BBC Obsessed with US Politics

[Fug1]

You need to distinguish between what journalists say while on BBC programmes and the truth

If the BBC can't be trusted, then which TV stations should we be watching to get a fair representation of world events?

Probably none, might be better if you formed your own opinion based on multiple sources.

[subsub]

might be better if you formed your own opinion based on multiple sources.

I do, thanks

[subsub]

The BBC is a complete waste of money and I resent paying for their service

Why do you, then?

Because it's the law

So you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for a service that everyone else has to?
OK…

[Fug1]

The BBC is a complete waste of money and I resent paying for their service

Why do you, then?

Because it's the law

So you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for a service that everyone else has to?
OK…

I feel that I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

Why don't they scramble their service and pay for the programmes you want to watch??

That seems fairer to me.

[subsub]

I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

But you don't have to. You're not legally obliged to buy a TV licence.

[Fug1]

I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

But you don't have to. You're not legally obliged to buy a TV licence.

I've had a look and they say something like I have to buy one even if I have a phone or laptop capable of watching tv, have I got that wrong?

[Basualdo]

I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

But you don't have to. You're not legally obliged to buy a TV licence.

You do if you have a TV though, even if you don't use the BBC.

Its like only shopping at Asda or Sainsburys and being charged admission with the money going to Tesco.

And from what I gatherTesco could use that money right now.

[Royal24s]

You need to distinguish between what journalists say while on BBC programmes and the truth

If the BBC can't be trusted, then which TV stations should we be watching to get a fair representation of world events?

Well, there the thing sub sub. I'm afraid there aren't any. Never have been and never will be. You've got to cast your net a bit wider to look for a fair and accurate versions.
The fact is that everyone's got a pitch and all you can do is try to filter the bullshit out of various sources, compare them with known facts and consider their likely motivations.
The more you know about the world and its history, and the more personal connections and experience you might have will yield you more accurate results, but even then you can rarely be 100% certain.
I know this- I too would once have been very skeptical about the idea that governments, government bodies and the press would be bending the truth. However, I saw it from the inside many times and I know for a fact that the sort of information control and information manipulation, ( to put it politely), which goes on would shock you.
You get terribly upset with me sometimes I know, but actually I'm just trying to tell you and others the truth and warn you against the bent bastards very intricate little schemes to misinform.
Now, it may occur to you that - based upon my comments above - I may be the one trying to misinform you. After all, I just said that everyone's got a pitch, didn't I ?
Well, I hope you did think that and that you apply every test to what I write as you should to everything else. Don't just dismiss it out of hand though - that's all I ask.

[subsub]

I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

But you don't have to. You're not legally obliged to buy a TV licence.

I've had a look and they say something like I have to buy one even if I have a phone or laptop capable of watching tv, have I got that wrong?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-ut ... cence-fee/

[Royal24s]

No, that's right. Nasty isn't it ?

[Hillman avenger]

The BBC is a complete waste of money and I resent paying for their service

Why do you, then?

Because it's the law

So you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for a service that everyone else has to?
OK…

I feel that I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

Why don't they scramble their service and pay for the programmes you want to watch??

That seems fairer to me.

Because that would exclude about 40% of their audience.
BTW the BBC does far more than broadcast tv and radio

[Fug1]

The BBC is a complete waste of money and I resent paying for their service

Why do you, then?

Because it's the law

So you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for a service that everyone else has to?
OK…

I feel that I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

Why don't they scramble their service and pay for the programmes you want to watch??

That seems fairer to me.

Because that would exclude about 40% of their audience.
BTW the BBC does far more than broadcast tv and radio

Like what? if you mean Welsh speaking programmes in Wales Etc. Im not interested. And how would it exclude 40% of its audience? It would include 100% of its audience that wanted to pay for it.

And "contributes to the cost of rolling out broadband to the UK population" in other words spying

[Hillman avenger]

might be better if you formed your own opinion based on multiple sources.

I do, thanks

As would any intelligent person.

In that context, to exclude the BBC from your list of sources is crazy.

Otherwise you are liable to be persuaded by any nutter who has a website...whch is the cause of what appears on this forum everyday.
In the POTUS election there were 50 people in a town in Macedonia inventing and selling stories about the candidates, and especially about Clinton and her health. They made a lot of money. The BBC never took any of them, but others did. Then these things get into the public domain and people think they are facts.

An example....
I asked for evidence that Soros was paying anti-Trump protesters.I was directed to a website which simply repeated the claim, without any evidence, but then went on to rant about Soros funding anti right wing organisations. A clever trick, because you read on and forget they didn't substantiate the headline assertion at all..a bit like reading out a defendants previous criminal record at the start of a trial and then not bothering to hear evidence.

Another "fact" that we got yesterday was that Soros was a nazi. He was born in 1930 so the war lasted from when he was 9 to when he was 16. He was Hungarian jewish and helped his father protect other Hungarian jews. Apart from the age issue, the fact that he was jewish would mean he would never have been admitted to the party, even if the ludicrous notion had any credibility.

Nor would he have spent millions supporting anti-right wing movements

And lastly if he was a nazi or nazi sympathiser, he'd be pleased with Trump, not against him. Certainly the current crop of KKK, US nazisand the rest are.

See what happens when you don't discriminate?

[Hillman avenger]

The BBC is a complete waste of money and I resent paying for their service

Why do you, then?

Because it's the law

So you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for a service that everyone else has to?
OK…

I feel that I shouldn't be forced to pay for a service by threat of criminal conviction that I never use, respect or trust.
Is that ok with you?

Why don't they scramble their service and pay for the programmes you want to watch??

That seems fairer to me.

Because that would exclude about 40% of their audience.
BTW the BBC does far more than broadcast tv and radio

Like what? if you mean Welsh speaking programmes in Wales Etc. Im not interested. And how would it exclude 40% of its audience? It would include 100% of its audience that wanted to pay for it.

Because that's about the number of people who do not have device like a Sky Box to unscramble signals.

[Fug1]

Who's facts?

If I wanted a BBC review of their news I could look at it a hour later for nothing after the live screening.