I have just watched my recording of last night's Festival of
Remembrance.
To the credit of the BBC they announced at the beginning that the
service was available with signing for the deaf on iPlayer.
Just an audio announcement, no sub titles.
Mind you Hannah Waddingham made up for it by shouting her part from beginning to end.
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps
things will get better.
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >will get better.
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things will get better.
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >will get better.
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >>will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by
which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
I have made about four complaints to them in the last couple of years
about presenters expressing what seemed to be personal opinions and
their suggestion that the Bib Vylan "chant" was antisemitic. They answer
the questions the wish you had asked and ignore everything else.
On 10/11/2025 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have made about four complaints to them in the last couple of years >>about presenters expressing what seemed to be personal opinions and their >>suggestion that the Bib Vylan "chant" was antisemitic. They answer the >>questions the wish you had asked and ignore everything else.
How did that compare with when you complained to ITV or CH4?
On 10/11/2025 in message <88c3hk9aml45i450mh3igq0d1ojqrgrplj@4ax.com> Roderick Stewart wrote:
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >>> will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by
which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
You could well be right.
I have made about four complaints to them in the last couple of years
about presenters expressing what seemed to be personal opinions and
their suggestion that the Bib Vylan "chant" was antisemitic. They answer
the questions the wish you had asked and ignore everything else.
there needs to be consequences for the Panorama editor who approved
the ... err ... editing.
I have just watched my recording of last night's Festival of Remembrance.
To the credit of the BBC they announced at the beginning that the
service was available with signing for the deaf on iPlayer.
Just an audio announcement, no sub titles.
Mind you Hannah Waddingham made up for it by shouting her part from beginning to end.
On 10/11/2025 08:36, Andy Burns wrote:
there needs to be consequences for the Panorama editor who approved
the ... err ... editing.
Apparently the programme was outsourced,
so the editor didn't work for
the BBC.-a All the BBC could really do is to not use the same production company, in future.
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-donald- trump-speech-us-election-panorama-b1257366.html> claims to identify the actual production company, whose web site says they do work for many
well known channels.
On Mon 10/11/2025 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/11/2025 in message <88c3hk9aml45i450mh3igq0d1ojqrgrplj@4ax.com> >>Roderick Stewart wrote:Freudian slip there maybe?
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >>>>will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by >>>which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
You could well be right.
I have made about four complaints to them in the last couple of years >>about presenters expressing what seemed to be personal opinions and their >>suggestion that the Bib Vylan "chant" was antisemitic. They answer the >>questions the wish you had asked and ignore everything else.
Bib?
:-))
On 09/11/2025 18:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have just watched my recording of last night's Festival of Remembrance.
To the credit of the BBC they announced at the beginning that the service >>was available with signing for the deaf on iPlayer.
Just an audio announcement, no sub titles.
Mind you Hannah Waddingham made up for it by shouting her part from >>beginning to end.
What did people think of her performance? My one word summary would be >"brash".
Can they no longer find anyone with the stature and gravitas of the likes
of Raymond Baxter or Richard Baker to front the event?
Apparently the programme was outsourced,
What did people think of her performance?
On 10/11/2025 14:36, David Woolley wrote:
Apparently the programme was outsourced,
That seems to be always the case with every BBC 'scandal' since they outsourced most programmes.
On 10/11/2025 15:57, JMB99 wrote:
On 10/11/2025 14:36, David Woolley wrote:
Apparently the programme was outsourced,
That seems to be always the case with every BBC 'scandal' sinceHow the hell can they claim to be accurate and impartial if they have
they outsourced most programmes.
no control over the material they broadcast?
Am I the only one wondering why they haven't pulled their frequently
shown advert, showing people like John Simpson and Clive Myrie
emphasising the great lengths they go to to get to the truth? Rings a
bit hollow under the current circumstances!
On 10/11/2025 15:57, JMB99 wrote:
On 10/11/2025 14:36, David Woolley wrote:How the hell can they claim to be accurate and impartial if they have no >control over the material they broadcast?
Apparently the programme was outsourced,
That seems to be always the case with every BBC 'scandal' since they >>outsourced most programmes.
The difference, it seems to me, is that commercial companies have people
who can negotiate standards, terms and price and monitor performance so
they can ensure that are getting what they want.
One example given was a hospital where the PFI contract covered all
patients getting breakfast which included toast but the contract did not specify marmalade on the toast so they did not get any. Minor but shows
how they can squeeze every penny out of the contract.
I have just watched my recording of last night's Festival of Remembrance.
To the credit of the BBC they announced at the beginning that the
service was available with signing for the deaf on iPlayer.
Just an audio announcement, no sub titles.
Mind you Hannah Waddingham made up for it by shouting her part from beginning to end.
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things will get better.
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things
will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by
which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
On 10/11/2025 09:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >>> will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by
which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as
a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising? Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines. To me it would feel like another step towards us
being seen as just another small country with nothing in particular
going for it.
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as
a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising? Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines.
On 10/11/2025 09:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >>> will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by
which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as
a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising? >Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines. To me it would feel like another step towards us
being seen as just another small country with nothing in particular
going for it.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:07:43 +0000, Brian Gregory ><void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
On 10/11/2025 09:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps things >>>>will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by >>>which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people
at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as
a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising? >>Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines. To me it would feel like another step towards us
being seen as just another small country with nothing in particular
going for it.
The real question is whether or not the BBC actually is a good
source of accurate reporting. How people regard it is a different
question, which doesn't necessarily have the same answer.
The real question is whether or not the BBC actually *is* a good
source of accurate reporting. How people regard it is a different
question, which doesn't necessarily have the same answer.
On 11/11/2025 17:07, Brian Gregory wrote:
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as
a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising?
Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines.
So exactly what we get now!
On the main news that possibly the majority of people who watch/listen
to the BBC the news items are already very shallow and often without substance. When interviewing 99% of journalist seem to have no knowledge
on the subject and cannot differentiate between fact, spin and bullshit.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/11/2025 17:07, Brian Gregory wrote:
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as >>> a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising?
Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines.
So exactly what we get now!
On the main news that possibly the majority of people who watch/listen
to the BBC the news items are already very shallow and often without
substance. When interviewing 99% of journalist seem to have no knowledge
on the subject and cannot differentiate between fact, spin and bullshit.
Has anyone ever wondered why the Bbc takes only on side on the subject of climate change?
One might - or might not - enjoy this article:
<https://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/01/13/bbcs-shameful-climate-propaganda-seminar-exposed/comment-page-1/>
A taster:
rCLThe BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary rCyecorCO conference which has shaped its coverage
of global warmingrCarCY.
It gets worserCa
The real question is whether or not the BBC actually *is* a good
source of accurate reporting.
I must admit that I have never liked the Head of News, who has
resigned.
Trump is now demanding $1 billion (plus an apology and a retraction). He will probably settle for quarter of that amount out of court.
Apparently the programme was outsourced, so the editor didn't work for
the BBC.
I was expecting Clive to demand that it be stopped until things were
sorted out. He probably did, but got over-ruled.
I think it needs to divide its news into two sections.
One reports the news factually as is, verified if possible (if not say
so), no presenters' comments or raised-a eyebrows. Here is the news, 1
plus 1 is 2.
The other deals with programmes presenting opinions, here are the facts,
now let's discuss them and give our (and our guests') opinions.
At least then we could be clear what is what.
In article <g8d8hk1q2gnnthr9j6ff605qma0tqp4a8g@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
The real question is whether or not the BBC actually *is* a good
source of accurate reporting.
Of course it isn't! It isn't fit for purpose for a whole range of
reasons.
Everyone in the country knows the BBC's views on most current topics
and if they were balanced and fair we wouldn't know this.
Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
Bah!-a Pots & kettles!-a This is rank hypocrisy, because unfortunately *EVERYONE* in this ng knows your extreme right-wing views about *EVERYTHING*, because, like most ignorant know-it-alls, you never learn
the wisdom of the old saying: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and
let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and remove all shadow
of doubt!"
I think it [the BBC] needs to divide its news into two sections.
One reports the news factually as is, verified if possible (if not say
so), no presenters' comments or raised eyebrows. Here is the news, 1 plus
1 is 2.
The other deals with programmes presenting opinions, here are the facts,
now let's discuss them and give our (and our guests') opinions.
At least then we could be clear what is what.
Yes, that ought to be the way it is by default.-a The Guardian are quite good like that, plain news is plain news, but opinion is opinion, and,
IIRC, on their website actually has a slightly differently coloured background to distinguish it from the news.
On 13/11/2025 06:39, Java Jive wrote:
Yes, that ought to be the way it is by default.-a The Guardian are quite good like that, plain news is plain news, but opinion is opinion, and, IIRC, on their website actually has a slightly differently coloured background to distinguish it from the news.
I suppose it depends on your own opinions, if they coincide with the Guardian then you will believe everything they publish.
If not, then you will be sceptical about anything in that tabloid.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 13/11/2025 06:39, Java Jive wrote:That seems to be a rather black and white view of the world! Surely
Yes, that ought to be the way it is by default.-a The Guardian are quite >>> good like that, plain news is plain news, but opinion is opinion, and,
IIRC, on their website actually has a slightly differently coloured
background to distinguish it from the news.
I suppose it depends on your own opinions, if they coincide with the
Guardian then you will believe everything they publish.
If not, then you will be sceptical about anything in that tabloid.
most people realise that no media outlet is going to be perfectly
accurate and unbiased all the time. I try and take them all with a
slight pinch of salt and also realise that I am biased too.
This puts the likes of the BBC in an impossible situation, no matter
what they put in the news it will be "wrong" for many. In this situation
its probably pointless having an independent broadcaster.
Dave
On 12/11/2025 in message <g8d8hk1q2gnnthr9j6ff605qma0tqp4a8g@4ax.com> Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:07:43 +0000, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
On 10/11/2025 09:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On 9 Nov 2025 18:22:43 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
I've just seen the announcements of the BBC resignations, perhaps
things
will get better.
Nothing will change at the BBC until there's a change in the method by >>>> which it is paid for. Follow the money, as they say. If you pay people >>>> at the same rate regardless of what they do, they will have no
incentive to change anything.
Once upon a time the BBC was guided by principles, but I don't think
any of its present incumbents have any idea what principles are.
Rod.
Would anyone, particularly anyone outside the UK still regard the BBC as >>> a good source of accurate reporting if it were funded by advertising?
Advertising would be taken to mean they tend to go after audience
grabbing headlines. To me it would feel like another step towards us
being seen as just another small country with nothing in particular
going for it.
The real question is whether or not the BBC actually is a good
source of accurate reporting. How people regard it is a different
question, which doesn't necessarily have the same answer.
I think it needs to divide its news into two sections.
One reports the news factually as is, verified if possible (if not say
so), no presenters' comments or raised-a eyebrows. Here is the news, 1
plus 1 is 2.
The other deals with programmes presenting opinions, here are the facts,
now let's discuss them and give our (and our guests') opinions.
At least then we could be clear what is what.
EVERYONE in this ng knows your extreme right-wing views
Bah!-a Pots & kettles!-a This is rank hypocrisy, because unfortunately
*EVERYONE* in this ng knows your extreme right-wing views about
*EVERYTHING*, because, like most ignorant know-it-alls, you never
learn the wisdom of the old saying: "It's better to keep your mouth
shut and let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and remove
all shadow of doubt!"
Whereas your views are a well kept secret ?
Java Jive wrote:
EVERYONE in this ng knows your extreme right-wing views
Some people seem to casually sling around the term "extreme".
If Tommy Robinson was hanging around this newsgroup I could understand,
but there are several of us who wouldn't be upset to be labelled as "somewhat right of centre", but do object to being called "extreme" ...
The daily T has discovered that Newsnight did almost exactly the same
edit that was a disgrace for Panorama.
Looks like they they twice made the same deception. Is anyone still
trying to say this was am "accident" or right wing attack?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKjMJd4EJ0
But there's no bias in the BBC.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 13/11/2025 06:39, Java Jive wrote:
Yes, that ought to be the way it is by default.-a The Guardian are quite >>> good like that, plain news is plain news, but opinion is opinion, and,
IIRC, on their website actually has a slightly differently coloured
background to distinguish it from the news.
I suppose it depends on your own opinions, if they coincide with the
Guardian then you will believe everything they publish.
If not, then you will be sceptical about anything in that tabloid.
That seems to be a rather black and white view of the world! Surely
most people realise that no media outlet is going to be perfectly
accurate and unbiased all the time.
I try and take them all with a
slight pinch of salt and also realise that I am biased too.
In article <g8d8hk1q2gnnthr9j6ff605qma0tqp4a8g@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
The real question is whether or not the BBC actually *is* a good
source of accurate reporting.
Of course it isn't! It isn't fit for purpose for a whole range of
reasons.
Everyone in the country knows the BBC's views on most current topics
and if they were balanced and fair we wouldn't know this.
Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
Then we have social engineering through their entertainment output,
making the abnormal, normal and sneering at anyone who doesn't share
their extreme views and they are extreme to the vast majority.
There was a time when I loved the BBC, trusted the BBC which
coincided with me having no idea what their presenters, editors and
reporters opinions were.
The BBC's left of centre agenda is coupled, (as is often the case),
with delusions of moral if not intellectual superiority. Yesterday we
heard 'They are the best of us', Sorry, I can't remember the exact
quote.
I think it is this "moral superiority" which leads to the view that
any harm done to (in their view) 'evil' is a good thing, it is
justification. I suspect this is how they justify twisting and
filtering the truth to match their narrative and feel it is fine to
knowingly mislead the world about the US president and what he said
or to mislead on Israel/Gaza, etc. This whilst at the same time
having BBC verify which is anything but or perhaps they've been
marking their own homework.
BBC supporters today:
It was just 'a mistake', 'it's a right wing attack', populists making
a mountain out of a molehill. I've just seen a twitter video of a
young attractive lady telling us all how this is all about "a man
baby interfering in UK media".
Dear God, how removed from reality are these people?
It became crystal clear this week that the BBC and it's supporters
are so in a bubble of group think that they genuinely don't think
they are biased. They've been radicalised by their own propaganda.
I love the word populist, it tells me of the torment of trying to
understand why people haven't the "correct" opinions. It means they
can sneer at democracy they don't like, without criticising democracy
which they claim to uphold. As soon as someone uses the word, you
know...
However, some people on twitter tonight are claiming that today's BBC
news has noticeably changed and has taken a more neutral, truthful
position. A story about female nurses' fight against having a trans
woman in their changing rooms and the BBC said "a biological male".
Wow. Has the BBC got real? We shall see.
I sincerely wish the BBC would drop the activist nonsense, become
neutral again and thrive. I would much prefer that to the BBC's
destruction but I fear the rot is too deep.
Bob.
On 13/11/2025 10:26, David Wade wrote:
This puts the likes of the BBC in an impossible situation, no matter
what they put in the news it will be "wrong" for many. In this
situation its probably pointless having an independent broadcaster.
It cannot be independent if there is a non-negotiable tax to pay for it.
On 2025-11-13 19:09, Bob Latham wrote:
The daily T has discovered that Newsnight did almost exactly the same
edit that was a disgrace for Panorama.
Looks like they they twice made the same deception. Is anyone still
trying to say this was am "accident" or right wing attack?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKjMJd4EJ0
But there's no bias in the BBC.
Nevertheless, there is less bias at the BBC than at The Telegraph, whose
YT videos have been paraded in front of me over the last few months-a -
they were all anti left, anti Labour government, and pro right-wing
liars like Mirage, and the style of the headlines was on a par with the worst tabloids.-a For The Telegraph to accuse others of bias is hypocrisy
in the extreme.
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of the BBC
Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no more than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
My views are probably tolerably well known, but I'm not the one making a false hypocritical argument about the views of the BBC.
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 23:28:48 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of the BBC
Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no more than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged
to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice.
On 14/11/2025 07:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 23:28:48 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of the BBC
Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no more than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and government. >>>
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged
to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If they haven't, "choice" isn't the correct word. The only "choice" to
be made is whether to pay the BBC or go without TV.
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your choice,
but you still need to have a license.
On 14/11/2025 09:29, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 07:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of the BBC >>>> Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no more than >>>> a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and
government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged
to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other
independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the
ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If they haven't, "choice" isn't the correct word. The only "choice" to
be made is whether to pay the BBC or go without TV.
Yes, that's my understanding too. You need to pay the license fee if you watch TV. Most of the fee goes to the BBC, but there are other public services that get some of it, e.g. S4C, Freeview.
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your choice,
but you still need to have a license.
Steve wrote:That's true, my mistake. Radio is OK, including BBC Radio. It's any TV
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your choice,
but you still need to have a license.
Listening to the radio doesn't have anything to do with requiring a TV licence.
On 14/11/2025 09:41 am, Steve wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:29, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 07:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of the BBC >>>>> Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no more
than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and
government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged
to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other
independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the
ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If they haven't, "choice" isn't the correct word. The only "choice"
to be made is whether to pay the BBC or go without TV.
Yes, that's my understanding too. You need to pay the license fee if
you watch TV. Most of the fee goes to the BBC, but there are other
public services that get some of it, e.g. S4C, Freeview.
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your choice,
but you still need to have a license.
But 103 years after the BBC came into existence and was the only
broadcaster in the UK, there is no justification for that being continued.
The BBC "licence" tax should be abolished and the BBC left to compete
with other broadcasters just as they compete with it. Sky, Virgin,
Netflix and Prime have managed to come from nowhere to being front
runners in just a few years, all via subscription.
Anyone who does not wish to pay for / subscribe to the BBC should not
have to do so in order to be allowed to watch services that are nothing
to do with that organisation.
If it went subscription-only (which, IMHO, it should), I'd almost
certainly be a subscriber. But I have no wish to impose my content preferences on others.
On 14/11/2025 09:49, Andy Burns wrote:
Steve wrote:That's true, my mistake. Radio is OK, including BBC Radio. It's any TV
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your choice,
but you still need to have a license.
Listening to the radio doesn't have anything to do with requiring a TV
licence.
that you need a license for, including iPlayer.
Steve
I would probably not be a subscriber if the BBC went that way. But I
might change my mind if it stayed free of adverts. That's one good thing about the BBC.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If you don't want The Daily Telegraph, you are not obliged to pay for it
in order to be allowed to read the Grauniad.
On 14/11/2025 10:07, Steve wrote:
I would probably not be a subscriber if the BBC went that way. But I
might change my mind if it stayed free of adverts. That's one good
thing about the BBC.
The bbc are not free of adverts. They make/commission programs that will later appear on "commercial" TV which does have adverts hence a 30
minute schedule program on the bbc will include at the beginning and end adverts for other bbc programs. Often within a program they repeat
something that has been said 5 minutes before. This is allow to the
adverts when re-broadcast on another channel to remind viewers what they have forgotten during the advert break.
On 14/11/2025 12:08, alan_m wrote:I mean the viewing experience is not spoiled by a five minute break for
On 14/11/2025 10:07, Steve wrote:Yeah, but you know what I mean.
I would probably not be a subscriber if the BBC went that way. But I
might change my mind if it stayed free of adverts. That's one good
thing about the BBC.
The bbc are not free of adverts. They make/commission programs that
will later appear on "commercial" TV which does have adverts hence a
30 minute schedule program on the bbc will include at the beginning
and end adverts for other bbc programs. Often within a program they
repeat something that has been said 5 minutes before. This is allow to
the adverts when re-broadcast on another channel to remind viewers
what they have forgotten during the advert break.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged
to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other >independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the ransom >that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
Anyone who does not wish to pay for / subscribe to the BBC should not
have to do so in order to be allowed to watch services that are nothing
to do with that organisation.
On 14/11/2025 09:53, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:41 am, Steve wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:29, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 07:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of the >>>>>> BBC
Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no more >>>>>> than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and
government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged >>>>> to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice. >>>>
independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the
ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If they haven't, "choice" isn't the correct word. The only "choice"
to be made is whether to pay the BBC or go without TV.
Yes, that's my understanding too. You need to pay the license fee if
you watch TV. Most of the fee goes to the BBC, but there are other
public services that get some of it, e.g. S4C, Freeview.
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your
choice, but you still need to have a license.
But 103 years after the BBC came into existence and was the only
broadcaster in the UK, there is no justification for that being
continued.
The BBC "licence" tax should be abolished and the BBC left to compete
with other broadcasters just as they compete with it. Sky, Virgin,
Netflix and Prime have managed to come from nowhere to being front
runners in just a few years, all via subscription.
Anyone who does not wish to pay for / subscribe to the BBC should not
have to do so in order to be allowed to watch services that are
nothing to do with that organisation.
If it went subscription-only (which, IMHO, it should), I'd almost
certainly be a subscriber. But I have no wish to impose my content
preferences on others.
I would probably not be a subscriber if the BBC went that way. But I
might change my mind if it stayed free of adverts. That's one good thing about the BBC.
I pay -u34.99 a month to Now for the Sky Sports channels, and I still get bombarded with adverts.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:53:43 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
Anyone who does not wish to pay for / subscribe to the BBC should not
have to do so in order to be allowed to watch services that are nothing
to do with that organisation.
I agree. It's daft, but as things stand at the moment, it's the Law.
It's an anachronism that hopefully will be changed before too long.
On 14/11/2025 09:29, JNugent wrote:
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other
independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the
ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
Of course we all have to pay the 'Advertising Tax' as a surcharge on everything we buy, unless we stick to unbranded goods in a corner shop.
Not seen any analysis recently
but in the simpler days of small number
of channels, it was easy to see that ITV cost more than the BBC.
And just look at the number of personalities who leave the BBC for more money from commercial broadcasters.
On 13/11/2025 23:30, JNugent wrote:
If you don't want The Daily Telegraph, you are not obliged to pay for
it in order to be allowed to read the Grauniad.
It always used to be said that the Guardian only survived because of the number of people in the public sector who got copies at work (and their overseas tax avoidance).-a That and the car magazine that subsidised it.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:29:48 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged
to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than
ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other
independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the ransom
that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
Yes, you have this choice if you watch the programmes online from
"catchup" services and not from broadcasts. This also gives you the
choice of watching the programmes in your own time and not according
to somebody else's timetable, which is another advantage.
The exception is iPlayer. You can't legally watch BBC TV on anything,
even online, without a licence, but you can watch all the others.
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
On 14/11/2025 10:07 am, Steve wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:53, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:41 am, Steve wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:29, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 07:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of
the BBC
Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no
more than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and
government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged >>>>>> to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of
whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than >>>>>> ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some
choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other
independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the
ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If they haven't, "choice" isn't the correct word. The only "choice" >>>>> to be made is whether to pay the BBC or go without TV.
Yes, that's my understanding too. You need to pay the license fee if
you watch TV. Most of the fee goes to the BBC, but there are other
public services that get some of it, e.g. S4C, Freeview.
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your
choice, but you still need to have a license.
But 103 years after the BBC came into existence and was the only
broadcaster in the UK, there is no justification for that being
continued.
The BBC "licence" tax should be abolished and the BBC left to compete
with other broadcasters just as they compete with it. Sky, Virgin,
Netflix and Prime have managed to come from nowhere to being front
runners in just a few years, all via subscription.
Anyone who does not wish to pay for / subscribe to the BBC should not
have to do so in order to be allowed to watch services that are
nothing to do with that organisation.
If it went subscription-only (which, IMHO, it should), I'd almost
certainly be a subscriber. But I have no wish to impose my content
preferences on others.
I would probably not be a subscriber if the BBC went that way. But I
might change my mind if it stayed free of adverts. That's one good
thing about the BBC.
I pay -u34.99 a month to Now for the Sky Sports channels, and I still
get bombarded with adverts.
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
My views are probably tolerably well known, but I'm not the one making
a false hypocritical argument about the views of the BBC.
Thats an opinion, which you are welcome to.
Do you really believe that if all advertising was banned that retail
prices would fall?
Actually, it's a fact:-a I've not made a false hypocritical argument
about the BBC.
Actually, it's a fact:-a I've not made a false hypocritical argument
about the BBC.
The "tolerably well known" part is an opinion
Do you really believe that if all advertising was banned that retail
prices would fall?
If you watch FA cup ties or other bits of live football on terrestrial
TV in this country they show all of the action and cram the adverts in before, after and in the half time break.
You're right, the football is uninterrupted during play.
You missed out "probably", and it was you who first introduced my
opinions, I was merely answering you.
I wonder if one day they will get control of football just as is the
case with American Football where the TV companies decide where there
are breaks?
You missed out "probably", and it was you who first introduced my
opinions, I was merely answering you.
perhaps so, but I think you started it by suggetsing that
"EVERYONE* in this ng knows your extreme right-wing views about *EVERYTHING*"
although I am not sure who that was aimed at
So I will leave you to formulate some patronising and not very amusing respomse so that you can (as always) have the last word on the subject
(I do admire your ability to more than double the length of any news
thread just by contributing to it ....)
If Tommy Robinson was hanging around this newsgroup I could understand,
but there are several of us who wouldn't be upset to be labelled as "somewhat right of centre", but do object to being called "extreme" ...
Some people seem to casually sling around the term "extreme".
If Tommy Robinson was hanging around this newsgroup I could
understand, but there are several of us who wouldn't be upset to
be labelled as "somewhat right of centre", but do object to being
called "extreme" ...
In the last few days I've watched as many luvies and lefties have
gone into full melt down trying to defend the indefensible and
revealing some astonishing levels of delusion and mental gymnastics
in the process.
I hope the president is successful in his claim.
If preferring truth to Soviet style propaganda makes me far, far, far
right then so be it, I'm not lonely. :-)
It is clear from the polls that probably at least 35% of the
population (not including Tommy's people) think much the same as me
Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
and one thing the always charming Java man has done is to stop me
caring at all about labels and insults thrown at me from the left, I
just don't care.
On 2025-11-15 15:26, Bob Latham wrote:
In the last few days I've watched as many luvies and lefties have
gone into full melt down trying to defend the indefensible and
revealing some astonishing levels of delusion and mental gymnastics
in the process.
[Snip - as no-one here is a leftie or luvvie, it's irrelevant, but the parroting of right-wing propaganda-speak is noted.]
I hope the president is successful in his claim.
It would just about a first for him, he's lost almost every court case
that has come to trial in the last four years or so, but I doubt that
he'll actually attempt it, because this sort of bullying bluster is all
he knows how to do, when it comes to actually having to do anything,
he's not called TACO for nothing.
If preferring truth to Soviet style propaganda makes me far, far, far
right then so be it, I'm not lonely. :-)
You are more alone than you think, but then, just like Trump, numbers
seem to confuse you. Consider a medieval village with, say, 100 inhabitants, one of whom is universally understood to be the village
idiot, so, if this is typical (and for this thought experiment we will assume that it is), that's 1% of the population are idiots. Now imagine that same village magically transported into the modern world where all
the villages have internet contact, so now our village idiot can
suddenly find hundreds of other village idiots. It will appear to him magically that now his situation is not so abnormal, it may even appear perfectly normal, but nonetheless village idiots will still only make up
1% of the population.
Your problem is that you never seem able to tell propaganda and truth
apart. By constantly parroting divisive and usually false propaganda, no-one in this ng has been more of a 'useful village idiot' to enemies
of the UK than you.
The BBC has many faults, but your sources of information are obviously
much, much worse.
On 2025-11-15 15:45, Bob Latham wrote:
It is clear from the polls that probably at least 35% of the
population (not including Tommy's people) think much the same as me
So let's see if that's actually true ...
On 2025-11-12 20:36, Bob Latham wrote:
Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search? q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with 77rCo80% of people concerned about the issue"
So, not that one.
https://www.google.com/search? q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+gender+equality
"Public support for gender equality in the UK is strong, with a recent
poll showing 83% of people believe men and women should have equal
rights and status"
So not that one either, but TBF I don't think that was quite what you
meant, so let's try to rephrase the question ...
https://www.google.com/search? q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+sexual+equality
"UK public support for sexual equality is high but divided, with a
majority supporting same-sex marriage and liberal attitudes toward
sexual identity, while a significant portion feels gender equality
efforts have gone far enough. For example, 78% of Britons support same-
sex marriage, and a majority agree with liberal views on race and sexual identity."
So, not that interpretation either.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52410-nine-years-after-the-eu- referendum-where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-brexit
"Nine years after the EU referendum, where does public opinion stand on Brexit?-a Most Britons see Brexit as having been more of a failure than a success, but they tend not to see trying to return as a priority
23 June marks nine years since the UK voted to leave the European Union. YouGov polling has long since shown that the public are rCyBregretfulrCO about that outcome, with our latest survey showing 56% think it was
wrong for Britain to vote to leave the EU."
So you get your 35% on that one, but you're still in a minority.
https://www.google.com/search? q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+the+EU+in+2025
A more complex picture depending on what and how the questions are
asked, but, for example ...
"Support for a closer relationship with the EU
-a-a-a A clear majority of Britons (63%) would support the UK moving
closer to the EU without rejoining.
-a-a-a This includes strong support from both Remain and Leave voters, as well as Labour voters.
-a-a-a The public's top priority for the UK's relationship with the EU is enhancing trade agreements and improving cooperation on key issues such
as crime prevention and terrorism."
So, again, you get your 35%, but are still in a minority.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+DEI
Again, a complex picture depending on exactly what is meant by the term,
but again, you get your 35% on some aspects, but not others, but are
always in a minority overall.
As regards Israel & Hamas, you don't state what views you think are supported, but national opinion seems fairly evenly divided between the
two:
https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/52694-british-attitudes-to- the-israel-gaza-conflict-july-2025-update
"Half of Britons say IsraelrCOs actions in Gaza are unjustified"
But let's not forget what started this latest outpouring of verbal vomit from you:
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+BBC
"UK public support for the BBC is high, with the latest reports showing
that 94% of adults use BBC services monthly and 84% weekly, making it
the UK's most-used media brand. Trust in the BBC's news is also strong,
with 60% of consumers giving a positive score for trustworthiness,
although there is a significant gap between "important" and "gap""
So not that one either.
Overall, excluding the one where your views have not been made clear,
your views are always in a minority, and generally a smaller one than
you seem to suppose.
and one thing the always charming Java man has done is to stop me
caring at all about labels and insults thrown at me from the left, I
just don't care.
You still don't seem to realise that I am not left-wing, but then that's because you are so far right-wing that most of the rest of the world
seems left-wing to you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+BBC
"UK public support for the BBC is high, with the latest reports showing
that 94% of adults use BBC services monthly and 84% weekly, making it
the UK's most-used media brand. Trust in the BBC's news is also strong,
with 60% of consumers giving a positive score for trustworthiness,
although there is a significant gap between "important" and "gap""
On 14/11/2025 13:52, JNugent wrote:
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
And you claim to be as British as they come. Shameful... <https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/27/cricket-explained-to-a- foreigner/>
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
If you watch FA cup ties or other bits of live football on terrestrial
TV in this country they show all of the action and cram the adverts in before, after and in the half time break.
On 14/11/2025 13:52, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 10:07 am, Steve wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:53, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:41 am, Steve wrote:
On 14/11/2025 09:29, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 07:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The current situation may well be the last chance to be rid of >>>>>>>> the BBC
Tax. Otherwise, charter renewal time will come and go with no >>>>>>>> more than
a few words of praise from a Labour-dominated Parliament and
government.
Well, plus a huge increase in the BBC Tax.
They can increase it as much as they like as long as I'm not obliged >>>>>>> to pay it. The only change that would concern me would be if it
actually was made compulsory for everyone to pay it regardless of >>>>>>> whether they use the service. The present arrangement is less than >>>>>>> ideal and could be improved but at least it gives viewers some
choice.
Does anyone have the choice to watch ITV, C4, C5 and all the other >>>>>> independent Freeview channels plus Sky, without having to pay the >>>>>> ransom that is the BBC's "licence" tax?
If they haven't, "choice" isn't the correct word. The only
"choice" to be made is whether to pay the BBC or go without TV.
Yes, that's my understanding too. You need to pay the license fee
if you watch TV. Most of the fee goes to the BBC, but there are
other public services that get some of it, e.g. S4C, Freeview.
If you don't watch the BBC or listen to BBC Radio, that's your
choice, but you still need to have a license.
But 103 years after the BBC came into existence and was the only
broadcaster in the UK, there is no justification for that being
continued.
The BBC "licence" tax should be abolished and the BBC left to
compete with other broadcasters just as they compete with it. Sky,
Virgin, Netflix and Prime have managed to come from nowhere to being
front runners in just a few years, all via subscription.
Anyone who does not wish to pay for / subscribe to the BBC should
not have to do so in order to be allowed to watch services that are
nothing to do with that organisation.
If it went subscription-only (which, IMHO, it should), I'd almost
certainly be a subscriber. But I have no wish to impose my content
preferences on others.
I would probably not be a subscriber if the BBC went that way. But I
might change my mind if it stayed free of adverts. That's one good
thing about the BBC.
I pay -u34.99 a month to Now for the Sky Sports channels, and I still
get bombarded with adverts.
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
You're right, the football is uninterrupted during play. However, I
watch the golf channel quite a lot, and there are so many adverts it's crazy. Sometimes if it's a program coming from the USA, there are so
many ad breaks, there aren't enough UK ads to fill them! So I have to
see a blank screen that says something like "Coverage will resume shortly".
On 14/11/2025 14:00, JNugent wrote:
Do you really believe that if all advertising was banned that retail
prices would fall?
We are talking about TV commercial break advertising here, and that
tends to be about shifting market share between very similar,
established, competing products, already manufactured at scale, rather
than about educating people about innovative products, about which few potential buyers are aware.
A lot of it is also about creating markets for things that are
undesirable. e.g. the late evening gambling adverts on broadcast TV, and
the "money making schemes" on YT.-a (I'd include day trading and crypto
in gambling.)
On 14/11/2025 14:00, JNugent wrote:
Do you really believe that if all advertising was banned that retail
prices would fall?
Do you really believe that advertising reduces costs!-a Think of all
those overpaid advertising executives and commercial radio/TV 'talent'.
Remember when ITV went on strike!
On 14/11/2025 02:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/11/2025 13:52, JNugent wrote:
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
And you claim to be as British as they come. Shameful...
<https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/27/cricket-explained-to-a-
foreigner/>
I'm not interested in cricket. Never have been. It's boring. Less boring than baseball (which I have seen live, in the US). But still boring.
On 15/11/2025 21:46, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 02:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/11/2025 13:52, JNugent wrote:
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
And you claim to be as British as they come. Shameful...
<https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/27/cricket-explained-to-a-
foreigner/>
I'm not interested in cricket. Never have been. It's boring. Less
boring than baseball (which I have seen live, in the US). But still
boring.
I feel the same way about test or county cricket but some of the limited over cricket with fixed times for the number of balls and with different fielding rules etc. is more fast paced and worth watching. A T20 (20
overs) match lasts for a total of around 3 hours or less if one or both teams are bowled out.-a Often the run rate is 100+ runs per hour with
many 4 and 6 boundary shots.
Each team bats for a maximum of 20 overs.
A bowler can bowl a maximum of four overs per innings.
Powerplay: During the first six overs, only two fielders are allowed
outside the 30-yard circle. Once the powerplay overs are complete, a
maximum of five fielders can be outside this fielding ring.
Once a wicket has fallen, batters have 90 seconds to be in position for
the next delivery.
Time penalties: If a fielding side doesn't start the 20th over before
the 75-minute time limit, a bonus of six runs per over is awarded to the batting side for every over bowled after the cut-off
For a no-ball, the next delivery is a "free hit," where the batter can
only be out through a run-out or by obstructing the field.
I feel the same way about test or county cricket but some of the limited over cricket with fixed times for the number of balls and with different fielding rules etc. is more fast paced and worth watching. A T20 (20
overs) match lasts for a total of around 3 hours or less if one or both teams are bowled out.-a Often the run rate is 100+ runs per hour with
many 4 and 6 boundary shots.
[and a few other examples]Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with
77u80% of people concerned about the issue"
If the public are concerned about an issue that is given lots of
airtime, is this an indication that it is an issue they should be
concerned about, or is it simply an indication that they have been brainwashed into being concerned about it as a result of the issue
being given lots of airtime?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 16:49:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with >77u80% of people concerned about the issue"[and a few other examples]
If the public are concerned about an issue that is given lots of
airtime, is this an indication that it is an issue they should be
concerned about, or is it simply an indication that they have been brainwashed into being concerned about it as a result of the issue
being given lots of airtime?
I find myself reminded of chickens and eggs.
Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 16:49:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>[Attribution snipped: Bob Latham said]
wrote:
[and a few other examples]
Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with
77rCo80% of people concerned about the issue"
If the public are concerned about an issue that is given lots of
airtime, is this an indication that it is an issue they should be
concerned about, or is it simply an indication that they have been brainwashed into being concerned about it as a result of the issue
being given lots of airtime?
I find myself reminded of chickens and eggs.
Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 16:49:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
[and a few other examples]Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with
77-u80% of people concerned about the issue"
If the public are concerned about an issue that is given lots of
airtime, is this an indication that it is an issue they should be
concerned about, or is it simply an indication that they have been brainwashed into being concerned about it as a result of the issue
being given lots of airtime?
I find myself reminded of chickens and eggs.
Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
I think many are still influenced by the scare stories of London being
under water by now, similar most Pacific Island submerged.
I liked the picture, published a few weeks ago of a grower with large greenhouses, who has installed carbon dioxide generators to promote growth!
When watching the various disciples of the 'climate change' stories, it
is worth looking up the credentials of the 'experts' used by news organisations.-a You often find they have no scientific education or qualifications!
In article <02vihk9m664avs79c4j3kct9vsfp33p7sf@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 16:49:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
[and a few other examples]Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with
77rCo80% of people concerned about the issue"
If the public are concerned about an issue that is given lots of
airtime, is this an indication that it is an issue they should be
concerned about, or is it simply an indication that they have been
brainwashed into being concerned about it as a result of the issue
being given lots of airtime?
I find myself reminded of chickens and eggs.
Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
Concern in the UK for climate alarmism in the UK is high for the same
reason many people believe there are more than two sexes and that you
can swap at will or that diversity is our strength, or unreliable
energy is cheaper etc. etc. ..
Propaganda, convince people to disbelieve the evidence of their own
eyes. It's very successful, millions believe total **(*(&^. This
nonsense is taking us backwards, we'll be burning witches soon.
We've abandoned reality in favour of being "nice" and "right
thinking." If you don't hold the correct views however absurd then
you're an awful person. Yep, that's me.
There is NO evidence of any climate crisis.
The key factors in surface or lower atmosphere temperature are:
1. Atmospheric pressure. (why it's very hot in Death Valley)
2. Clouds
3. TSI, Total solar irradiance.
Surprisingly, pressure seems to be the big one. Look at the
temperatures found in Jupiter's lower atmosphere. Hot enough to melt
lead but a huge distance from the sun.
So called 'green house gases' have a very minor effect but only
before saturation. After that, increasing them makes no difference.
On 14/11/2025 02:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/11/2025 13:52, JNugent wrote:
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
And you claim to be as British as they come. Shameful...
<https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/27/cricket-explained-to-a-foreigner/>
I'm not interested in cricket. Never have been. It's boring. Less boring than baseball (which I have seen live, in the US). But still boring.
The same goes for Rugby (Union or League) and many other sports.
On 2025-11-16 09:52, JMB99 wrote:
I think many are still influenced by the scare stories of London being
under water by now, similar most Pacific Island submerged.
Where is your provenance for this claim?
I liked the picture, published a few weeks ago of a grower with large
greenhouses, who has installed carbon dioxide generators to promote growth!
Again, where is your provenance for this claim?
When watching the various disciples of the 'climate change' stories, it
is worth looking up the credentials of the 'experts' used by news
organisations.-a You often find they have no scientific education or
qualifications!
Again, where is your provenance for this claim? I am not aware of ever having seen a non-expert witness on a news report on main stream media unless ...
* They were a survivor of some natural disaster who happened to mention climate change, so were not being presented as an expert on the subject.
- They were a denialist brought in to provide so-called 'balance'.
- The MMS was The Telegraph.
On 2025-11-16 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <02vihk9m664avs79c4j3kct9vsfp33p7sf@4ax.com>
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 16:49:04 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
[and a few other examples]Climate change, gender, Brexit, EU, DEI, Israel, Hamas etc etc.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+high+is+uk+public+support+for+climate+change
"Public support for addressing climate change is high in the UK, with
77rCo80% of people concerned about the issue"
If the public are concerned about an issue that is given lots of
airtime, is this an indication that it is an issue they should be
concerned about, or is it simply an indication that they have been
brainwashed into being concerned about it as a result of the issue
being given lots of airtime?
I find myself reminded of chickens and eggs.
Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
Concern in the UK for climate alarmism in the UK is high for the same
reason many people believe there are more than two sexes and that you
can swap at will or that diversity is our strength, or unreliable
energy is cheaper etc. etc. ..
Propaganda, convince people to disbelieve the evidence of their own
eyes. It's very successful, millions believe total **(*(&^. This
nonsense is taking us backwards, we'll be burning witches soon.
On the contrary, the above paragraph reveals in yourself EXACTLY THE
SAME INTOLERANT MINDSET that resulted in the burning of witches, and
thus, like so many of your paranoid outbursts, reveals more about the psychological wreckage of your own character than it does about the
subject of your tirade.
We've abandoned reality in favour of being "nice" and "right
thinking." If you don't hold the correct views however absurd then
you're an awful person. Yep, that's me.
There is NO evidence of any climate crisis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+is+currently+the+best+evidence+of+climate+change
"The best evidence for climate change includes rising global
temperatures, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, and an increase in extreme weather events like heatwaves and heavy rainfall.
These changes are happening at an accelerating rate and are consistent
with the warming effects of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, as
shown by matches between observed climate patterns and scientific models that include human influence." [Further details with provenance freely available to all who care enough to actually look.]
The key factors in surface or lower atmosphere temperature are:
1. Atmospheric pressure. (why it's very hot in Death Valley)
FALSE! Or at very least a gross misunderstanding ...
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=why+is+it+hot+in+death+valley
"Death Valley is so hot due to its geographic location and topography,
which includes being a long, narrow basin with parts below sea level, surrounded by high mountains that trap heat. Combined with low humidity, intense solar radiation, and the compression of air as it descends from
the mountains, these factors create an environment where heat becomes trapped and the air is reheated."
2. Clouds
3. TSI, Total solar irradiance.
Yes to both of those, however you 'conveniently' left out other factors, most importantly atmospheric greenhouse gases trapping heat.
Surprisingly, pressure seems to be the big one. Look at the
temperatures found in Jupiter's lower atmosphere. Hot enough to melt
lead but a huge distance from the sun.
In a world where many factors contribute to each phenomenon, finding one planet that conveniently fits the denialist claim of the day does not a scientific rule make. You've made this laughable mistake before, and
Jim Lesurf debunked it by simply finding another planet that didn't obey
the rule.
So called 'green house gases' have a very minor effect but only
before saturation. After that, increasing them makes no difference.
Green house gases are the control knob of the planet's temperature,
without them we would be freezing, but an excess of them is also
beginning to prove problematic.
rCLAt the [secret] event, in 2006, green activists and scientists rCo one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war rCo lectured 28 of the CorporationrCOs [Bbc] most senior executives.
On 16/11/2025 19:31, Spike wrote:
rCLAt the [secret] event, in 2006, green activists and scientists rCo one of >> whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war rCo >> lectured 28 of the CorporationrCOs [Bbc] most senior executives.
It was some years ago but someone quoted that if a scientist applied for grants to study the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England
then he would be unlikely to get much money.
But if he applied for a grant to study the effect of climate change on
the breeding habits of squirrels in South East England, organisations
would be queuing up to give him funding.
[...]Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
Which came first, the public issue or right wing propaganda such as the >above attempting to downplay or outright deny it? Obviously the issue
came first, otherwise there would have been nothing to give rise to
either public discussion or propaganda concerning it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+is+currently+the+best+evidence+of+climate+change
"The best evidence for climate change includes rising global
temperatures, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, and an increase in extreme weather events like heatwaves and heavy rainfall.
These changes are happening at an accelerating rate and are consistent
with the warming effects of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, as
shown by matches between observed climate patterns and scientific models that include human influence."
On 15/11/2025 21:46, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2025 02:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/11/2025 13:52, JNugent wrote:
I only see Sky Sports at the local club. I'm sure they don't show
adverts during play. Only at half-time for football and wherever the
breaks are for cricket (whose rules are impenetrable to me).
And you claim to be as British as they come. Shameful...
<https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/27/cricket-explained-to-a-
foreigner/>
I'm not interested in cricket. Never have been. It's boring. Less
boring than baseball (which I have seen live, in the US). But still
boring.
The same goes for Rugby (Union or League) and many other sports.
Follow the link and read it.-a It is a joke based on the rules of
cricket, and it is worth reading for entertainment.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-11-16 09:52, JMB99 wrote:
I liked the picture, published a few weeks ago of a grower with large
greenhouses, who has installed carbon dioxide generators to promote growth!
Again, where is your provenance for this claim?
ItrCOs such a well-known and used technique you do yourself no favours by posing the question.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 13:49:10 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
[...]
[...]Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
Which came first, the public issue or right wing propaganda such as the
above attempting to downplay or outright deny it? Obviously the issue
came first, otherwise there would have been nothing to give rise to
either public discussion or propaganda concerning it.
Maybe *some* issue came first, but I don't see how it should be
obvious that it had to be the same one.
Ideas, good and bad, can spring from any issue or nothing at all other
then some individual's obsession, and with enough discussion, sooner
or later you've got a consensus, and eventually a consensus can
metamorphose into an orthodoxy that nobody dares to question. If this happens, it can be very difficult to establish the truth, and perhaps
even more dificult to convince anybody that you have done so.
On 16/11/2025 19:31, Spike wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:I remember the technique being featured in one of the TV farming
On 2025-11-16 09:52, JMB99 wrote:
I liked the picture, published a few weeks ago of a grower with large
greenhouses, who has installed carbon dioxide generators to promote growth!
Again, where is your provenance for this claim?
ItrCOs such a well-known and used technique you do yourself no favours by
posing the question.
programmes on TV. A tomato grower with a couple of huge heated
greenhouses so that he could produce and sell tomatoes all year long
heated the greenhouses with a boiler which circulated hot water, and he filtered the exhaust from the boiler and piped it through the
greenhouses, which increased his crop yield by about a fifth.
I don't imagine he was the only one doing that, because it was described
as a technique, not an innovation.
On 2025-11-17 09:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 13:49:10 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
[...]
[...]Which comes first - the issue or the airtime?
Which came first, the public issue or right wing propaganda such as the
above attempting to downplay or outright deny it? Obviously the issue
came first, otherwise there would have been nothing to give rise to
either public discussion or propaganda concerning it.
Maybe *some* issue came first, but I don't see how it should be
obvious that it had to be the same one.
Ideas, good and bad, can spring from any issue or nothing at all other
then some individual's obsession, and with enough discussion, sooner
or later you've got a consensus, and eventually a consensus can
metamorphose into an orthodoxy that nobody dares to question. If this
happens, it can be very difficult to establish the truth, and perhaps
even more dificult to convince anybody that you have done so.
Pure flannel, it's perfectly obvious that the issue came first! Why
else would Exxon Mobile et alia spend a fortune throughout the second
half of the last century trying to bury it? Why else did climate change findings so alarm climate scientists around the turn of the millennium
that they brought them to the attention of the US Government?
Pure flannel, it's perfectly obvious that the issue came first!-a Why
else would Exxon Mobile et alia spend a fortune throughout the second
half of the last century trying to bury it?-a Why else did climate change findings so alarm climate scientists around the turn of the millennium
that they brought them to the attention of the US Government?
On 17/11/2025 12:24, Java Jive wrote:
Pure flannel, it's perfectly obvious that the issue came first!-a WhyIt wasn't the climate scientists that got the concern about Global
else would Exxon Mobile et alia spend a fortune throughout the second
half of the last century trying to bury it?-a Why else did climate
change findings so alarm climate scientists around the turn of the
millennium that they brought them to the attention of the US Government?
Warming out in the open, it was Al Gore.
On 17/11/2025 12:24, Java Jive wrote:
Pure flannel, it's perfectly obvious that the issue came first!-a WhyIt wasn't the climate scientists that got the concern about Global
else would Exxon Mobile et alia spend a fortune throughout the second
half of the last century trying to bury it?-a Why else did climate
change findings so alarm climate scientists around the turn of the
millennium that they brought them to the attention of the US Government?
Warming out in the open, it was Al Gore.
On 2025-11-17 14:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/11/2025 12:24, Java Jive wrote:
Pure flannel, it's perfectly obvious that the issue came first!-a WhyIt wasn't the climate scientists that got the concern about Global
else would Exxon Mobile et alia spend a fortune throughout the second
half of the last century trying to bury it?-a Why else did climate
change findings so alarm climate scientists around the turn of the
millennium that they brought them to the attention of the US Government? >>>
Warming out in the open, it was Al Gore.
Nonsense, another example of a false claim that 5 minutes with a search engine would easily have debunked.-a When are you going to learn to do
this, just simply in your own self-interest?-a Climate scientists were alerting the US Government about Climate Change long before Al Gore
became a household name, and apparently even longer than I realised:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=who+first+alerted+US+Government+about+climate+change
"Scientists first alerted the U.S. government about climate change in
1965, when a report on environmental problems was submitted to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Later, NASA scientist James Hansen significantly
raised public awareness with his 1988 testimony to Congress, which
stated that global warming was already happening.
-a-a-a 1965: A report titled "Restoring the Quality of Our Environment"
was sent to President Lyndon B. Johnson, including a section on climate change written by prominent scientists. This memo noted that the burning
of fossil fuels was adding billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
-a-a-a 1988: Climate scientist James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate, stating that his research showed global warming had already measurably affected the climate. This testimony is considered a pivotal moment in raising public and political awareness of the issue."
Al Gore didn't release "An Inconvenient Truth" until 2006.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:20:40 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,175 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
