TV Service providers, what laws

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

The biggest thing to come out of the referendum wasn't the result - it was the engagement of the populace in the political process. 85% (ish) turnout is almost unheard-of in any election in the UK since the first one after WWII.

Let's hope some of that impetus rubs off on the general election next year.

Definitely. Although it was tiring hearing the same crap day in and day out, its the most i've ever seen people be interested in politics.

As you say, lets hope it stays that way, with people taking an active interest.

Although I am curious to see how well labour are going to fare for scottish MPs. Quite a few of my friends who were lifelong labour voters are far from happy with them at present.

bod1467

derekjspence wrote: »

Please stop trolling this post (whatever side you are on), there are plenty of pages on facebook for trolling. I thought this forum would have had a bit more grown up discussion.

Welcome to the desert of the real world.

shaun_from_Africa

derekjspence wrote: »

I thought this forum would have had a bit more grown up discussion.

"Grown up"
Like your comparing possible BBC bias to child sex abuse you mean?

derekjspence

If you prefer. Compare it to a drink driver that says they did their own breath test and passed. The pedophile comparison seemed apt for the BBC though...

Jim_Jupiter

derekjspence wrote: »

Haha, I just realized that you were talking about my Avatar being Big Ben. That must be a default on this site, or a random. Think I'll keep it there for irony....

You have Elizabeth Tower as your avatar, not Big Ben.

Money-Saving-King

derekjspence wrote: »

I will read up on the Ofcom code and see what I can find out.

Regards

You'd be probably better off finding a hobby.

Money-Saving-King

derekjspence wrote: »

WOW


I ask a question on what laws/rules TV service providers have to follow and I am bitter. If they have followed the rules, I am big enough to accept that.
I do not believe they have followed the rules and have actively aided the No campaign. If I am wrong (which is common) then they have no case to answer. I can only truly measure this if I know exactly what laws they have to abide by.

I must say that I find it strange that the only time the BBC has attempted to validate 'expert opinion' was when Prof. John Robertson released the findings of UWoS, a study which showed considerable imbalance in the BBC's reporting.


Please stop trolling this post (whatever side you are on), there are plenty of pages on facebook for trolling. I thought this forum would have had a bit more grown up discussion.

This post you wrote doesn't sound big to me. It sounds like someone is bitter about others views in reply to their opinion.

Nilrem

unholyangel wrote: »

Personally, while I would agree that yes supporters were far too sensitive about some things, there was a clear bias in some (not all) of the reporting.

And I believe studies conducted here in scotland and around the world also came to the same conclusion. They found that even when saying something positive about independence, it was always sandwiched between two negatives.

The only studies I'm aware of were all done for/by an avowed Yes campaign supporter/site, and included such comprehensive and scientific methods as counting the number of time a show was listed with a title such as "British" or "English", verses the number of times a show was listed with "Scottish" in the title.

So the "Great British Bake off" was counted many times as being in support of a no vote

From what I saw the Yes campaign were (at least on the BBC) given the benefit of the doubt far more often than not, and the reason the new often had "negative stuff" was because when businesses, major foreign politicians and so on are saying something it gets reported, unfortunately for the Yes campaign, a lot of experts, business people, and major foreign politicians were starting that they disagreed the Yes campaigns easy assurances that everything would go how Salmond and co said it would (especially when the Yes campaign would say "sure we can use the pound you can't stop us" for example, and totally ignoring that doing so without a currency uniion - something all the other British parties said would not happen, would be bad for Scotland's ability to trade and join the EU, something that various businesses and non UK politicians/economists pointed out, and was correctly reported).

halibut2209

gik wrote: »

Salmond will return I guarantee you.

Yup, he returns to the same spot every year to spawn.

unholyangel

Nilrem wrote: »

The only studies I'm aware of were all done for/by an avowed Yes campaign supporter/site, and included such comprehensive and scientific methods as counting the number of time a show was listed with a title such as "British" or "English", verses the number of times a show was listed with "Scottish" in the title.

.

There was at least one conducted by a scottish uni. There was another one from a european institute who analyse data. There were more from france, US and Australia among others. And not one of them based it on "scottish" vs "british".

Perhaps the fact you're only aware of the one goes some way to prove the OP's point? :P


Of course there were also the reports from economic/foreign affairs experts about how much trouble the UK would be in if scotland left - none of which were reported in the mainstream media until AFTER the result had been announced.

Ironically, if you read (at least on the bbc, not sure about other media) the stories from the day of the result, you'll see the responses from "experts" around the world - who all talk about how the UK is saved and not about how scotland are saved.

Amazing the difference a day can make! I find it all rather comical.

The better together campaign manager has also admitted that they chose the scaremongering because making a positive case for the union would've (according to their own research) seen them lose.

Personally, the prospect of a government who will choose to scare the public shitless rather than having an informed debate scares me far more than any scare story they could ever throw my way.

Shame you cant go back and change your vote