Television Licensing

RichardD1970

TheWise1 wrote: »

Anyway it looks like you and your buddies run this forum. Anyone reading who's critical of the BBC should think twice about saying anything here, you've seen what happens.

I would suggest that it is your posting style that is the problem. Cornucopia has posted a lot that is critical of the BBC but they haven't had posts edited or deleted by the Forum Team.

wiogs

TheWise1 wrote: »

I agree but your buddies have changed comparing FTA and voluntary subscription broadcasters with the BBC. Perhaps you should have a chat with them to get organised instead of saying it was me..................again this thread proves that!



I'll leave that to you, I have no issue with any other broadcaster being criticised, I'm neutral

Who are these "buddies" of whom you speak?

I didn't suggest it was you had started speaking about other organisations. Why do you think I did?

System

RichardD1970 wrote: »

I would suggest that it is your posting style that is the problem. Cornucopia has posted a lot that is critical of the BBC but they haven't had posts edited or deleted by the Forum Team.

He's not been too critical of the BBC, I think that's what you mean. He knows how to handle cliques while I prefer to let other readers see for themselves

Still no one has noticed how you can be critical of anything here apart from the BBC and no one else will wonder, why :think:

wiogs wrote: »

I didn't suggest it was you had started speaking about other organisations. Why do you think I did?

Why tell be to start another thread then, if you lot can't handle people being critical of the BBC don't read the threads, simple enough I would have thought.

RichardD1970

TheWise1 wrote: »

He's not been too critical of the BBC, I think that's what you mean. He knows how to handle cliques while I prefer to let other readers see for themselves

I mean what I said, the difference is that Cornucopia debates in a calm, reasonable manner and doesn't got personal and aggressive with people who have differing viewpoints.

Their style of argument is much more likely to make people question their own views on the subject and allow for healthy and reasoned debate.

Yours just gets peoples backs up and leads them to think that you are a paranoid loony, incapable of reasoned argument.

[Deleted User]

TheWise1 wrote: »

they say people who criticise the BBC are insulting

Why can you not see the paranoia in every one your posts?

You complain of others being rude and abusive to you and yet only your posts have been deleted.

Are you now going to accuse the moderators here of being "Beeboids" too?

TheWise1 wrote: »

He's not been too critical of the BBC

He's obviously not in favour of the license fee and hardly what you would describe as a "Beeboid".

wiogs

TheWise1 wrote: »

He's not been too critical of the BBC, I think that's what you mean. He knows how to handle cliques while I prefer to let other readers see for themselves

Still no one has noticed how you can be critical of anything here apart from the BBC and no one else will wonder, why :think:



Why tell be to start another thread then, if you lot can't handle people being critical of the BBC don't read the threads, simple enough I would have thought.

I didn't tell you to do anything regarding starting another thread.

Once again your comprehension and observational skills let you down.

Nilrem

TheWise1 wrote: »

So you think someone with over 40k posts all defending the BBC isn't strange, even a decent PR company would stay clear of that

Once again they say people who criticise the BBC are insulting, hmm

Simple, the BBC/Guardian loving fans always attack whats critical of the BBC as you guys show here. You also made out you know more about the inner working of the BBC than the rest of the media thats critical of them, now how would you know this.

You guys to know it isn't just the DM that prints those articles don't you................watch it go quite now


But you guys will always trust the positive one wont ya,

Anyway it looks like you and your buddies run this forum. Anyone reading who's critical of the BBC should think twice about saying anything here, you've seen what happens. I would recommend you just hit them where it hurts, stop funding the BBC

1: get your facts straight - if it's the one i think your talking about the guy actually has 30k posts (average 10ish a day), and spends a lot of time on other topics.
But facts aren't your strong point.

2: No, calling people things like beebiod, and saying they must be getting paid to have a differing opinion is insulting.

3: No, when the DM is making headline claims that they themselves disprove in the last paragraph of their articles, they show they're not very aware of things in general (or just don't care).
Not to mention a lot of the **** the DM publish about the BBC is easily disprovable, or common in the broadcasting sector (or even across all reputable companies) because it's either best practice, works, or is completely in line with the governments own advice/recommendations and something they've been pushing for companies to do...
Things like "BBC hire body guards for staff in salford" (or whatever the article was), when it was the company that owned the site providing security to help new staff from any company find their way around safely at night?
Or things like "BBC creates prayer room for staff" - which iirc was again the company who owned the site and made it available to any company on site (and not at all uncommon - I've seen such rooms in large hotels, hospitals, the Birmingham NEC..).
Let alone the !!!!!! headlines like "BBC sends hundreds of staff to glastonbury on jollies" and the likes, where the BBC subcontracts most of the work and it's the subcontractors who decided most of the staffing levels (let alone the fact you could very easily compare the number of staff the "BBC sent" in the article to the number that Sky used to have on their football shows, as Sky used to make a big thing about the fact it took over 100 staff to show a single match* and featured it in their advertising campaign - no inside knowledge needed there, just a memory of an advert from a couple of years back)..
I concentrate on the DM because that's the one most people seem to quote from, and probably the worst offender in misleading headlines contradicted in it's own article in general (on pretty much every topic under the sun, and once spotted you tend to pick up on it a lot).

4: Ah yes, the old "the moderators don't seem to agree with me, they must be on the other side as well" line.



*Which for anyone with any sense puts things massively in perspective - if it takes 100* people to basically roll up to a site where all the infrastructure is in place, and do a broadcast of one 90 minute match, then for it to just take 200-300** to build the infrastructure (everything from power to plumbing), provide simultaneous feeds from multiple sites and keep it going for 3+ days is pretty bloody amazing (especially when you consider you have to allow for things like rest periods, and time between shifts to satisfy employment law, not to mention to keep your staff reasonably alert).

**Many of whom would likely only be there for part of the time, IE actually putting in things like power, setting up temporary broadcast suites etc.

Cornucopia

RichardD1970 wrote: »

I mean what I said, the difference is that Cornucopia debates in a calm, reasonable manner and doesn't got personal and aggressive with people who have differing viewpoints.

Thanks - this is what I'm aiming for.

I suspect that the TheWise1 and I have slightly different views on the BBC. I am a realist, and I think the BBC will be around in some form for a long, long while. At the same time, certain aspects of its conduct are completely unacceptable to me, and I focus my efforts there - where potentially they can have a good effect.

TheWise1 is more committed to the anti-BBC cause overall, and I respect the purity of that.

Unfortunately, though, chucking random insults at the BBC (no matter how well founded they might be) is like fighting a tank with baked beans - they may end up with beans on their face, but they will rumble on regardless.

Cornucopia

Nilrem wrote: »

1: get your facts straight - if it's the one i think your talking about the guy actually has 30k posts (average 10ish a day), and spends a lot of time on other topics.
But facts aren't your strong point.

Come on - although some of the old guard have been banned, there are still several people there with 10s of thousands of posts, the majority of which are in Broadcasting and mainly about defending the BBC (or attacking the Daily Mail).

Anything you can say about fairness at DS is undermined by the fact that I am banned from there - all for telling the truth(s) that others would rather I hadn't.

Apologies to MSE-ers to whom this discussion of another forum is probably like watching paint dry.

Cornucopia

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

What do you do?

I help people resolve their issues with TVL.

I help people who are unsure about becoming legally Licence free.

I have a "super complaint" outstanding with BBC Trust at the moment.

I use FOI to obtain information about the BBC that illustrates my concerns.