Further from the aircraft fire at Heathrow...
"All runways were closed for nearly 90 minutes after the fire"
How about, "the runways were closed less than 90 minutes as the airport authorities dealt with the issue".
I am quite sick and tired of the BBC's negative approach to everything, especially when I am surrounded by "foreigners" who think that the BBC is as reliable and trustworthy as it was 30 years ago.
Its a crap, elitist, inefficient, corrupt and cliquey organisation, largely run by bureaucratic incompetents, which constantly reports according to the personal agenda of the latest unrealistic prat to hold the title of "editor of this little bit" whilst standing up in front of committees presenting itself as the objective protector of the nation's morality yet paying inflated severance to its friends.
I believe that having a state broadcaster is essential. But I'd burn the BBC at the stake.
|
>> "All runways were closed for nearly 90 minutes after the fire"
Calm down dear.
There is no bias in that statement. Its factual
>> I am quite sick and tired of the BBC's negative approach to everything, especially when
>> I am surrounded by "foreigners" who think that the BBC is as reliable and trustworthy
>> as it was 30 years ago.
>> Its a crap, elitist, inefficient, corrupt and cliquey organisation, largely run by bureaucratic incompetents, which
>> constantly reports according to the personal agenda of the latest unrealistic prat to hold the
>> title of "editor of this little bit" whilst standing up in front of committees presenting
>> itself as the objective protector of the nation's morality yet paying inflated severance to its
>> friends.
>>
>> I believe that having a state broadcaster is essential. But I'd burn the BBC at
>> the stake.
These are the ravings of a looney, have you been drinking?
|
Of course it contains facts. But when did you last see them report anything from the positive aspect?
>>These are the ravings of a looney, have you been drinking?
They may be, I might be, but I haven't been drinking. Although the BBC may well drive me to it.
|
Like you FMR I think we need the BBC. But like you I think lately it has been a shadow of its former self. Gone tabloid, intellectually lazy and American like all the other media.
Time was it would have done proper grown-up Middle East coverage. No longer alas.
|
It has gone tabloid and it is very lazy.
The insult to injury is that they still place themselves on a pedestal.
And as you say, at one point you could depend on the BBC to properly investigate and report what was going on in a quality and objective manner.
Too much investment in tabloid television leaving less and less money for proper grown up journalism.
|
>>Too much investment in tabloid television leaving less and less money for proper grown up journalism.
Too much spent on mega salaries and pay orfs more like it.
|
Unfortunately, when they do see the upside, it gets rammed down our throats continuosly. (Sir) Andy Murray, Lions to name the two most recent examples. Royal preganancies, royal anything for that matter....I could go on but I can feel my blood pressure rising. Must go for a lie down.
Just out of interest, a question to the OP, who is your broadcaster of choice?
|
>> when they do see the upside, it gets rammed down our throats continuosly. (Sir) Andy Murray, Lions to name the two most recent examples. Royal preganancies, royal anything for that matter
Of course TV is worse than radio and has gone further downhill.
I did a little freelance radio work, mostly for Bush House (world service) but once or twice for domestic wireless in Portland Place. A couple of traumatic confrontations with TV cameras and banks of Klieg lights, too awful to recall and ended on the cutting room floor where they belonged...
It didn't chuck money about in my day either. You sweated in a swelteringly hot cupboard-like radio studio, got parking tickets because of the time it took, and were paid goddam peanuts through a tortuous bureaucratic process. Not really worth the hassle on my level. That said, they used to bung me a posh little cassette recorder and an even posher microphone, so got a few real-sound recordings in the 'field' which the Beeb people often liked. Also, the Beeb people were agreeable, of a type I feel pretty comfortable with, if a bit ruthless, and camera crews in the 'field' were helpful and useful to know - they had vehicles and stuff and got priority treatment from the local authorities. Sometimes I helped them a bit. All hacks together sort of thing.
|
>>who is your broadcaster of choice?
I don't have one. I wish I did. That's one of my grievances against the BBC; It should be them, but they are not worthy.
|
I wouldn't disagree that the BBC has dumbed down somewhat, but there is still some great output and past achievements, compared with just about all TV I have seen elsewhere including in the UK, have been outstanding.
There have always been pockets of parsimony. A friend of mine was a producer in the 80s and early 90s, and worked mainly on OU programmes. There were done (as was obvious) on a shoestring - I remember his small team going to Edinburgh to do some location filming, and being booked on something resembling a Shearings coach holiday because it was cheaper than standard rail fares and hotels. I think Radio 4 in particular is also very good value and costs peanuts compared with TV.
But overall it is possibly the worst example of utter profligacy and appalling waste I can think of. Witness the recent pay offs to 150 senior executives that Chris Patten now says they should give back - fat chance. And the money they have thrown around to get people to Manchester is unbelievable.
Another friend, now 70, a special effects technician, was paid off by the BBC at 50. The rationale seemed to be that they wanted to offload the building they worked in to find some cost savings, no doubt to deflect some political flak. He got his pension not only with no actuarial reduction for early commencement, but also with benefits projected to normal scheme retirement age of 60. Within days he was providing services as a freelance, and did so for another 15 years on a fairly regular basis, doing less than full time work and earning more. As time went on, more and more of this work was for independent companies from which the BBC commissioned programmes.
|
>>www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22651126
4 times in four years they were told that this project was over budget, was failing, should never have been started and was wasting money.
Still, at least the tendering process only had one flaw. There wasn't one.
As the BBC once said themselves, publicly; "Sadly I believe we have outsourced the people to know how to outsource".
|
It may shock you as it's from the Daily Telegraph, No FM2R, but you are not alone in your thoughts!
tinyurl.com/q99jkdg
|
|
As a matter of interest, are you a BBC Licence payer
|
|
At least the matter will be investigated by a still world respected investigation team unlikely to be beholden to the US aircraft industry - and if you think that the NTSB investigation was totally devoid of influence from the domestic US aircraft interests....well think on.
|
>>are you a BBC Licence payer
If you mean me, then yes I am.
|
|
Yes I mean you. Well, write them a letter and stop paying it then, best form of protest - I'm sure they'll they'll take note of your abstinence
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 23:51
|
Well, I can't stop paying, can I? Its not a voluntary contribution.
And as for telling them, I have, many times. In writing, in person, in e-mail.
Mind you, I think their horrible editorial approach is mostly a feature of the last 5 years.
Their business incompetence, inefficiency, wastefulness and all that goes with them is of much longer standing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 23:55
|
|
Well the ultimate protest would be to stop paying you licence, have your day in Court to express your protest - if you had the bottle of course.
|
>> Well the ultimate protest would be to stop paying you licence, have your day in Court to
>> express your protest - if you had the bottle of course.
Costly trip from South America....
|
|
Well as I said it takes bottle. Clearly an ex-pat armchair warrior.
|
>> Well the ultimate protest would be to stop paying you licence, have your day in
>> Court to express your protest - if you had the bottle of course.
The ultimate protest that would occur to a lawyer perhaps!
I can think of a few more extreme ones than that.
|
|
Don't need to pay a lawyer if you feel that strongly about something.
|
>> Don't need to pay a lawyer if you feel that strongly about something.
It hadn't actually occurred to me that your suggestion might have a pecuniary logic - you imputed that slight on your own ;-)
|
|
And for the record I live in the UK, pay UK taxes including the outdated licence fee - you must be off your rocker to pay it if, as you claim, live outside the UK and still pay for a licence. Plead not guilty on the grounds on insanity, I'm sure you can also claim asylum in Bolivia or some such place. Either that or listen/read/watch your locally sourced media and stop moaning about what you left behind.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Jul 13 at 01:12
|
Woah, sudden hostility!
For the record I have residences inside and outside the UK. I have televisions in the UK for which I pay the appropriate licence fee - and they are current.
Although I shall not be paying UK taxes in this tax year, or last actually, I paid considerable amounts the previous 10 years or so.
I have no need or want for asylum.
Perhaps you would issue a list of subjects which may be discussed, moaned about or complimented by those currently in the UK and those subjects which people currently outside the UK may comment upon.
And "had the bottle"? Is not paying a licence fee something one needs "bottle" for?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 13 Jul 13 at 01:01
|
|
Well if you complaints have fallen on deaf BBC ears what better way to complain about it than to not pay the tax and have your day in Court ? - risking a criminal conviction fine/prison...? How strongly do you feel about it ? That's the "bottle" thing - put your money where your mouth is !
|
Further, if you can see through the hostility, I did state that I believe the UK needed a state broadcaster, albeit that I think the BBC currently does a lousy job, so not paying the licence fee would be protesting the wrong bit, surely?
Do I take it that you think the BBC is an efficient, sensible organisation spending money in a way you think appropriate on programs you think suitable with an editorial policy you largely approve of?
Or are you just upset I'm writing this from foreignland.
|
I don't understand your point. Its clearly a blooming disaster for Boeing, no doubt. Even if it turns out to be nothing to do with a plane fault at all, perceptions will be affected.
However, Heathrow had an incident. They managed to understand, deal with and resolve that incident. They seem to have done it safely, and less than two hours seems like something they should be complimented on to me.
Rather than the BBC sighing heavily because it took almost 2 hours.
|
|
Only 90 minutes? They close motorways for hours for the tiniest incident.
|
>> Only 90 minutes? They close motorways for hours for the tiniest incident.
>>
Heathrow is not run by a bunch of jobsworths trying to justify their existence.
|
>> Rather than the BBC sighing heavily because it took almost 2 hours.
You are reading something into a report that exists only in your mind. The BBC is there to report factually, without bias, and without colour, and in this case they did by simply reporting the facts.
The kind of reporting you seem to want could only be found coming out of Pyongyang.
Your outburst, caused by something that didn't exist, means I'm afraid you do need an asylum.
|
>> I'm afraid you do need an asylum.
You mean this isn't an asylum Zero? I thought it was. After all you are in it, and so am I.
|
|
And me too - he said meekly.
|
|
No matter how critical one might be of the Beeb, it's still head, shoulders and torso above ITV. Which, in fairness, doesn't infer that the bar is set all that high.
|
>> Cuckoo! cuckoo!
Yeah. Him too.
|
>> The BBC is there to report factually, without bias, and without colour, and in this case they did by simply reporting the facts.
I completely agree. But it doesn't do that. I think it used to, and I wish it would now. But it doesn't.
|
Zero, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
And if this isn't an asylum, then what are we doing here?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 13 Jul 13 at 18:06
|
>> Zero, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
In this particular case that caused you to blow a gasket, honestly seriously, believe me, you are hallucinating. There is nothing "to see"
And frankly, I dont think Heathrow did a job worth crowing about.
>> And if this isn't an asylum, then what are we doing here?
We are outpatients.
|
Straws, backs and camels.
Outpatients? No nurses? That's a bit rubbish.
|
Does the BBC *ever* see the upside in anything? - Zero
