Why do we pay a TV tax?

wigglebeena

OMG Charlie Brooker too. His utter brutality frequently causes indrawn breaths and winces along with laughter around these parts...

wigglebeena

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Tiananmen Square was last week was it?

Work out what your arguement is & get back to me.

All right lovey, you win. Nothing you can do against willful obtuseness.

wigglebeena

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Your the one being obtuse.

Politics has no place in sport.

Tiananmen Square was years ago.

& if you want to look at Human Rights isn't it best to start with your own home?

Next time answer the question.

Like I said, how far do you want to go back?

And forget the sarcasm this time. Its never a good start is it? Prat.

Your argument is i) there is a time limit on ethical concerns. Well, that's your opinion.

ii) It makes no difference if the people you have an ethical difference with are the same ones you're dealing with. Again, your opinion (and not a very sharp one.)

iii) 'Politics has no place in sport'. I'll refrain from repeating myself a third time...

iv) Personal insults and ad hominen arguments. Well, Jesus, there's almost no possible response to that that doesn't sink to your level.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

wigglebeena wrote: »

iv) Personal insults and ad hominen arguments. Well, Jesus, there's almost no possible response to that that doesn't sink to your level.

Unfortunately wigglebeena..

I was just stooping to your level..

Paranoid

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Your the one being obtuse.


And forget the sarcasm this time. Its never a good start is it? Prat.

Come on posters. Strong argument is fine, but personal rudeness totally destroys credibility.

Spartacus_Mills

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Your the one being obtuse.

Politics has no place in sport.

Tiananmen Square was years ago.

& if you want to look at Human Rights isn't it best to start with your own home?

Next time answer the question.

Like I said, how far do you want to go back?

And forget the sarcasm this time. Its never a good start is it? Prat.

Once again we have an example of this poster losing an argument and resorting to personal abuse. Pretty pathetic.

With regards to sport and politics 1984returnsforreal is completely wrong.

Politics does have a part to play in sport and it is not wrong to dissociate the two as long as we do not have political interference at a domestic level.

Glib comments about how far back one goes does not advance the discussion.

In terms of politics and sport it can be used as a lever for good. South Africa for example. The sporting boycott, as part of an overall package, worked.

Spartacus_Mills

wigglebeena wrote: »

OMG Charlie Brooker too. His utter brutality frequently causes indrawn breaths and winces along with laughter around these parts...

Brooker is a bit of a one trick pony. His schtick is becoming repetitive for me. I used to love Screenwipe but his latest effort on the news is telling us nothing we do not already know. He just appears to be an angry man ranting from the sidelines. I think he is talented, his Guardian column is still good, but he needs to know when to move on and change his format.

kennyboy66_2

michaels wrote: »

There is that embarrassment when you go abroad if the foreigners snigger at you for thinking the BBC is a bastion of unbiased reporting just as we feel superior to the state controlled media in Russia or Venezuela.

I would say that almost every foreigner I have met has a vastly higher regard for the BBC than most British people, particularly people outside Europe who value & listen BBC world service.

The current shadow cabinet is so poor (and probably complacent about winning until the last few weeks) that they now resort to moaning that the BBC is not doing their job for them.

Apart from Ken Clarke (under used because he like Europe), Michael Gove (at least has some genuinely interesting ideas) and David Willets (good ideas but seemingly sidelined at moment), the shadow cabinet is utterly faceless and hidden.
This is probably because the Tories see Cameron as their main asset against Brown (probably true) but if they think Osbourne is an asset against Darling they are utterly deluded.

Do keep up the whinging about BBC bias though. It always provides a good chuckle.

lemonjelly

I too can't get the complaints about the BBC - see the opening sentance in cleavers "another take on affordability" thread.

The BBC is phenomenal given what its output is.

You simply cannot argue with the quality & scope of Attenborough's documentaries. Blue Planet, Life On Earth etc. Gripping stuff.

The recent series on BBC 3 following Eddie Izzards marathons - phenomenal tv!

Spooks was raved about by everyone I know.

The variety of radio coverage - I only listen to BBC radio. Can't stand radio adverts!

Sky etc is dire. The movies & shows are repeated on rotation through the day, week & month. In any month, there is probably in total about 1 weeks worth of pragrammes rotated.

& anyone naieve to allege the BBC has bias & then hold up sky as a counter arguement see the men in white coats for a bit of help...

kennyboy66_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I too can't get the complaints about the BBC - see the opening sentance in cleavers "another take on affordability" thread.

I think questions about the BBC's range of output are fair, and a lot of their web output is available elsewhere for free. Maybe their web output should be just news and similar in scope to the world service.

I think BBC3 is a joke - its original programmes are sub ITV and it seems to be 75% full of repeats or imports.

I don't really see the point of Radio's 1 & 2, 5 either.