Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

It's a government of all the talents! Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Ooo. Missed that story. What a disgusting thing to do, some people really are clueless idiots.

    My apologies. I thought bear was engaged in a massive retro thing. :teehee:
    ermm keep up young lady :rolleyes:

    bear does indeed look backwards to our glorious past and forward to our uncertain future.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    they are inexorably eroding the positive perception of Christians in our country ; gradually they are endeavouring to marginalise us and make us figures of fun. please name one "cool" Christian on the BBC...
    I don't think the Beeb do that particularly - what about all those religious bits in BBC news programmes on the radio? Not to mention Sunday religious broadcasting.

    I agree with Dez, historically the BBC has always been a status-quo, basically right wing organisation, or at least, serving the government of the day. They proved that in this election, acting on behalf of the government at some crucial moments, for example, giving the Tories equal airtime when they could not be bothered to turn up for the debate.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    they are inexorably eroding the positive perception of Christians in our country ; gradually they are endeavouring to marginalise us and make us figures of fun. please name one "cool" Christian on the BBC...
    Are ITV and the other networks any better in this regard? Without turning this into a religious debate, I don't see why the BBC should prop up Christianity when census numbers are constantly dropping. The faith is being marginalised by forces far more powerful than the Beeb, who have a duty to appeal to the whole citizenry, not just those who follow CoE.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't think the Beeb do that particularly - what about all those religious bits in BBC news programmes on the radio? Not to mention Sunday religious broadcasting.

    I agree with Dez, historically the BBC has always been a status-quo, basically right wing organisation, or at least, serving the government of the day. They proved that in this election, acting on behalf of the government at some crucial moments, for example, giving the Tories equal airtime when they could not be bothered to turn up for the debate.
    the only religious program which bear™ enjoys is Bells on Sunday on the wireless.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Are ITV and the other networks any better in this regard? Without turning this into a religious debate, I don't see why the BBC should prop up Christianity when census numbers are constantly dropping. The faith is being marginalised by forces far more powerful than the Beeb, and they have a duty to appeal to the whole citizenry, not just those who follow CoE.
    my whole point is that the BBC is not at all better than the commercial channels and should not pretend that we owe the BBC a living.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    my whole point is that the BBC is not at all better than the commercial channels and should not pretend that we owe the BBC a living.
    So because the BBC do no better or worse than commercial networks for an incredibly narrow criteria you've just invented, we should scrap the entire organisation?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    BTW most independent studies put the beeb as having a right-wing bias, and historically it's generally been very right-wing, more so obviously when it was a fully nationalised service. Also calling them atheist is a bit perculiar when they continue to run Christian-based programming on literally a daily basis.
    Are you sure? I always thought it was more left wing. You only have to watch Have I Got News For You to see the anti Tory sentiment amongst the panellists come through. It also explains why the Tories are so keen to cut the license fee and privatise parts of the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-32699823
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Are you sure? I always thought it was more left wing. You only have to watch Have I Got News For You to see the anti Tory sentiment amongst the panellists come through. It also explains why the Tories are so keen to cut the license fee and privatise parts of the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-32699823
    HIGNIFY has often had Tory politicians and other right wing panelists - Boris Johnson several times, for example - Nigel Farage - lots of others.

    I think what you're observing is the tendency of comedians to be subversive, anti status-quo and therefore not 'right wing'. The same can be seen on other media channels, not just the BBC and in most media types. For example, drama in most countries tends to be what you call 'left wing' and what left wing people call 'culturally aware and well informed'.

    Even Sky has this kind of thing. I watched The Papers last night on Sky News and the presenter made various left-wing-ish remarks. The guests were both on the right though.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Are you sure? I always thought it was more left wing. You only have to watch Have I Got News For You to see the anti Tory sentiment amongst the panellists come through. It also explains why the Tories are so keen to cut the license fee and privatise parts of the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-32699823
    HIGNIFY is quite left-wing yes, although it's more anti-establishment than anything. They dug hard into the Labour government too when they were last in power. Really this shouldn't be a surprise when one of the hosts is the owner of Private Eye.

    Just because the BBC grants an audience to left wing views doesn't mean it has a left-wing bias. Strangely enough being unbiased means hosting views from both sides of the divide. But to be fair, I think most of the time it's only the BBC's factual and news programming that gets examined for bias, ents tends to get more of a free ride so could be less balanced overall compared to factual.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    my whole point is that the BBC is not at all better than the commercial channels and should not pretend that we owe the BBC a living.
    There isn't that pretense - quite the reverse, the BBC is constantly being pressured to justify itself.

    You just aren't being real when you claim the BBC is not better than commercial channels, imo. It isn't always better, but that's different. For sure, commercial channels do come up with some real gems. However, in many areas the BBC is unbeatable. Where else would you find anything of the same consistent quality as BBC4 for example? Or Radio 4? Or Radio 6 Music? Or Five Live? Or Radio 3? Or the BBC news output, or the BBC coverage of Wimbledon? (They were better at cricket and horse racing too - noticeable slump since horse racing went to C4.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    HIGNIFY is quite left-wing yes, although it's more anti-establishment than anything. They dug hard into the Labour government too when they were last in power. Really this shouldn't be a surprise when one of the hosts is the owner of Private Eye.

    Just because the BBC grants an audience to left wing views doesn't mean it has a left-wing bias. Strangely enough being unbiased means hosting views from both sides of the divide. But to be fair, I think most of the time it's only the BBC's factual and news programming that gets examined for bias, ents tends to get more of a free ride so could be less balanced overall compared to factual.
    Also, let's not have any delusions, smart, sophisticated anti-establishment voices like Ian Hislop's would not get nearly so much of an airing on any commercial channel - the advertisers tend to be big multinationals who frown on that kind of thing. Until independents like Netflix and HBO came along, US channels were a barrage of frothy corporate-love with hardly a real word of criticism at all. It was only when certain channels like CNN, that had an independent view started to emerge and cable TV spread that any non-corporate approved voices were heard, apart from a tiny presence on minority radio stations and PBS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Slightly moving astray from discussion, one of the major points I've always supported when HoLs are defended was the idea of 'wise people being in power'.

    To move such ideas forward, I've always felt we should 'merge' the HoLs into HM Privy Council, and have the council appointed with 'knowledgeable' people; advising HM, they can instill some knowledge based reservations into our government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)
    Slightly moving astray from discussion, one of the major points I've always supported when HoLs are defended was the idea of 'wise people being in power'.

    To move such ideas forward, I've always felt we should 'merge' the HoLs into HM Privy Council, and have the council appointed with 'knowledgeable' people; advising HM, they can instill some knowledge based reservations into our government.
    God, I absolutely hate the Privy Council. Secret government and royal decree, at the PM's fingertips whenever normal democracy fails.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    God, I absolutely hate the Privy Council. Secret government and royal decree, at the PM's fingertips whenever normal democracy fails.
    My support for HM Privy Council has five major influences: UK's House of Lords, Singapore's Presidential Council, EU Court of Human Rights, ECB and USA's Electoral College.

    While Singapore's council is self-explanatory, USA's Electoral College is essentially an 'undemocratic' network of 'electors' who are 'tasked' with choosing the state's vote for president.

    Both EU's Court and Central Bank are examples of 'knowledge' over 'populism', while Singapore's council is an example of m
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)
    My support for HM Privy Council has five major influences: UK's House of Lords, Singapore's Presidential Council, EU Court of Human Rights, ECB and USA's Electoral College.

    While Singapore's council is self-explanatory, USA's Electoral College is essentially an 'undemocratic' network of 'electors' who are 'tasked' with choosing the state's vote for president.

    Both EU's Court and Central Bank are examples of 'knowledge' over 'populism', while Singapore's council is an example of m
    I don't think those are particularly good analogues for the PC. The Lords and the Pres. Council are, I think, moderating/modifying chambers within the democratic process. (Although I don't know much about Singapore's.) The US electoral college is just a hangover from archaic models of state independence and can't really (at least by tradition) act independently of the result, although I admit there have been strains of that in recent times. The ECHR and EHB are the result of pan-national agreements and are similar bodies to the World Bank or the UN in that respect; yes, they have some 'independent' powers, but they answer to national governments.

    Actually a better comparison would be with something like the US Federal Reserve, a secretive body full of government and mutual appointees, making crucial decisions with low accountability as a totalitarian powers institution within an alleged democracy.

    Another comparison would be something like the Emergency Powers Act:

    "If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency), declare that a state of emergency exists."
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    they are inexorably eroding the positive perception of Christians in our country ; gradually they are endeavouring to marginalise us and make us figures of fun. please name one "cool" Christian on the BBC...
    I think religion generally is not 'cool', I couldn't name you a 'cool' person who was cool on the merit of their religion! I think being cool is independent of your religion.

    Every Sunday that I forget to turn my radio off I am woken up by the sound of a church service where the News used to be... and at 7:50 every morning the News is also interrupted by an 'insert-religion-here' box ticked in the form of Thought for the Day - often christian, although they get all sorts on there. And that's just Radio 4! There's also Songs of Praise every week and possibly some other routine religious programming I don't know about. So there's plenty of spreading the good word and singing the good songs via the BBC in my opinion, if people are interested they can tune in... and even the uninterested have to sit through some of it if they want to listen to the rest of the News!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't think those are particularly good analogues for the PC. The Lords and the Pres. Council are, I think, moderating/modifying chambers within the democratic process. (Although I don't know much about Singapore's.) The US electoral college is just a hangover from archaic models of state independence and can't really (at least by tradition) act independently of the result, although I admit there have been strains of that in recent times. The ECHR and EHB are the result of pan-national agreements and are similar bodies to the World Bank or the UN in that respect; yes, they have some 'independent' powers, but they answer to national governments.

    Actually a better comparison would be with something like the US Federal Reserve, a secretive body full of government and mutual appointees, making crucial decisions with low accountability as a totalitarian powers institution within an alleged democracy.

    Another comparison would be something like the Emergency Powers Act:

    "If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency), declare that a state of emergency exists."
    Sorry. My battery was on the verge of dying so I hit post.

    I think the privy council can act in similar manner to Singapore's Presidential Council, or EU's ECB, by privileging knowledge over populism, and defending government from the tyranny of majority.

    It's a step forward from our House of Lords, but allows us to keep parliament in check.

    I think you misunderstand the power I suggest the council should have, I'm still a whigger who thinks parliament should keep supreme power - but I think the council should take on HoL's powers, essentially power of a veto.

    The difference between the Federal Reserve and my view of HM Privy Council, is that a major plus point of having such a council is separation and decentralisation of powers.

    I drew up a better model for government earlier:


    Even if parliament has a majority of one party, under my system the Crown (via HM Privy Council) and Judiciary can block or amend parliamentary legislation.

    It's a step up from the HoL as the council would privilege knowledge over heredity or populism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There isn't that pretense - quite the reverse, the BBC is constantly being pressured to justify itself.

    You just aren't being real when you claim the BBC is not better than commercial channels, imo. It isn't always better, but that's different. For sure, commercial channels do come up with some real gems. However, in many areas the BBC is unbeatable. Where else would you find anything of the same consistent quality as BBC4 for example? Or Radio 4? Or Radio 6 Music? Or Five Live? Or Radio 3? Or the BBC news output, or the BBC coverage of Wimbledon? (They were better at cricket and horse racing too - noticeable slump since horse racing went to C4.)
    BBC should at least be cut down, it's evolved into a commercial broadcaster!

    If I had my way I would privatise both BBC and 4, and establish a media fund based on the dutch (or danish?) system. Essentially such fund should focus on: localism, europeanism, news, arts, knowledge, and minorities.

    I would also introduce PSB requirements on the top five most viewed channels, websites and media sites.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    So because the BBC do no better or worse than commercial networks for an incredibly narrow criteria you've just invented, we should scrap the entire organisation?
    ermm where did i say that ? all i said was that the BBC no longer deserves its privileged position and can work for a living like the other providers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In the internet age the rest of the UK media industry is not profitable enough to withstand the cuckoo that is the present BBC.

    Every local newspaper complains about the BBC website. Even Classic fm is now moaning that Radio 3, traditionally that most listener antagonistic of stations, is trying to nick its audience.

    My view would be that the BBC abandons all non-exclusive programming (so that it can broadcast largely the same material throughout the world-news, current affairs and some sport excluded) and moves to a global subscription model with effectively the UK government paying a "subscription" out of general taxation to sign up the British population.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.