Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

My summary of Alan's position:

- The BBC puts out some wonderful stuff and is worth every penny of the licence fee. Alan would happily pay more.

- BH commenters are largely out to destroy the BBC

- BH commenters gang up aggressively/with hostility on anyone who expresses support for the BBC.

- BH commenters are illogical, write at length in a wild vehement way [=rant] on this topic.

- BH commenters have twisted/misrepresented what Alan has said.

- Anybody who does not watch/listen to the BBC is not entitled/qualified to discuss/debate its value

- What Alan values about the BBC (ie what he watches/listens to) is his own business and he's not going to reveal it.

Alan, is that a reasonable summary? Have I missed any key points or misrepresented things?

Apr 22, 2016 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Stewgreen. I very much doubt your last statement, based upon recent experience. Your mind seems closed.

Martin A. When are you folks going to get the message?. Leave me alone. I've finished being your football.

Understanding. -5

Empathy : batting zero.

Apr 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

This is a summary of a programme on Radio 4 Extra today: Life Begins at Crawley - 11.15am and 9.15pm. "Eleanor Prendergast has some tough decisions to make when her husband, a Tory MP, is put in jail for fiddling his expenses." I believe six MPs were actually jailed over the expenses scandal. All Labour! One Tory peer - Lord Hanningfield. Yet whenever it is mentioned all we hear about are duck houses and moats. Which involved Tories. No mention of mortgage fraud, flipping houses (which involved the Labour Chancellor and Home Secretary) and so on. There seems to have been and still is a continuing effort by the BBC to suggest that all the fiddling was carried out by Tories.

Apr 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

SandyS. Would very much have liked to discuss your suggested method of funding the BBC. However, I cannot for two reasons.

1) I'm afraid of being set up (sorry paranoia, but past experience tells).

2) Even if I responded to your seemingly rational discussion prompt, I know I'll be besieged by the anti-BBC league with their preconceived dogma.

Apr 22, 2016 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Martin A. When are you folks going to get the message?. Leave me alone. I've finished being your football.

OK Alan as you wish. Though not sure why, if that's what you wish, you continue by posting a cryptic semi-veiled-hostile response to someone who had expressed their understanding of your position and asked for your confirmation/correction

Understanding. -5
Empathy : batting zero.
rather than simply either "holding your piece" or just replying in a factual manner.

I guess it will remain a mystery why you feel so strongly in favour of the BBC (or may so strongly *against* those who see problems with it).

Apr 22, 2016 at 1:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A


Understanding. FAILING GRADE

Apr 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Oh oh. Fetch the screens, please, nurse.

Apr 22, 2016 at 3:40 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. When will you realize you cannot succeed? I can keep this up forever.

Logic Index -5
Empathy quotient the pits.

Apr 22, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"When will you realize you cannot succeed? I can keep this up forever."

WARNING....child on board

Apr 22, 2016 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterLurker

okay guys just chill out.
It might be a side effect of medication or something

Apr 22, 2016 at 4:59 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

May I inquire about the scoring mechanism?
How does one distinguish between an empathy of 4 or 5?

If it were 0 or 1 then at least we could determine that it's a qualitative observation. But the fine gradation into 6 buckets seems very precise.
And can empathy ever be positive? Or are we assuming a negative score because of the medium of the internet. That would make sense, I suppose.

This seems on topic to me as the innumeracy of the BBC is at the heart of its anti-science / pro-Green agenda.

They often fall for pseudo-science; dangerous AGW, Wakefield's anti-vaccine argument, cataclysmic tsunamis on disaster of the week (formerly called Horizon).
Anyone with a bit of experience of using numbers or with a kind of technical background can see that such numbers are meaningless. We just have to ask the sort of questions that I started this comment with.

Yet the BBC can't, or won't, do that.

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:04 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Logic Index -5

Give up?

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I notice that those over at the anti EU thread seem to understand the situation better. Oh but some there have the same names. Odd that.

Welcome to new contributor Lurker. Enjoy (I am).

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall
I was thinking "out loud", it seems to me that most BH commenters object to having to pay for the BBC whether they watch it or not and whether they agree with the content of the programmes. Pay to view seems to have taken over the viewing of sport, films and some documentaries either by event or annual subscription such a solution would satisfy a lot of people who are not happy about paying the licence fee for various reasons. Unlikely to happen. The dumbing down of BBC content rather than the licence fee itself is my major complaint.

As it happens I get very poor value for my French TV permit in terms of hours of French TV viewed. But strangely I don't have any strong feelings about having to pay it.

Anyway you don't have to answer if you'd rather not, it's fine by me.

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

" Enjoy (I am)."

Shame really!

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterLurker

AK is now fully formed as a punk troll.

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS - I imagine you know that if you watch only on a computer, you don't have to pay the contribution à l'audiovisuel public.

Apr 22, 2016 at 5:49 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

SandyS. I think there will come a time when we might converse without experiencing the tirade currently operating. Seems to be weakening a bit (I hope).

Apr 22, 2016 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall


Logic Index. -5


Apr 22, 2016 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Martin A.

What part of "O.K. Alan as you wish" (1.23pm) was I not meant to understand?

Apr 22, 2016 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan, your response to my "As you wish comment" was

Understanding. FAILING GRADE
Apr 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM Alan Kendall

I'm not sure what your most recent comment is in response to. My pointing out to SandyS that in France you don't have to pay the audio-visual tax if you watch TV transmissions on a computer, maybe?

Apr 22, 2016 at 8:00 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A
I have a TV, two in fact, as the internet here is a bit flaky at times although better than it was. We have a couple of dishes.

Apr 22, 2016 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Apr 19, 2016 at 7:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Yet another childish tantrum from a failed frustrated academic troll.

Apr 23, 2016 at 1:10 AM | Registered CommenterSalopian

The national 'right-on' clique-caster is slowly killing itself by "driving away those" who disagree with its groupthink.
..rather than "BHers out to kill the BBC" having any effect.

St George's day today ..and B-BBC is pointing out, there seems to be almost no coverage on the BBC.

Apr 23, 2016 at 7:31 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Saladman, Wondered how long it would take you to emerge from your hole.

To all

Really strange to be called a troll. Trolls, as I understand them, are people who come uninvited onto a site, spread untruths, twist logic and generally (and usually unsuccessfully) try to cause harm. Now let us examine my role here:

1.Without my input this string would not exist. It was based on (inaccurately reported) comments I made over on unthreaded. I was invited here to confirm those comment. NOT troll behaviour.

2. Expecting a reasonable discussion/debate I did contribute and initially this thread was normal. NOT troll behaviour.

3. Quite rapidly I was overwhelmed by anti BBC comments, which became, in my view, more and more strident. Furthermore I found what I had written was being distorted, mocked, and even appropriated (with my own position now stated to be the opposite). I protested at this behaviour. NOT troll behaviour.

4. Realizing that you were not going to stop, I ASKED you to stop. I realized too late that you were treating me and my views as your latest plaything, which you didn't want to lose. You didn't stop, if anything it intensified. My behaviour NOT trollish, yours on the other hand?

5. After unsuccessfully asking to be left alone (troll behaviour? I think not) I seriously considered just departing BH. But then thought I will not be driven out. I devised my system which has riled you up so awfully well. I explained that this was my shorthand system, easy to operate, that expressed my considered judgement upon what you wrote about what I had previously written, or the increasingly troll like comments you were making about me. The system had two advantages to me a) it gave you little to distort, and b) it was my opinion, stated to be such, and therefore fair comment. Your reaction to it - as expected, slow to realize what now confronted you, then a slowdown and then a brief quiescence.

6. Then poor old Saladman comes blustering in late, and calls me a troll, perhaps not understanding it had been said before (confirming his tardiness).

That is my case, your behaviour leaves much to be desired but I would never call you trolls. I resorted to my behaviour out of self defence. I appologize for unleashing it on the world because I do know it can now used by your real opponents. I have not been able to come up with aa countermeasure.

Am I still welcome at BH or not? Your choice.

A further word to the Shropshire ***** (add as you think as appropriate). To my recollection, this is the 4th completely unprovoked personal attack you have made upon me. Do you have an axe to grind, or perhaps we have past history. Do try to unburden yourself.

Apr 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall