Will the sale of ITV to Sky give Sky access to Freeview?
Sky already have several channels that are
available on Freeview (Sky mix on 11, Sky News 233, Sky Arts 36, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have at least some shares of other
groupings, such as U, 5, and Great).
On 08/11/2025 11:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Sky already have several channels that are
available on Freeview (Sky mix on 11, Sky News 233, Sky Arts 36, and I
wouldn't be surprised if they have at least some shares of other
groupings, such as U, 5, and Great).
But over the whole UK.
Will the sale of ITV to Sky give Sky access to Freeview?
On 08/11/2025 11:29, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Sky already have several channels that are
available on Freeview (Sky mix on 11, Sky News 233, Sky Arts 36, and I>> wouldn't be surprised if they have at least some shares of other
groupings, such as U, 5, and Great).
But over the whole UK.I don't understand what you are asking.
Doesn't bother me, I have no interest in getting access to Sky but just wondered.
For anyone interested, here is a piece about possible consequences for
STV:
On 09/11/2025 10:38, Scott wrote:
For anyone interested, here is a piece about possible consequences for
STV:
How do the viewing figures for the home produced STV programmes compare
with networked ITV programmes.
On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 12:44:14 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Sadly, I'd agree; however, "popular and lucrative" implies both - I
On 09/11/2025 10:38, Scott wrote:(Quote) In commercial terms, the vast majority of the most popular and lucrative programmes shown by STV come from ITV1. (End quote)
For anyone interested, here is a piece about possible consequences for
STV:
How do the viewing figures for the home produced STV programmes compare
with networked ITV programmes.
I would assume commercial success is more important to the industry
than viewing figures.
On 2025/11/9 13:42:25, Scott wrote:
I would assume commercial success is more important to the industry
than viewing figures.
Sadly, I'd agree; however, "popular and lucrative" implies both - I
would assume "popular" refers to viewing figures, not income (that's the "lucrative" part).
On 09/11/2025 13:59, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/11/9 13:42:25, Scott wrote:
The two are linked, The more popular a programme is, the moreI would assume commercial success is more important to the industry
than viewing figures.
Sadly, I'd agree; however, "popular and lucrative" implies both - I
would assume "popular" refers to viewing figures, not income (that's the
"lucrative" part).
advertisers are willing to pay to be featured in the gaps, so the more > the broadcasters can pay the makers to show it.
I would assume commercial success is more important to the industry
than viewing figures.
, but JMB99 was asking about viewing figures: "How do the viewing
figures for the home produced STV programmes compare with networked ITV programmes."
On 09/11/2025 14:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
, but JMB99 was asking about viewing figures: "How do the viewing
figures for the home produced STV programmes compare with networked ITV
programmes."
I presume commercial success is directly proportional to the number of
bums on seats, to use the technical term. :-)
On 09/11/2025 13:42, Scott wrote:
I would assume commercial success is more important to the industry
than viewing figures.
But commercial success depends on how many viewers.
I thought it took account of the demographic of the audience. They
want to attract people with higher disposable income.
Will the sale of ITV to Sky give Sky access to Freeview?
Would there be a public appetite to block the sale of ITV and offer
Comcast the BBC instead given lack of trust in the BBC, the perception
of profligacy and the opportunity to abolish the licence fee
On 01/12/2025 10:10, Scott wrote:
Would there be a public appetite to block the sale of ITV and offer
Comcast the BBC instead given lack of trust in the BBC, the perception
of profligacy and the opportunity to abolish the licence fee
I think the BBC is still ahead of other broadcasters on trust despite
the campaign against them.
I think the BBC is still ahead of other broadcasters on trust
despite the campaign against them.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 16:13:33 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:I agree (despite recent events), but ...>>
On 01/12/2025 10:10, Scott wrote:
Would there be a public appetite to block the sale of ITV and offer
Comcast the BBC instead given lack of trust in the BBC, the perception
of profligacy and the opportunity to abolish the licence fee
I think the BBC is still ahead of other broadcasters on trust despite >> the campaign against them.
But what would you expect the outcome of a referendum to be on the... anything that results in people thinking they're not paying
licence fee? That was my underlying question.
On 2025/12/1 16:37:45, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 16:13:33 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 01/12/2025 10:10, Scott wrote:
Would there be a public appetite to block the sale of ITV and offer
Comcast the BBC instead given lack of trust in the BBC, the perception >>>> of profligacy and the opportunity to abolish the licence fee
I think the BBC is still ahead of other broadcasters on trust despite
the campaign against them.
I agree (despite recent events), but ...>>
But what would you expect the outcome of a referendum to be on the... anything that results in people thinking they're not paying
licence fee? That was my underlying question.
something they were before will always be overwhelmingly popular, People
are like that.
In the same way people, on the whole, always favour _any_ taxation
regime where someone else pays what they'd been paying.
My dad used to say that 'the rich' was anyone with more money than
yourself :-)
On 02/12/2025 09:50, Scott wrote:
My dad used to say that 'the rich' was anyone with more money than
yourself :-)
I'd describe 'the rich' as being those who have *considerably* more
money than yourself - rather like the Harry Enfield "Considerablay
richer that yow" sketches with the self-made millionaire from the Black >Country.
So it's not your boss, or even your boss's boss, but the MD or CEO or
Head of Department (*) who earn "considerably more" for doing,
apparently, f-all. :-)
(*) Or, in 1980s terms, a city stockbroker Yuppie.
But what would you expect the outcome of a referendum to be on the
licence fee? That was my underlying question.
Anyone who trusts the BBC or any of the other main stream media
channels is a fool as none of them can be relied upon to tell the
truth.
On 01/12/2025 17:46, Bob Latham wrote:
Anyone who trusts the BBC or any of the other main stream media
channels is a fool as none of them can be relied upon to tell the
truth.
Who do you trust then?
I am sure other broadcasters and media have done similar.
It is a minor error when you compare with the time the Daily Mirror
faked photographs.
On 01/12/2025 16:37, Scott wrote:
But what would you expect the outcome of a referendum to be on the
licence fee? That was my underlying question.
Similar to a referendum on the price of newspapers campaigning against
the BBC or the cost of ITV and CH4 that is passed on the consumers
through the cost of advertising.
On 01/12/2025 17:46, Bob Latham wrote:
Anyone who trusts the BBC or any of the other main stream media
channels is a fool as none of them can be relied upon to tell the
truth.
Who do you trust then?
I am sure other broadcasters and media have done similar.
It is a minor error when you compare with the time the Daily Mirror
faked photographs.
On 02/12/2025 19:48, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 19:10:14 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:If the question were to be phrased as "Should the BBC licence fee be abolished?" with no mention of alternative funding models, the answer
On 01/12/2025 16:37, Scott wrote:Exactly. I am asking the likely outcome of a single question
But what would you expect the outcome of a referendum to be on the
licence fee? That was my underlying question.
Similar to a referendum on the price of newspapers campaigning against
the BBC or the cost of ITV and CH4 that is passed on the consumers
through the cost of advertising.
referendum on the abolition of the licence fee, with options 'Yes' or
'No'. I am not saying that I support abolition.
would probably be a resounding YES!!!!.
Now ask how people would prefer that it be funded with all sensible alternatives getting a mention... (Subscription, pay per view, adverts, Government grant, licence fee...)
If the question were to be phrased as "Should the BBC licence fee be >abolished?" with no mention of alternative funding models, the answer
would probably be a resounding YES!!!!.
Now ask how people would prefer that it be funded with all sensible >alternatives getting a mention... (Subscription, pay per view, adverts, >Government grant, licence fee...)
On 02/12/2025 19:48, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 19:10:14 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:If the question were to be phrased as "Should the BBC licence fee be >abolished?" with no mention of alternative funding models, the answer
On 01/12/2025 16:37, Scott wrote:Exactly. I am asking the likely outcome of a single question
But what would you expect the outcome of a referendum to be on the
licence fee? That was my underlying question.
Similar to a referendum on the price of newspapers campaigning against
the BBC or the cost of ITV and CH4 that is passed on the consumers
through the cost of advertising.
referendum on the abolition of the licence fee, with options 'Yes' or
'No'. I am not saying that I support abolition.
would probably be a resounding YES!!!!.
Now ask how people would prefer that it be funded with all sensible >alternatives getting a mention... (Subscription, pay per view, adverts, >Government grant, licence fee...)
On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 21:18:41 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
If the question were to be phrased as "Should the BBC licence fee be
abolished?" with no mention of alternative funding models, the answer
would probably be a resounding YES!!!!.
Now ask how people would prefer that it be funded with all sensible
alternatives getting a mention... (Subscription, pay per view, adverts,
Government grant, licence fee...)
A great many television services are already funded by various
combinations of subscriptions and advertising, and they seem to be
doing very nicely thank you. Choosing to pay for what you want and not
being threatened with legal action if you don't want it seems to be a reasonably popular arrangement.
In article <10gnpff$2jll1$4@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Personally, I am very much pro-BBC, with all its faults. I am
aware, however, that this is a declining opinion, especially among
the young. I think it is something - like the NHS - that is part of
the fabric of the nation; but, I am aware that increasing numbers
think otherwise.
So I conclude you like be lied to or at least, you like the lies they
tell.
For me and for millions like me, it gives me no pleasure to call for
the end of the BBC, none at all. I would much prefer the BBC to
return to reason, rationality, truth and drop agendas and wokeness.
The BBC is an activist propaganda machine not a news outlet.
Just drop the bullshit, Climate science like all science is NOT
settled, biological sex immutable, Britain has done more good than
barm to the world by far, etc. etc. etc. . it's simple, tell the
bloody truth instead of Islington woke BS.
So because they will not tell the truth they do not serve the needs
of the vast majority of the country, so what's the good of paying for
them at all?
I'll make a prediction, if the polls continue to predict a Reform
government, the BBC will turn everything they have against Farage and
co., no hint of truth will remain. As a teenager he ate live animals
and was for ever doing nazi salutes, don't worry, the BBC can always
find activists to make these claims. Master mind champion and useful
idiot Lammy has already claimed he hung around with the Hitler youth,
19 years before he was born.
Do you remember being told if we voted Brexit we would have no drugs,
no green salad and a lot more besides and for some reason even our
water supply was threatened. It will be worse for Reform much, much
worse. The BBC is an activist propaganda machine not a news outlet.
As a national broadcaster paid for by taxation it should be neutral
and fair, stop laughing at the back.
Bob.
On 03/12/2025 09:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 21:18:41 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
If the question were to be phrased as "Should the BBC licence fee be
abolished?" with no mention of alternative funding models, the answer
would probably be a resounding YES!!!!.
Now ask how people would prefer that it be funded with all sensible
alternatives getting a mention... (Subscription, pay per view, adverts,
Government grant, licence fee...)
A great many television services are already funded by various
combinations of subscriptions and advertising, and they seem to be
doing very nicely thank you. Choosing to pay for what you want and not
being threatened with legal action if you don't want it seems to be a
reasonably popular arrangement.
Advertisements are only acceptable if they can be skipped (*not* ff) or easily edited out. Online access to TV would probably not allow this.
On 2025/12/3 10:44:45, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10gnpff$2jll1$4@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Of course not; I just prefer their flavour of lies to others
available.
Seriously, despite recent events, I still trust them more than most alternatives; also, yes they're biased (as all outlets are, one way
or another), but I'm used to theirs, and adjust what I hear
accordingly.
For me and for millions like me, it gives me no pleasure to call
for the end of the BBC, none at all. I would much prefer the BBC
to return to reason, rationality, truth and drop agendas and
wokeness.
I was with you until the last four words. I'm moderately anti-woke
myself, and agree the Beeb is sometimes a bit too far in that
direction, but that's just one example of how I adjust.
The BBC is an activist propaganda machine not a news outlet.
Just drop the bullshit, Climate science like all science is NOT
settled, biological sex immutable, Britain has done more good than
barm to the world by far, etc. etc. etc. . it's simple, tell the
bloody truth instead of Islington woke BS.
Wow, your blue MABA hat is too tight - squeezing your brain a bit!
So because they will not tell the truth they do not serve the
needs of the vast majority of the country, so what's the good of
paying for them at all?
Would you keep the royals?
I'll make a prediction, if the polls continue to predict a Reform government, the BBC will turn everything they have against Farage
and
Ah, I'd decided you were of that inclination before I even got to
this paragraph (see above MABA comment).
You are entitled to your own opinions.
As I've said before, my view is that the BBC is more critical of
the government that's currently in power
- as it should be, as whoever's in power _has_ more power, and thus
needs more criticism. They're certainly attacking the present
government - or members of it - to the extent that I'm getting
tired of it, despite never having been a Labour voter; but that's
more or less as it should be.
The concentration on attacking
individuals - whether the PM, chancellor, home secretary, or Farage
- I find a bit irritating, but _all_ the media do that.
As a national broadcaster paid for by taxation it should be
neutral and fair, stop laughing at the back.
Bob.
There's also excessive concentration on the news part; while
understandable to some extent, it does tend to overshadow a lot of
what else the Beeb does. (Yes, some of which you won't agree with,
and some of which _I_ never use either. But I'm glad it's _there_.)
I can't do that, I sometimes see clips of BBC news from other outlets
and hear them talking about the climate crisis or women should have
prostate checks and I just can't take it, I step away.
The BBC is an activist propaganda machine not a news outlet.
Just drop the bullshit, Climate science like all science is NOT
settled, biological sex immutable, Britain has done more good than
barm to the world by far, etc. etc. etc. . it's simple, tell the
bloody truth instead of Islington woke BS.
Wow, your blue MABA hat is too tight - squeezing your brain a bit!
Don't know what MABA is.
Would you keep the royals?
Good question.
The late queen unquestionably yes. Princess Anne, oh yes. Maybe
princess Kate she seems solid enough but the rest - oh dear me.
That's not to say I wish any harm on them and I do hope the King
recovers.
I'll make a prediction, if the polls continue to predict a Reform
government, the BBC will turn everything they have against Farage
and
Ah, I'd decided you were of that inclination before I even got to
this paragraph (see above MABA comment).
Still don't know what MABA is, I presume its a derivative of Make
America Great Again and a bit of an insult but that's okay.
If I live long enough it is well possible I may vote for Reform if
the situation is similar to right now. I'm certain who I will never
vote for; Labour, Greens, Your party, Lib Dems, Ed Davey dear god.
Everyone I can think of in my life except one, is saying the same
things. I went to a christmas work reunion on Monday, is was the same
there ..
They say, the next election is Britain's last hope. If we don't elect
a rational sensible, none woke, none socialist, government we're
finished, our freedoms and choices are gone for good, the collective
will have us.
A socialist hellscape awaits, It's started already. Only one POV is
Identity cards are not for a good purpose, they are to control
people, ordinary people, nothing to do with migrants.
No-one has ever changed sex because it is burnt into every cell in
the body.
Diversity is not a strength.
There is no evidence of a climate crisis, none at all, and I've
studied it a lot since I retired and I've read a lot of good books.
Yes, CO2 may have a very small and diminishing effect but it's
trivial.
TSI, Clouds and atmospheric pressure decide temperature not a trace
gas and clouds or lack there of explains the warming since 1976 and
the cooling 1937 to 1976. Terrible weather stations in urban heat
islands which are really bad complete the picture.
etc. etc.
You are entitled to your own opinions.
Thanks. There are many officials who would disagree with that.
As I've said before, my view is that the BBC is more critical of
the government that's currently in power
Do they criticize them for refusing to do anything effectual about
the boat crisis? Do they state that you cannot have a country without
foreigners. We now borrow around -u18B a month and -u12B of that is to
pay the interest on the loan we already have. This is insane !!!
To my shame I did vote for Blair. It was he that started Britain's destruction.
This government wants to allow abortion right up to birth and then
Lying is no longer the last option, it's now the default option for
this government. Andrew Neil says much the same thing.
My wife and I enjoyed Dr. who since it started, yes it was often
rubbish but it was enjoyable rubbish. Then it started the social
engineering, normalising the abnormal, woke preaching which finished
it.
The BBC is completely captured by twisted ideology it can't be saved.
Bob.
A great many television services are already funded by various
combinations of subscriptions and advertising, and they seem to be
doing very nicely thank you. Choosing to pay for what you want and not
being threatened with legal action if you don't want it seems to be a reasonably popular arrangement.
No-one has ever changed sex because it is burnt into every cell in
the body.
On 2025/12/3 18:38:50, Bob Latham wrote:
I happen to believe there is a climate problem. Whether mankind is responsible is arguable; on balance, I believe the evidence in that
direction is strong, but not 100% proven (as nothing can ever be,
of course).
Given that, I believe it is _prudent_ to take certain
actions, where it is practical/economic to do so.
Even if it wasn't, I think any source of "free" energy, such as
wind farms, it is daft to not use, in the interests of prolonging
our oil stocks if nothing else.
(As for the silly argument sometimes given that
the wind doesn't always blow - that's like saying there is a man in
town giving away money; because he's not there every day, I'm not
going to take _any_ of the money. No wind advocate says we should
_rely_ on it.)
As for "women should have prostate checks", that sounds like a
Daily Mail invention; obviously, only those _with_ a prostate
should have it checked, and I've not heard any suggestion to the
contrary.
Would you keep the royals?
Good question.
The late queen unquestionably yes. Princess Anne, oh yes. Maybe
Definitely with you on those two. But You accept them being funded
out of taxation? Like the BBC might be? (I do - both.)
princess Kate she seems solid enough but the rest - oh dear me.
:-)
That's not to say I wish any harm on them and I do hope the King
recovers.
Agreed.
Everyone I can think of in my life except one, is saying the same
We tend to mix with those of like mind, so I'm not surprised.
Has been said before of course.
We all have different degrees to which we surrender our rights to
"the collective", "society", etcetera. There are certainly elements
who want to control us - as much on the right as the left, too. the
desire to impose tends to be stronger towards the extreme - both
extremes.
Identity cards are not for a good purpose, they are to control
people, ordinary people, nothing to do with migrants.
Well, I'm with you that they won't do what's claimed. And I do agree
that there are some (on both extremes) who want them for control
reasons, though they won't admit it.
I am convinced that most of the reasons people want to change sex
is not that they want to have babies (it's very largely males
wanting to be females)
; there seems to be very little research into
that area - but because of the different ways our societies treat
the two sexes. Some people do not want to be macho; the chance of
changing how society views the gender roles is so minimal that
pretending to want to change is the only way they see of being
_treated_ differently.
Diversity is not a strength.
We'll just have to disagree on that one.
There is no evidence of a climate crisis, none at all, and I've
studied it a lot since I retired and I've read a lot of good
books.
Me too.
Yes, CO2 may have a very small and diminishing effect but it's
trivial.
I'm sure there is more to it than just that, yes. (And the misuse
by those who don't know about it of the word "carbon" has been
irritating me for a decade or two.)
TSI, Clouds and atmospheric pressure decide temperature not a
trace gas and clouds or lack there of explains the warming since
1976 and the cooling 1937 to 1976. Terrible weather stations in
urban heat islands which are really bad complete the picture.
I think we've discussed that before. Sure, put a weather station in
an urban hotspot and it will report hotter - but, it always did;
it's the _change_ that matters.
Do they criticize them for refusing to do anything effectual about
the boat crisis? Do they state that you cannot have a country without
They - along with the rest of the media - have been criticising the ineffectiveness of actions against the boats for years, if not
decades; neither the present lot nor the previous lot have done
much in that respect. (And all media over-concentrate on it,
because it's visible; the actual _numbers_, as a proportion of
imm/emigration as a whole, are rarely mentioned. But all media are
afraid of ratios; they think the population won't understand them.
They may be right, but they don't even try nearly enough.)
foreigners. We now borrow around u18B a month and u12B of that is
to pay the interest on the loan we already have. This is insane
!!!
It is certainly worrying. And has been worsening for quite a while.
Abortion is very much a last resort, whatever age. However, I don't
think we as men have much right to force our views. On this
subject, I feel there needs to be far more research into artificial
wombs.
Lying is no longer the last option, it's now the default option
for this government. Andrew Neil says much the same thing.
And the last one, at least towards the end.
My wife and I enjoyed Dr. who since it started, yes it was often
rubbish but it was enjoyable rubbish. Then it started the social engineering, normalising the abnormal, woke preaching which
finished it.
Let me guess, you didn't like the female doctor.
The BBC is completely captured by twisted ideology it can't be
saved.
You can think that.
I think we should probably take this discussion out of UTB - it's
got little to do with the T or the B, and has drifted away from
even the BBC in most part. I may not continue here. (I may not
continue anywhere - not that I'm conceding defeat, just that I
think we're too far apart in views for constructive discussion to
continue. We even agree on some things!)
I am convinced that most of the reasons people want to change sex is not
that they want to have babies (it's very largely males wanting to be females);
Well documented evidence of the planet being much, much warmer than
now from things like tress stumps being found way too far north to
grow today and of course ice records. Not least growing grapes and
making wine in Scotland.
Also Kathryn Porter is on there, what she doesn't know about energy[...]
isn't worth knowing she did a very scary video on the Triggernometry
channel which everyone in the country should watch, very scary.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzCiEHGVMwA>
She thinks we'll be lucky if the lights don't go out at some time
over the winter. Nearly did last January. She tells the full tale.
You'll know in a few minutes that she knows her stuff. Sorry about
the adds though but press on. Video of the year. Honestly !!!
I dare you to watch it.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]
I am convinced that most of the reasons people want to change sex is not
that they want to have babies (it's very largely males wanting to be
females);
Actuually it's about 50/50 but the media and the bigots make a lot more
noise about male-to-female than they do about female-to-male.
A great many television services are already funded by various
combinations of subscriptions and advertising, and they seem to be
doing very nicely thank you. Choosing to pay for what you want and not
being threatened with legal action if you don't want it seems to be a
reasonably popular arrangement.
Advertisements are only acceptable if they can be skipped (*not* ff) or >easily edited out. Online access to TV would probably not allow this.
On 03/12/2025 09:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
A great many television services are already funded by various
combinations of subscriptions and advertising, and they seem to be
doing very nicely thank you. Choosing to pay for what you want and not
being threatened with legal action if you don't want it seems to be a
reasonably popular arrangement.
But what range of programming do they have.
Netflix was added to my broadband subscription for little extra so I did
not cancel but not found anything worth watching there.
When I speak to friends abroad they are envious of what we have
available in the UK.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 22:26:50 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]
I am convinced that most of the reasons people want to change sex is not >> that they want to have babies (it's very largely males wanting to be
females);
Actuually it's about 50/50 but the media and the bigots make a lot more >noise about male-to-female than they do about female-to-male.
This is not surprising when you consider thsat the male to female ones
can be potentially more dangerous, as they appear to include some with
less than bona fide reasons for wanting to masquerade as women. I
expect it's another instance of a few giving everyone else a bad name,
but it has practical consequences so it has to be taken seriously.
For example, there have been cases in the news of men who claim to be
women being sent to women's prisons and raping some of the other
inmates, and it's difficult to imagine anything exactly equivalent
with the sexes reversed.
I assume that most of those who are not happy with what biology gave
them would just like to get on with their lives in their chosen manner
like everybody else
... it's only a very
few of those very few who want to make trouble, but in reality the
strengths and vulnerabilities of the two sexes are not equal, and
society has always had to deal with this.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
[...]
No-one has ever changed sex because it is burnt into every cell in
the body.
It can differ from cell to cell [look up 'chimera']. 'Sex' is very
far from simple, it is made up of many different components and
there are numerous variations. "Changing sex' is nonsense because
it relies on the concept of there being only two sexes, which is
also nonsense.
Most BBC journalists, most politicians and most lawyers have a
concept of biology which doesn't go beyond the fallacies they were
taught at infant school. Anyone who tells you sex is simple and
binary is actually telling you just how ignorant they really are.
There are also problems with militants brainwashing young children and
even feeding them with dangerous drugs.
On 01/12/2025 10:10, Scott wrote:
Would there be a public appetite to block the sale of ITV and offer
Comcast the BBC instead given lack of trust in the BBC, the perception
of profligacy and the opportunity to abolish the licence fee
I think the BBC is still ahead of other broadcasters on trust despiteThat's a frighteningly low bar - worthy of an ethnic limbo dancer. There isn't a single UK broadcaster that isn't captured by Gramsci's "long march throgh the institutions"
the campaign against them.
On Mon Dec 1 16:13:33 2025 JMB99 wrote:
On 01/12/2025 10:10, Scott wrote:
Would there be a public appetite to block the sale of ITV and offer
Comcast the BBC instead given lack of trust in the BBC, the perception
of profligacy and the opportunity to abolish the licence fee
I think the BBC is still ahead of other broadcasters on trust despite
the campaign against them.
That's a frighteningly low bar - worthy of an ethnic limbo dancer. There isn't a single UK broadcaster that isn't captured by Gramsci's "long march throgh the institutions"
In article <10gnpff$2jll1$4@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Personally, I am very much pro-BBC, with all its faults. I am
aware, however, that this is a declining opinion, especially
among the young. I think it is something - like the NHS - that is
part of the fabric of the nation; but, I am aware that increasing
numbers think otherwise.
I'll make a prediction, if the polls continue to predict a Reform
government, the BBC will turn everything they have against Farage
and co., no hint of truth will remain. As a teenager he ate live
animals and was for ever doing nazi salutes, don't worry, the BBC
can always find activists to make these claims. Master mind
champion and useful idiot Lammy has already claimed he hung around
with the Hitler youth, 19 years before he was born.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
[...]
Also Kathryn Porter is on there, what she doesn't know about energy[...]
isn't worth knowing she did a very scary video on the Triggernometry
channel which everyone in the country should watch, very scary.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzCiEHGVMwA>
She thinks we'll be lucky if the lights don't go out at some time
over the winter. Nearly did last January. She tells the full tale.
You'll know in a few minutes that she knows her stuff. Sorry about
the adds though but press on. Video of the year. Honestly !!!
I dare you to watch it.
I've just watched it, those are compelling arguments and I agree
with most of the conclusions. It's definitely well worth our time
to watch it.
A socialist hellscape awaits, It's started already.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:57:26 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,475 |