David Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for confirming that it was the most contemptible paper
> in British journalism that you used for your story. The rest
> of your reply is Little Englander, Disgusted of Essex, Tory
> hogwash.
>
> CHeerio!
You really are the most smug, insufferable man I have ever come across. Answer the questions or have the decency never to darken this forum again.
Mandela tribute farce
Re: Disgusted of Essex, Lad
Actually the more I consider your response, the more pathetic I find it. You would never let anyone get away with it so come on back up your claims... if you can. Put up David or forever shut up.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: No need, DJ, no need
Oh dear, well since you seem to be smarting, I will answer your questions. Not that they are particularly demanding questions.....
"I'm not disgusted at all, merely resigned."
I'm teasing you and you took the bait, as always.
"Er no why would it? It may have escaped your notice (I realise that you're quite short-sighted on certain topics) but both Mrs Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth were British ? one was the longest serving PM of the 20th Century and the other was the monarch's consort. As I have said before I don't understand why there is a statue of Mandela in Parliament Square. What did he do for this country to merit such an honour?"
You give the impression of being extraordinarily na?ve. Daily Mail ferociously Tory, is not going to criticise lengthy coverage of the death of the Queen Mother, the blitz, World War II and all that or the death of "demi-God" Maggie.
I find your little England attitude hilarious. Mandela's life and achievements are one of the great stories of our time and a lesson for how to deal with conflict situations, relevant throughout the world. Whilst objecting to any attempt to deify Mandela, I see absolutely no reason why his death and the events surrounding it should be reported in much detail.
"A complete non-sequitur. Utterly irrelevant."
As a seemingly avid reader of the Daily Mail online, you know that the Mail is vehemently anti-BBC and is a leading light in the Tory inspired, let's crush the Beeb campaign. They invariably hammer the BBC and never seem to praise it, despite the many, many compliments paid to the BBC as being the greatest state broadcaster in the world.
"Apart from the Gilligan farce, it gets slagged off far less by Labour than the Conservatives despite the misguided view by some on here that the BBC is biased towards the Conservatives."
Well I haven't kept a score but it is the role of Directors of Communications of whatever persuasion to bully the media into towing the line by whatever means necessary. And the "Gilligan farce" that you mention did end up with the Chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies's resignation.
"What other broadcasters do I reference?
You need to read your own sources so you understand which broadcasters were included. The story you link to, specifically mentions ITV and Sky. What I am saying is that the BBC has a huge range of media it provides output for: not only terrestrial TV, but all its radio stations, the World Service as well as its brilliant online service so it is no wonder that they have a lot more staff required than the likes of Sky and ITV.
"And please provide the sources disputing the original story."
I don't have to provide the sources. I have no idea whether the BBC provided three times as many staff, 2.666 times as many staff or whatever. I have explained why there is no comparison in terms of the range of media the BBC is producing for and that is why they would require more staff. And at 40p per day, fantastic value it is too.
That's your lot. I have wasted enough time on this one.
"I'm not disgusted at all, merely resigned."
I'm teasing you and you took the bait, as always.
"Er no why would it? It may have escaped your notice (I realise that you're quite short-sighted on certain topics) but both Mrs Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth were British ? one was the longest serving PM of the 20th Century and the other was the monarch's consort. As I have said before I don't understand why there is a statue of Mandela in Parliament Square. What did he do for this country to merit such an honour?"
You give the impression of being extraordinarily na?ve. Daily Mail ferociously Tory, is not going to criticise lengthy coverage of the death of the Queen Mother, the blitz, World War II and all that or the death of "demi-God" Maggie.
I find your little England attitude hilarious. Mandela's life and achievements are one of the great stories of our time and a lesson for how to deal with conflict situations, relevant throughout the world. Whilst objecting to any attempt to deify Mandela, I see absolutely no reason why his death and the events surrounding it should be reported in much detail.
"A complete non-sequitur. Utterly irrelevant."
As a seemingly avid reader of the Daily Mail online, you know that the Mail is vehemently anti-BBC and is a leading light in the Tory inspired, let's crush the Beeb campaign. They invariably hammer the BBC and never seem to praise it, despite the many, many compliments paid to the BBC as being the greatest state broadcaster in the world.
"Apart from the Gilligan farce, it gets slagged off far less by Labour than the Conservatives despite the misguided view by some on here that the BBC is biased towards the Conservatives."
Well I haven't kept a score but it is the role of Directors of Communications of whatever persuasion to bully the media into towing the line by whatever means necessary. And the "Gilligan farce" that you mention did end up with the Chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies's resignation.
"What other broadcasters do I reference?
You need to read your own sources so you understand which broadcasters were included. The story you link to, specifically mentions ITV and Sky. What I am saying is that the BBC has a huge range of media it provides output for: not only terrestrial TV, but all its radio stations, the World Service as well as its brilliant online service so it is no wonder that they have a lot more staff required than the likes of Sky and ITV.
"And please provide the sources disputing the original story."
I don't have to provide the sources. I have no idea whether the BBC provided three times as many staff, 2.666 times as many staff or whatever. I have explained why there is no comparison in terms of the range of media the BBC is producing for and that is why they would require more staff. And at 40p per day, fantastic value it is too.
That's your lot. I have wasted enough time on this one.
Re: Mandela tribute farce
Firstly, I am amazed at some of the bitter comments about Mandela on this forum. It's not a question of Mandela being a terrorist or a freedom fighter (I would count him as the latter) but the fact that he emerged from 27 years of imprisonment willing to forgive and forget and that there was a peaceful change of government in South Africa instead of the bloodbath many people thought would happen.
I think South Africa, whatever you think of it's government which has many problems and flaws to this day, is a miracle of stability compared to the rest of Africa and it's largely down to Mandela that this is the case.
Totting up the number of reporters the BBC sent down when they, as DJ above mentions they have numerous radio stations, TV channels and internet news channels and comparing them with the likes of Sky and ITV is ludicrous. God forbid we have to rely on the likes of Sky for our news!
I think South Africa, whatever you think of it's government which has many problems and flaws to this day, is a miracle of stability compared to the rest of Africa and it's largely down to Mandela that this is the case.
Totting up the number of reporters the BBC sent down when they, as DJ above mentions they have numerous radio stations, TV channels and internet news channels and comparing them with the likes of Sky and ITV is ludicrous. God forbid we have to rely on the likes of Sky for our news!
Check out Pantiespulleddown.com the Premier British Panty website.
Re: No need, DJ, no need
David Johnson wrote:
>
> "Er no why would it? It may have escaped your notice (I realise
> that you're quite short-sighted on certain topics) but both Mrs
> Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth were British ? one was the longest
> serving PM of the 20th Century and the other was the monarch's
> consort. As I have said before I don't understand why there is
> a statue of Mandela in Parliament Square. What did he do for
> this country to merit such an honour?"
>
> You give the impression of being extraordinarily na?ve. Daily
> Mail ferociously Tory, is not going to criticise lengthy
> coverage of the death of the Queen Mother, the blitz, World War
> II and all that or the death of "demi-God" Maggie.
> I find your little England attitude hilarious.
Why should it? With the possible exception of The Guardian and, to a lesser extent, the Daily Mirror, no British newspapers criticised the coverage of the death of either Lady Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth (she ceased being the Queen Mother on her death).
Mandela's life
> and achievements are one of the great stories of our time and a
> lesson for how to deal with conflict situations, relevant
> throughout the world. Whilst objecting to any attempt to deify
> Mandela, I see absolutely no reason why his death and the
> events surrounding it should be reported in much detail.
The current coverage of England's cricket tour of Australia has pictures provided by local television with English commentators on the spot. Could not the BBC/ITV/Sky have taken a local feed with commentary by Huw Edwards, David Dimbleby or whoever on the spot? Pooling is not unknown and saves money.
>
> "A complete non-sequitur. Utterly irrelevant."
> As a seemingly avid reader of the Daily Mail online, you know
> that the Mail is vehemently anti-BBC and is a leading light in
> the Tory inspired, let's crush the Beeb campaign. They
> invariably hammer the BBC and never seem to praise it, despite
> the many, many compliments paid to the BBC as being the
> greatest state broadcaster in the world.
Just because the Mail happens to be anti-BBC, it doesn't mean that I am. Indeed I echoed (with a caveat) your comment Long Live the BBC. Whether the BBC is the greatest state broadcaster in the world or not (I would suggest it probably doesn't have that much competition) is irrelevant to the huge amounts of unnecessary money it spends.
>
> "Apart from the Gilligan farce, it gets slagged off far less by
> Labour than the Conservatives despite the misguided view by
> some on here that the BBC is biased towards the Conservatives."
>
> Well I haven't kept a score but it is the role of Directors of
> Communications of whatever persuasion to bully the media into
> towing the line by whatever means necessary. And the "Gilligan
> farce" that you mention did end up with the Chairman of the
> BBC, Gavyn Davies's resignation.
>
Yes a spat in the family, Gavyn Davies being married to Sue Nye who worked for Gordon Brown and got the blame for introducing him to that "bigoted woman".
> "What other broadcasters do I reference?
>
> You need to read your own sources so you understand which
> broadcasters were included. The story you link to,
> specifically mentions ITV and Sky. What I am saying is that
> the BBC has a huge range of media it provides output for: not
> only terrestrial TV, but all its radio stations, the World
> Service as well as its brilliant online service so it is no
> wonder that they have a lot more staff required than the likes
> of Sky and ITV.
I didn't read the story merely pasted the headline here. The point I made was about the BBC not Sky or ITV neither which are funded by a poll tax non-payment of which can result in a prison sentence. I watch ITV but don't subscribe to Sky (or Virgin). You don't have to watch the BBC or listen to radio or look at its website but you still have to pay for it. Was it coverage value for money? No.
>
> "And please provide the sources disputing the original story."
>
> I don't have to provide the sources. I have no idea whether
> the BBC provided three times as many staff, 2.666 times as many
> staff or whatever. I have explained why there is no comparison
> in terms of the range of media the BBC is producing for and
> that is why they would require more staff. And at 40p per day,
> fantastic value it is too.
So you can deny something because it's MailOnline but do not have to say where your facts come from. You wouldn't allow anyone to get away with that.
>
> That's your lot. I have wasted enough time on this one.
>
> "Er no why would it? It may have escaped your notice (I realise
> that you're quite short-sighted on certain topics) but both Mrs
> Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth were British ? one was the longest
> serving PM of the 20th Century and the other was the monarch's
> consort. As I have said before I don't understand why there is
> a statue of Mandela in Parliament Square. What did he do for
> this country to merit such an honour?"
>
> You give the impression of being extraordinarily na?ve. Daily
> Mail ferociously Tory, is not going to criticise lengthy
> coverage of the death of the Queen Mother, the blitz, World War
> II and all that or the death of "demi-God" Maggie.
> I find your little England attitude hilarious.
Why should it? With the possible exception of The Guardian and, to a lesser extent, the Daily Mirror, no British newspapers criticised the coverage of the death of either Lady Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth (she ceased being the Queen Mother on her death).
Mandela's life
> and achievements are one of the great stories of our time and a
> lesson for how to deal with conflict situations, relevant
> throughout the world. Whilst objecting to any attempt to deify
> Mandela, I see absolutely no reason why his death and the
> events surrounding it should be reported in much detail.
The current coverage of England's cricket tour of Australia has pictures provided by local television with English commentators on the spot. Could not the BBC/ITV/Sky have taken a local feed with commentary by Huw Edwards, David Dimbleby or whoever on the spot? Pooling is not unknown and saves money.
>
> "A complete non-sequitur. Utterly irrelevant."
> As a seemingly avid reader of the Daily Mail online, you know
> that the Mail is vehemently anti-BBC and is a leading light in
> the Tory inspired, let's crush the Beeb campaign. They
> invariably hammer the BBC and never seem to praise it, despite
> the many, many compliments paid to the BBC as being the
> greatest state broadcaster in the world.
Just because the Mail happens to be anti-BBC, it doesn't mean that I am. Indeed I echoed (with a caveat) your comment Long Live the BBC. Whether the BBC is the greatest state broadcaster in the world or not (I would suggest it probably doesn't have that much competition) is irrelevant to the huge amounts of unnecessary money it spends.
>
> "Apart from the Gilligan farce, it gets slagged off far less by
> Labour than the Conservatives despite the misguided view by
> some on here that the BBC is biased towards the Conservatives."
>
> Well I haven't kept a score but it is the role of Directors of
> Communications of whatever persuasion to bully the media into
> towing the line by whatever means necessary. And the "Gilligan
> farce" that you mention did end up with the Chairman of the
> BBC, Gavyn Davies's resignation.
>
Yes a spat in the family, Gavyn Davies being married to Sue Nye who worked for Gordon Brown and got the blame for introducing him to that "bigoted woman".
> "What other broadcasters do I reference?
>
> You need to read your own sources so you understand which
> broadcasters were included. The story you link to,
> specifically mentions ITV and Sky. What I am saying is that
> the BBC has a huge range of media it provides output for: not
> only terrestrial TV, but all its radio stations, the World
> Service as well as its brilliant online service so it is no
> wonder that they have a lot more staff required than the likes
> of Sky and ITV.
I didn't read the story merely pasted the headline here. The point I made was about the BBC not Sky or ITV neither which are funded by a poll tax non-payment of which can result in a prison sentence. I watch ITV but don't subscribe to Sky (or Virgin). You don't have to watch the BBC or listen to radio or look at its website but you still have to pay for it. Was it coverage value for money? No.
>
> "And please provide the sources disputing the original story."
>
> I don't have to provide the sources. I have no idea whether
> the BBC provided three times as many staff, 2.666 times as many
> staff or whatever. I have explained why there is no comparison
> in terms of the range of media the BBC is producing for and
> that is why they would require more staff. And at 40p per day,
> fantastic value it is too.
So you can deny something because it's MailOnline but do not have to say where your facts come from. You wouldn't allow anyone to get away with that.
>
> That's your lot. I have wasted enough time on this one.
Re: Mandela tribute farce
I wonder how many people the BBC would have to send to South Africa if they were only producing content for the UK, licence fee paying audience?
The problem is now they have to deliver all this content for the World Service as well as the UK audience.
I recall that until David, George and their Bullingdon Club mates took power in 2010, the BBC World Service was funded by the government.
One of the first acts of George was to remove government funding for the World Service and transfer the costs on to the license payer.
The impact of this was it reduced public spending commitments whilst at the same time giving the BBC a kicking because the BBC then had to do more with no more money.
The license fee is now being used to replace funding that used to come from the tax payer.
Or as the Daily Mail should report it ?the license fee is now just another stealth tax to fund things that the government should be paying for?.
The problem is now they have to deliver all this content for the World Service as well as the UK audience.
I recall that until David, George and their Bullingdon Club mates took power in 2010, the BBC World Service was funded by the government.
One of the first acts of George was to remove government funding for the World Service and transfer the costs on to the license payer.
The impact of this was it reduced public spending commitments whilst at the same time giving the BBC a kicking because the BBC then had to do more with no more money.
The license fee is now being used to replace funding that used to come from the tax payer.
Or as the Daily Mail should report it ?the license fee is now just another stealth tax to fund things that the government should be paying for?.
Re: Mandela tribute farce
spider wrote:
> I wonder how many people the BBC would have to send to South
> Africa if they were only producing content for the UK, licence
> fee paying audience?
The same I guess. A jolly at the public expense is never short of volunteers.
> I wonder how many people the BBC would have to send to South
> Africa if they were only producing content for the UK, licence
> fee paying audience?
The same I guess. A jolly at the public expense is never short of volunteers.
Re: Mandela tribute farce
My objection is that my licence money is being spent so that people in every other country in the World can get their news and entertainment at my expense.
If the UK government want to provide everyone in the World with BBC produced entertainment and news let the government pay for it.
Then I can start objecting to the number of people the BBC send overseas to cover events like this.
If the UK government want to provide everyone in the World with BBC produced entertainment and news let the government pay for it.
Then I can start objecting to the number of people the BBC send overseas to cover events like this.
Re: Mandela tribute farce
spider wrote:
> My objection is that my licence money is being spent so that
> people in every other country in the World can get their news
> and entertainment at my expense.
Not true.
The BBC are still receiving funding for the World Service this year. The funding is set to end on 31 March 2014.
> My objection is that my licence money is being spent so that
> people in every other country in the World can get their news
> and entertainment at my expense.
Not true.
The BBC are still receiving funding for the World Service this year. The funding is set to end on 31 March 2014.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>