|
stewie griffin
11:47 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Pipe down, Jibbers, there's no need to be so desperate for my attention. I think you're ok, it's everyone else that thinks you're a cunt
|
stewie griffin
11:44 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
I've never mentioned a cover up at the bbc? I've specifically referenced the crimes that people have been found guilty of. I did, very early on, reference a 'culture' but that was more in reference to to the way many of the individuals were linked in similar roles rather than a culture throughout the organisation as a whole.
Apologies if that has led to further misunderstanding.
That apart, I suspect we are as close as we'll get to reaching common ground. With regards to choice/lack thereof, I agree, and it was partly my point, insofar as if we had a choice, would people take a similar stance on the license fee? Personally, I would, if i applied it to one I'd apply it to both... but I'm far too selfish, enjoy my tv too much so happily apply zero thought or morality to my choices of what I pay for. Shallow? Probably. But I also enjoy the cricket too much to live without sky.
Fwiw, I think most dissatisfaction with the SKY money is around football. All the other sports they've taken on have thrived, which makes me suspicious as to whether it's really them at fault. It's also worth remembering that football wasn't in a great way when they took it on. Attendances were down, post Hillsborough the feeling was overwhelmingly negative towards the game, and most of the halcyon days thst people remember were pre Hillsborough rather than pre SKY.
Lastly, I will concede that I probably shouldn't post on any bbc related threads. I spent a lot of time there around the turn of the century and of all the tv channels it was always the most...let's just say underhand. .by quite a distance. Nothing I've seen or heard makes me believe it's any different.
And yes, you do make me chuckle.
|
Eerie Descent
11:35 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Good job Griffin doesn't wear any pants, as they would've been properly pulled down here...
|
Ged
11:24 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
onlyoneclydebest 11:22 Wed Feb 4
No, there just aren't many posters interesting enough for me to talk to.
|
Ged
11:23 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Stewie, I don't wish this to be personal, but you seem to be struggling to understand or at least admit you understand what I've said.
I've said I don't knowingly give money to News International
You've attempted to make some ill gotten moral point at my expense.
Apart from an early cheap shot at your expense in response to you questioning my moral compass (standard WHO practice IIRC), I've explained the fundamental differences between how the two organisations are funded. One you have to pay for, the other you voluntarily pay significantly more for.
You've made a completely fatuous allegation about the BBC and the so-called cover up.
I have openly responded in kind.
You've yammered on again about my moral compass.; I've reiterated the differences in funding and explained why, although my response cannot be proven in as fact (as neither can yours - there has been a cover up, but there is no hive mind, it is not a company conspitacy) I have at least demonstrated the relationship Murdoch has courted with both parties as a basis for my opinion that if not some of his employees, he at least may well have know.
At the end of the day, the paedophile comment was in the first instance an irrelevance and secondly, your comment about my moral compass still stands despite you having no idea exactly what my opinion is or why I hold it. You've then proceeded to throw that at me as some sort of smoke screen.
You've finished up with a fist full of insults between two attempts of condescending approval (hint, I don't need your approval to be here, I was here long before you arrived and I'll probably be here long after you're gone).
I'm glad to see that you've attempted to drag the conversation back to topic though.
Well done.
I don't disagree with that you've said, I just find it highly amusing that people pay for SKY and then complain that the BBC can't compete for these things and resent paying the licence. To be fair, I don't recall you being one of those people on any occasion in the past. You may be rude and obtuse, but I've never considered you stupid. There are many, many people on this and other boards though that can't see that high ticket prices, inconvenient game times and all the other areas where SKY have influence are a direct result of them paying a subscription. The inability of the national broadcaster to compete for these events, which then fuels their discontent is caused by the same thing.
Anyhow. Enough of that. I imagine that my comment about you being in make up made you snort, just a little. Of course, only you know the truth in that.
|
onlyoneclydebest
11:22 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
The facts are that sport is much more widely available and entertaining now that SKY are involved
It can only be a good thing that they have got The Open.The BBC is a self indulgent tedious broadcaster.
On a side note,I thought that Ged had 'left the building' in terms of posting on WHO
|
stewie griffin
10:50 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
oh look,its misery bollocks
you're wanted on the Cheltenham thread, mongface
|
stewie griffin
10:48 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
"If you think the moral choice is to stop supporting an organisation of 23,000 people because of the illegal sexual activity of a handful, much of which happened years ago, then really, what is the point of taking you seriously? "
"News International on the other hand is a privately owned company who, I would imagine, have been absolutely complicit in covering up the government paedophilia of the 80s and 90s."
Let's look at the facts. BOTH organisations have had a 'handful' of people convicted of illegal activities.
In the case of one organisation, you are content that bad apples have been caught, and admit that you can't take anyone seriously who would write off a whole organisation on the basis of a handful of wrongdoers.
In the very next paragraph, you do just that, referencing an entire organisation that you IMAGINE, not know, to be involved in a cover up of something that as yet we don't even know anything about.
THAT is why i have challenged you throughout. The inconsistency with which you apply your logic/morals/call it what you will, is glaring, exposed by your very own words.
I do enjoy you, Gedward, fear not. I'm also partial to a bit of arrogance, which is why I enjoy you. If you just came out and said that you believe yourself to be the arbiter of all that is right and wrong, and everyone else can take their opinions and go fuck themselves, I'd be very much on board, and wouldn't be wasting my time with this.
When you try and dress that up as something more considered and balanced, and litter your posts with inconsistencies as above, don't be surprised if I pull you on it, mostly because I'm watching the bin dippers lose - on the BBC - and need something to occupy myself in the meantime.
To the wider point of the thread, yes wouldn't it be lovely if it was all free to air? Well, yes and no.
The BBC coverage of all sport no longer warrants protection, because itr simoly isn't good enough.
Similarly, because it is a public company, it doesn't have the ability to rejuvenate and grow a sport in the same way that SKY has done, particularly with Cricket. Their involvement has been of huge benefit to everyone in the game, and anyone who follows it.
But, yes, it would be nice for those that can't afford SKY to have access to sporting events.
The power to do this lies in the hands of whomever is in Government. Even before this announcement, Miliband has been using it to curry favour in Scotland. Andy BURNHAM, I believem is keen to bring a few things back. We'll see,, but I certainly don't blame (as such) SKY for the status quo. Most of the sport the BBC has lost should never have been off the list in the first place.
|
Babelman
10:45 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
not*
|
Babelman
10:44 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
good licence payers money to going to a shit pastime..
|
Ged
10:31 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
stewie griffin 9:44 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
Hahaha,
It's not me having the hissy fit Stewie. I hadn't even commented on point that you've just made and yet you seemed to feel it was necessary to mention me in it.
But for the record, Murdoch did openly change sides in 1997. Famously on March 18th the front page of the Sun read "The Sun Backs Blair", thus proving to everyone that warned thatcher about relaxing media regulations for him that they had been correct.
|
Ged
10:23 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Stewie, seriously, go back and read our exchange from the start. I said that I don't give that man money. You have mad a number of leaps of faith and attacked my morality, without even considering that you you a/ have no choice whether to pay you TV licence or what it's spent on. You do have a choice if you wish to pay money to SKY.
YOU side tracked that.
As I said, you don't know what my stance is on News International, or why I've taken it, only that I won't knowingly give them money.
With regard to their relationship with the government Thatcher changed the law for Mudoch allowing him to own Sky and he then went on to pretty much support her party when all this was going on. This is a fact.
Given that so many other people seem to know so much about it, it seems strange to me that a leading press baron might be so close to that party and remain ignorant, and by the same extension that you have applied to the BBC, his staff.
But as I can't prove it, it remains conjecture and I haven't pretended otherwise. The use of the word imagine was intentional. I have extended your assumptions for SKY in a way that I can't prove. As have you with the BBC.
It still has nothing to do with my stance on News International
To return to your issue with the so called BBC cover up, if it was widely known within the corporation, then it would have been easier to say that the staff were complicit. And again, as you've repeatedly ignored, we are starting to see that this sort of behaviour was far more widespread than anyone dared believe, so so-called cover ups extend far beyond the upper echelons of the corridors of the BBC or any other single company. Even as far as our government.
My point, if you haven't worked it out yet, is not in defence of the BBC, but to point out that this is a much broader issue. But of course, it doesn't suit you to acknowledge that as you decided to attack my morality on a much narrower platform.
The point of the thread though, before you reduced to to a personal attack on your perception of my morality was that SKY now have cornered another key sporting event over the national broadcaster and the only way that's ever going to stop is if people don't buy the products. I chose not to buy the products.
With regard to the rest of your attack on my character, I see I've gone, even in the course of this discussion from being someone who you could have an adult debate with, to a renowned, stupid, arrogant, condescending prick (two slightly different views it has to be said and both of them, seemingly yours)
Given that I've not changed in 15 years on this board, when did you stop enjoying that?
Now, run along small boy, you should be in make up. It's nearly time for you to take your pants off for the grown ups on TV.
|
stewie griffin
9:44 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
ILPDC - Broadcasting Act 1996. The Culture Secretary has the power to list the 'Crown Jewels' which must, by law, be shown on free-to-air TV.
Some things that were on it, were taken off in 1998.
That's how it's solved, regardless of Red Ged's little hissy fit about SKY.
It won't be, of course, because the people who took it off the list were in bed with SKY, and so are the current lot.
|
stewie griffin
9:23 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Nothing has gone tits up, gedward, I think your application of your morals is inconsistent, illogical, based on opinion rather than fact (you say yourself that you 'imagine' something to be known) ,and I think that youre broadly speaking bollocks, as usual.
To give you an example of said bollocks, you venture that you can't take me seriously because only a handful of 23k employees of the bbc were guilty. You make no mention of imagining how many may have been involved in covering it up, yet will happily point the finger at news international and its larger number of employees based on nothing other than your imagination. As I said, inconsistent, illogical, based on opinion rather than fact. And yet despite defeating yourself in this manner with your own argument, you proclaim yourself the victor. Stupidity aligned with arrogance is never pretty, especially when that arrogance is wildly misplaced.
All of that said, I respect your right to have an opinion, I'm no great fan of either organisation as it happens, which is something you might like to try some time, rather than being the condescending prick you're renowned for being.
|
Far Cough
9:19 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Yes and a good job too, it would have kept the riff raff like your good self out
;-)
|
Ged
9:18 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
ILOVEPAOLODICANIO 9:10 Wed Feb 4
Whilst people keep giving money to SKY, this will continue to happen.
Fact of life.
If people don't want to pay a fortune to see sport, don't pay it. Eventually Sky won't be able to afford to monopolise it.
It's not rocket science.
Cough, received English was basically the door that kept the working classes out, and not just from the BBC. Good riddance.
|
ILOVEPAOLODICANIO
9:10 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
Wrong. Sky can outbid the BBC on all the other golf events but there is no point of the BBC if they can't show the Open. The R+A shouldn't be so greedy in their cash grab.
Idiocy like this could lead to The Players becoming the 4th major. Noone wants to go to the pub for this.
|
Far Cough
9:08 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
No, I'm talking about Received Pronunciation, I don't want my news read by some spotty oik from Yorkshire or some pissed up Sweaty from Scotchland
|
Ged
9:06 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
To be fair Master Cough, under Reith you would have got the same quality of news as you get now. The Corporation was founded by Reith and was a privately run organisation until 1926.
|
Far Cough
9:00 Wed Feb 4
Re: BBC lose The Open To Sky !
|
The BBC of now is not the BBC I grew up with, Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave?
|
|
|
|
