one Conservative representative on the panel. Did they not on this occasion? And if they did, why could the Conservative not challenge it themselves? If you're asking why Fiona Bruce didn't challenge it, a statement like that is obviously opinion rather than something presented as fact. Was it really necessary for her to interject "in the interest of balance, in case any of our viewers think there has been some kind of horrific necromancy experiment, we must point out that the prime minister is not Hitler"?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm they’ve all gone on strike about this; and much of the same people defending Lineker called for Clarkson to be fired even though he had no obligation to be impartial unlike Lineker. It’s “free speech if I agree”.

Why did Clarkson have no obligation to be impartial? When he presented Top Gear, did he not have a similar relationship with the BBC as Lineker?

It took Clarkson punching a producer to get him removed from a programme. With Lineker, all it's taken is a criticism of the Home Secretary's anti-migrant rhetoric.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Lineker has still not apologised.

In my opinion he has nothing to apologise for.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm If Lineker worked for BT and/or Walkers alone this wouldn’t be a problem, it’s the fact we all pay his extortionate tax-avoided wage and he has a legal obligation to be impartial.

I'm going to link to the BBC Editorial Guidelines again, specifically this bit (my emphasis):

BBC Editorial Guidelines, section 15.3.13 wrote: The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

Graeme's covered most of it, but Gary Lineker definitely doesn't have a legal obligation to be impartial regardless of BBC guidelines. This isn't about the law.

And besides, why does it matter? If it doesn't matter if he worked for Walkers or BT, it doesn't really matter now. The effect it has on the world is essentially the same. The only difference is that he might have broken work rules. Would you care as much if he came back 5 minutes late from his lunch break?

But to be clear, there's no chance of anyone mistaking Lineker's views for the BBC's views and it has nothing to do with football so doesn't affect impartiality on that front. So a complete non-event.

So when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn", that wasn't an impartial political tweet that demanded censure?

Look, I know pointing out Conservative hypocrisy is next to useless because they don't care but it's still fun I guess.

Also I love that pretty much the whole of football is standing behind Gary Lineker. Even Liverpool didn't show up today in solidarity.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:02 pm So when Gary Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn", that wasn't an impartial political tweet that demanded censure?

He did? Sack him then. Comparing him to Osama Bin Laden...

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Andrew Neil never called the Government Nazis, nor was he ever party political, and Alan Sugar isn’t a BBC employee (The Apprentice is an independent production). They made Clarkson apologise in 2011 for joking - joking! - about shooting strikers.

What is ridiculous is the fact the Beeb clearly agree with him. Lineker has been rapped for his partiality before and ignored it and they said on Friday they weren’t going to take any action; the Biased Bolshevik Corporation literally had an audience member say Sunak is Hitler on Question Time and it went unchallenged; they’ve all gone on strike about this; and much of the same people defending Lineker called for Clarkson to be fired even though he had no obligation to be impartial unlike Lineker. It’s “free speech if I agree”.

Lineker has still not apologised.

If Lineker worked for BT and/or Walkers alone this wouldn’t be a problem, it’s the fact we all pay his extortionate tax-avoided wage and he has a legal obligation to be impartial.

I don't think Lineker called the government Nazis but if the jack boots fits......

Graeme - you've done an amazing job of outlining a clear, well-constructed and evidence-based counter to Rhys' comments, but I fear it was a waste of time. I doubt it will be effective at changing his mind, as reason and logic tend to fail against such people - and I imagine the rest of us on this forum likely already agree that Lineker's stepping down was absurd and unnecessary. (Maybe I'm wrong?)

An interesting discussion to be had is the motivation though. It seems to me that the current government focus on immigration is an attempt to frame the political debate in such a way that the general public are distracted from the governments' woeful record over the last few years and target their anger at another enemy. Tweets from Gary Lineker should not be making headlines, but by making this happen, the government and their friends in the media are able to employ another similar distraction tactic, focusing our attention on completely superfluous stuff, when the policy itself should be under scrutiny. (I mean, it's blatantly inhumane...)

Jonathan Pie. Owen Jones. Compulsory viewing for Rhys.

I'm surprised Boris trying to get his dad a Knighthood for his sterling work in the jungle on IACGMOOH didn't make it here, well until now at least

Maybe the BBC should scrap tonight MOTD with a program containing someone they went to great pains to defend.
How about Jim'll Fix It

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Wtw6eq1nApykV3HY6
Inconsistant BBC

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:08 pm https://photos.app.goo.gl/Wtw6eq1nApykV3HY6
Incinsistant BBC

I saw one of them about Andrew Neil.

Also, someone I vaguely know did this blog post about the Lineker thing.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Alan Sugar isn’t a BBC employee

Pretty sure Lineker is freelance

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:20 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:08 pm Alan Sugar isn’t a BBC employee

Pretty sure Lineker is freelance

I think he wants HMRC to think so.
Im not usually cynical but I feel the tweet was a ploy to distance himself from the BBC in order to make/save money.

Seems Lineker is coming back.

I don't think we've discussed the alleged shelving of David Attenborough's programme, to be shown only on the iPlayer because of the fear of "right wing backlash". Apparently it was never meant for broadcast, but what does everyone think?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:09 am Seems Lineker is coming back.

I don't think we've discussed the alleged shelving of David Attenborough's programme, to be shown only on the iPlayer because of the fear of "right wing backlash". Apparently it was never meant for broadcast, but what does everyone think?

A more cynical person would think this got buried under all the Lineker MOTD bullshit.
This sould be shared on watter and the like.
I've shared it on FB.
We are turning into 1970s North Korea