# Save your BBC



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

38 Degrees are running a campaign to save the BBC from being starved of cash through cuts, split up and fed to likes of Murdoch's media empire.

We've seen the BBC pull out of Formula 1 this week to save costs. At least that went to channel 4 but what's next?

If like me you value BBC TV and Radio - the huge variety and quality of its output, its independence from government (every party in power complains it's biased - that tells me it achieves a balance) and the fact that it's independently funded on the nation's behalf by direct licence fee - which was at one point estimated to be 1/3 of the cost of funding programme production by commercial TV advertising - where the advertising agencies and middle men all take their percentage profit before we end up paying the bill in the extra cost added to products and services we buy. Even try comparing the cost of a fat cat mogul empire funded by a more obvious Sky subscription to the BBC and you'll see what a fantastic bargain we get with the BBC.

Lord Reith fought off the politicians' attempts to influence the BBC, while offering the British people programmes to educate, inform and entertain. He's not with us now - now it's up to us to keep it safe.

So speak out, sign the petition and share the word!

https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... ct-our-bbc


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Done and shared!

Please all do the same unless you want Crap TV


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

What exactly is it your watching on BBC??


----------



## barry_m2 (Jun 29, 2015)

Danny1 said:


> What exactly is it your watching on BBC??


You know, I read the posts above this morning and thought exactly the same thing. The BBC is just as bad, if not worse, than most of the others.

So from my point of view, unless they start putting on better programmes and content, both on radio and TV, then I certainly won't be signing anything.


----------



## Warranty_Void (Aug 12, 2014)

Makes me laugh the BBC does casualty, eastenders, dancing on ice and all the other rubbish. When Netflix can do Marco Polo, house of Cards, orange is the new black, gothem, dare devil, Jessica Jones ect ect.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Danny1 said:


> What exactly is it your watching on BBC??


I've just watched this which was excellent and so well cast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... army-story

I watched this a week or so ago which I thought was very good:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... -episode-1

I've been a fan of this since childhood:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... eaven-sent

Programmes that have impressed me in the past? Well there was Jamaica Inn which I heard about on the news because of "mumbling" but I thought not quite knowing what Joss was saying only added to the character - so glad I watched that - it was gripping, so well filmed and acted and scared my daughter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01xc6lm 





I could spend all night listing classics like Porridge, Monty Python, Fauly Towers, Steptoe, Attenborough, I Claudius, The History Man, Boys from the Black Stuff, Shooting the Past, Hitch Hikers Guide, Top Gear etc etc.... Then there's its world respected News service with correspondents throughout the world... (I love From our own Correspondent on the radio).

I tend not to watch much TV or rather I am very selective these days. Occasionally I'll just randomly scan about to see if something's interesting but I may not have it on for days. I usually watch things I know will likely be good or things that take my interest like Horizon or a documentary or drama about a particular subject or story.

I wouldn't consider paying extra for TV programmes such as through Netflix which would cost the best part of the licence fee again or Sky which far exceeds it. I wouldn't be able to justify spending so much time in front of the TV to in turn justify the extra cost of such a facility. There are already far more "free" channels than I can deal with and most of it I would not want to watch anyway as I've got other things to do.

I spend more time having Radio 4 on in the background or some of the collection on Radio 4 Extra - that's something I'd really miss as it's such a rich output.

I listened to this the other day by Ray Bradbury:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qnjdj#play

This episode of Cabin Pressure is hilarious:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ptztf

... as has been Count Arthur Strong which was adapted to TV:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007728p#play

I'm sorry I haven't a clue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnw ... des/player

I'm thinking of listening to this adaptation of the Woman in Black:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jlpk

Music, how about Late Junction?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tp52

Just a few things on the BBC listed above but then there's its website and a gateway into far more on the iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4extra/programmes/a-z

A bargain like I say and it's British and not a US designer box set marketing vehicle. It's public service broadcasting as it should be which is to my mind is a much better model.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Warranty_Void said:


> Makes me laugh the BBC does casualty, eastenders, dancing on ice and all the other rubbish. When Netflix can do Marco Polo, house of Cards, orange is the new black, gothem, dare devil, Jessica Jones ect ect.


Well I take it you don't like Casualty, Eastenders etc but you do like House of Cards, Marco Polo etc?

That perfectly illustrates why the BBC should remain independent. For me the likes of Peaky Blinders, Dr Foster and countless others are prime examples of home-grown entertainment that sit side-by-side with the more run-of-the-mill titles you mention. If you look at the output of some of the more obscure BBC channels you may find others that appeal to a smaller audience initially but may go mainstream in the future.

I have nothing against Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. They all provide a service which anyone can choose to pay for - or not. I qualify for Amazon Prime free and never use it. But I will do when Jeremy Clarkson gets his act together!

All I hope is the BBC isn't forced to go the route of ITV. Now that really is dumbed down TV. With a few notable exceptions, their output is truly awful.


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

At the end of the day if they had the viewers they wouldnt need to make the cuts they are, they must be failing to show the TV shows the majority want to watch?? Nearly everything I watch is on Sky, I dont really see why I should pay a TV licence fee and pay for Sky, but I guess its just the way it is. It takes money to make money and for me the BBC dont want to bother, or cant afford to pay for all the top sporting events, so it doesnt matter to me personally if the BBC went. I am now having the same problem with Sky, they couldnt be bothered to pay for the Champions league and now BT has it, hence I will probably end up swapping to Virgin to get BT for free....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

BBC needs to become fully independent and not be paid for by tax payers.
The way people consume services has changed forever, but just like the other services talked about you should have a option to opt out.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

What like tax and NI contributions? It would be a bit like saying I have private health so why should I pay for the NHS? This is for a public good - public service broadcasting accountable to the people rather than commercial or government interests or paying for shareholders profits or footballers to change their cars every week.

The one thing that has been constant longest is the licence fee direct funding model which has lasted since 1945. ITV started in 1955 - it was then that a rival model of funding started not now - but the two have existed together all this time. Sky started in 1990 as a subscription service mainly carried by cornering the market on football and taking much of it away from the general public and giving them the "choice" to pay extra to see what was free before hand.

I'd rather tidy my sock draw than watch football but then that's my personal choice. It's no good mixing the argument about a funding model with individual programme watching preferences - that misses the point - you've got to take a step back and view a wider perspective for a greater good and that I would argue is best served as public service by the most efficient form of direct funding where we are the shareholders - not other commercial organisations all taking a cut.

Sky costs a darn site more than the BBC and people would complain if Sky didn't carry the BBC. To be more comparative the choice should be no BBC on Sky but that really isn't the issue. If there was no licence fee the BBC would just be forced to be another ITV (where the true cost of programme making to us is largely hidden in multi tiered profit taking) or more likely the BBC would be diminished and subsumed by the likes of Murdoch's media empire and we'd all be the poorer for that in my opinion.

This appeal is to those who value the BBC and all it does and how it is efficiently and directly funded in trust on the Nation's behalf for the viewers and listeners. An appeal to protect it and its ideals.


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

The BBC may be independent from government but is it independent from the EU? With the funding they get from the EU it does make me think whether they are truly unbiased.

I would like to have a choice, and that choice is whether to pay for a licence or not. The way I see it, it's a fee you have to pay to own a TV, and the way they mercilessly pursue people for the licence fee is criminal.

When I was building my house I was receiving threatening letters from them before the walls were even complete. The house didn't even have a roof on it and I was getting letters left at the building site.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

fut1a said:


> When I was building my house I was receiving threatening letters from them before the walls were even complete. The house didn't even have a roof on it and I was getting letters left at the building site.


Had you recently purchased a new TV? All retailers automatically inform the licensing authority of purchases.

This whole argument over having a choice whether to pay the licence or not is irrelevant. You are buying a licence to own a device capable of receiving live TV broadcasts not to watch or listen to BBC output.

It's a bit like buying a car and expecting not to pay the Road Fund Licence by promising only to drive on private roads.

Personally I wouldn't buy Sky out of principle. I did have it once to watch F1 but most of the other output from that organisation was regurgitated trash with precious little quality.

Government wants more accountability simply to control the BBC's voice. It wants more control because it understands that public opinion can be easily swayed and sees the BBC as politically biased against it. I think there is an element of truth in that but to be denied a different point of view because they believe my opinion can be bought so easily is pretty insulting to my intelligence.


----------



## StratMan (Nov 23, 2015)

The mere fact that the BBC takes money from the EU means it's not impartial and is also breaking it's Royal Charter (not to take funds from a political organisation).

In this modern digital age "we" don't need a public broadcaster funded by a tv tax, all information you could possibly require is available on the internet via various authorities/vendors websites. I certainly don't need to pay a hundred odd quid a year to have the lefty crap that permeates all their products lightly brainwashing me and mine.

I must say I'm close to being able to cancel my tv license, the only thing we (well, Mrs.Stratman) watch on live broadcast is Jeremy bloody Kyle (Aaaargh! *runs out of room and bangs head against wall*)-she actually records it!. Once the Mrs is weened off that I'll be dumping it.
There's a form on the tv licensing website that allows you to cancel your lic. (provided you don't intend to use the tv for receiving LIVE broadcast).

The tv lic. will have to change eventually though, as someone said earlier -the way we watch tv has changed forever.
It's really only a concern for us over a certain vintage that the tv lic. is an issue, and the way we "consume" our video entertainment. None of the kids I know (family and friends) actually sit down and watch the box, they're watching youtube or catchup or pbay downloads -anything but what's on humblevision - and that's the longterm problem for the beeb/tv lic.-these people won't need a license when it's their time to pay bills.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

StratMan said:


> I must say I'm close to being able to cancel my tv license, the only thing we (well, Mrs.Stratman) watch on live broadcast is Jeremy bloody Kyle (Aaaargh! *runs out of room and bangs head against wall*)-she actually records it!. Once the Mrs is weened off that I'll be dumping it.


Thankfully that pile of shite is not on the Beeb and is also a prime example of the type of crap we'll all be subjected to without the likes of the BBC providing something intellectually stimulating or dare I say it, educational.


----------



## StratMan (Nov 23, 2015)

rustyintegrale said:


> StratMan said:
> 
> 
> > .


It IS unadulterated mind rot, but the point I was making is that it's watched as a live broadcast (or recorded from a live broadcast) and a tv lic is therefore required.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

fut1a said:


> The BBC may be independent from government but is it independent from the EU? With the funding they get from the EU it does make me think whether they are truly unbiased.
> 
> I would like to have a choice, and that choice is whether to pay for a licence or not. The way I see it, it's a fee you have to pay to own a TV, and the way they mercilessly pursue people for the licence fee is criminal.
> 
> When I was building my house I was receiving threatening letters from them before the walls were even complete. The house didn't even have a roof on it and I was getting letters left at the building site.


We're in danger of losing perspective and purpose here. Firstly, as Rich has said the licence is to operate a TV set to receive (or record) _live_ TV. It's a hypothecated tax and also pays for S4C programming, BBC World Service and BBC monitoring at Caversham. The remainder goes to the BBC to run its services free from commercial advertisements. Incidentally you could arguably say that the BBC have been losing out to people watching _delayed_ TV on computers and other devices but 96% of UK households are recorded as having a TV.

The BBC operates from an annual budget of around £4.7 billion. There have been attempts by UKIP and others to discredit the BBC over its reporting of the EU debate with Nigel Farage saying that the BBC should have the EU flag in its logo and pointing to EU funding reported in the Telegraph (tory newspaper) that EU grants of £2 million (0.04% of the 4.7 bn) were received by the BBC over three years (actually for scientific research). UKIP itself received £1.5 million from the EU.

All very nitpicking and hypocritical. The BBC said in a statement, "_BBC News protects its impartiality by not permitting any external funding, which includes EU grants. Our Annual Report discloses any income received from grants covering a variety of areas, of which, a very small proportion comes from the EU for non-news research and development projects"._

It depends who you trust and what their interests are in motivation. Political parties, media moguls or BBC?

The idea that "we" will save money by scrapping the licence fee is utterly wrong I'd argue for the reasons I've already mentioned. We will pay dearly through advertising and suffer a loss of quality and service in the process. No doubt some will say advertising doesn't influence them ... the evidence speaks otherwise.


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

You seem to have a very strong view on this John, why not make a poll on here? Who cares if BBC goes or stays? It wouldnt bother me if it went and I wouldnt be losing anything, infact, if the licence fee went I would gain! If they scrapped the licence fee for all and just made a subscription to BBC would you pay it?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Danny1 said:


> You seem to have a very strong view on this John, why not make a poll on here? Who cares if BBC goes or stays? It wouldnt bother me if it went and I wouldnt be losing anything, infact, if the licence fee went I would gain! If they scrapped the licence fee for all and just made a subscription to BBC would you pay it?


In reverse order:

Yes and I already do effectively as funding the BBC is mainly what it's used for.

Just because you would not pay a licence fee if it was scrapped doesn't mean you'd save. Think about what would happen. If the BBC took advertising to pay for programming we would all pay for it through advertising costs being added to products and services. If the BBC simply disappeared other TV programme providers would fill the gap and who would pay for that? Same thing.

If say there was no change to programme provision as a result of it all going commercial then at best you may hope that the cost doesn't rise but as I've already pointed out - indirect funding through advertising is less efficient than direct funding through tax. So it would cost everyone more. In fact it would likely get worse because with more advertising time becoming available the price that could be charged would likely fall which would force programme budget cuts and lower quality.

If the BBC channels went dead and stayed dead (extremely unlikely!) then we'd save the cost of the licence fee just from that initially but then you'd likely find that without the BBC competition for viewers the cost of TV advertising placement with ITV and Sky would rise because the value of the captive market and increased viewing share would increase. So prices in the shops and would rise to cover it.

Sounds a bad idea to me to lose a commercial free BBC. I don't want commercials anyway.

As for the poll idea. I could start one for fun but I don't see what purpose it would serve here. The idea was to alert people to the issue and the off site petition. If people want to save the BBC they can sign the petition and tell others. A poll here wouldn't change things but if the thread provides a good read and makes people think about the consequences then that makes it worthwhile. So thanks to you and everyone else for your contribution to the discussion


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

But the BBC isn't independent at all. It has its own left wing agenda and as such it's no different to political parties or media moguls - it all depends who's opinion you want to listen to... I certainly don't like the BBCs news or investigative coverage. 
I would certainly vote to end the BBCs monopoly and would not lament in any shape of form its passing with the exception of Match of the Day, and the now defunct Top Gear. BBC is overrun by the PC brigade and inept management. Why do we have a BBC asian network, isn't that counter to the BBC fundamental Multicultural ideologies and policies ?

Also regards the NHS and private insurance, i think there's a very good argument to saying you should be able to opt out of paying NI. As long as the NHS is paid by the private insurance company you are with should you consume services, be that ambulances rides or X-rays (at the going rate). If you elect to have services in a private hospital, then they should also be paid at their given rate from the same insurance.

We have a very twisted view of what the NHS is for these days, it needs to return to it's original principles and not be everything to all men - thats just not sustainable.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> But the BBC isn't independent at all. It has its own left wing agenda and as such it's no different to political parties or media moguls - it all depends who's opinion you want to listen to... I certainly don't like the BBCs news or investigative coverage.
> I would certainly vote to end the BBCs monopoly and would not lament in any shape of form its passing with the exception of Match of the Day, and the now defunct Top Gear. BBC is overrun by the PC brigade and inept management. Why do we have a BBC asian network, isn't that counter to the BBC fundamental Multicultural ideologies and policies ?


Exactly my thoughts.

Why do we need a BBC World Service, we no longer rule the world and have not done so for around 50 years. IMO the news is no longer "the Oracle" is very biased to a political agenda. If you really want to know what is going on the world then you are probably better watching Al-Jazera which is where you will find some of the best ex BBC and ITV reporters.

The BBC has become a leviathan, unaccountable which has long since lost it's way in Political Correctness and every other lovie minority agenda.


----------



## StratMan (Nov 23, 2015)

mighTy Tee said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want to know what is going on the world then you are probably better watching Al-Jazera.


I read Guido a lot, it's pretty funny -espcially their (en-masse) trolling sorties to labourlist.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Hardly ever watch it these days.

Couple of nights ago the 'highlight' on 2 was a couple of shows about Ronnie Corbett. He was the unfunny one in two Ronnies and really sad that was the best they could do for peak time viewing


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Shug750S said:


> Hardly ever watch it these days.
> 
> Couple of nights ago the 'highlight' on 2 was a couple of shows about Ronnie Corbett. He was the unfunny one in two Ronnies and really sad that was the best they could do for peak time viewing


I'm watching a repeat of this now :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The government public consultation on the future of the BBC has been published and the result is overwhelming support for the BBC and generally opinion that there's no need to meddle with it. People are generally happy with the BBC. The full consultation report can be found here:

Department for Culture, Media and Sport: BBC Charter Review Public Consultation: Summary of Responses:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ponses.pdf

Are you surprised you've not heard about this? It was announced in one tweet by John Whittingdale, the government minister in charge of the BBC in between other announcements apparently. A number of people are drawing inferences with the reports of connections between government and Murdoch:

The Guardian: Cameron, Osborne and Murdoch back together at mogul's Christmas knees-up
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/d ... s-knees-up

You may think that's a load of hooey but there seems no harm in alerting your MP if you feel the need to underline public support for the BBC and make sure the report is drawn to their attention. Apparently it takes as little as two minutes:
https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/683

Nearly up to 400 thousand signatories for the petition now:
https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... ct-our-bbc


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

John-H said:


> You may think that's a load of hooey but there seems no harm in alerting your MP if you feel the need to underline public support for the BBC and make sure the report is drawn to their attention. Apparently it takes as little as two minutes:
> https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/683


Done and shared publicly on Facebook.

Everyone who loves the BBC should do the same.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

All those that have the foresight to trust the BBC should sign this...

https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... nt-control


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Signed. Things are moving on. Apparently the latest moves just announced are to give control to the government via controllers appointed by them which will result in a loss of independence to the BBC with power to decide programmes and news coverage. There's an emergency petition to keep the BBC independent to be delivered before Sunday:

https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... nt-control


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

John-H said:


> Signed. Things are moving on. Apparently the latest moves just announced are to give control to the government via controllers appointed by them which will result in a loss of independence to the BBC with power to decide programmes and news coverage. There's an emergency petition to keep the BBC independent to be delivered before Sunday:
> 
> https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campa ... nt-control


Same one John!


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Yes, I'm just underlining as you beat me to it :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

John-H said:


> Yes, I'm just underlining as you beat me to it :wink:


I can't believe how complacent people can be over this.

At very least this is about freedom of speech, people. Are we not dictated to, overseen and told what to do enough already?!

Please add your signature if you value independence.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I was hoping they'd closed down this left wing propaganda station by now.
Whoever promises to close it down, scrap or completely reform it and make it self-funding would get my vote at the next election.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> I was hoping they'd closed down this left wing propaganda station by now.
> Whoever promises to close it down, scrap or completely reform it and make it self-funding would get my vote at the next election.


Damn, that rules me out then...


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Whether you believe in catastrophic man made global warming or not, *(I DO NOT)* this left wing Green biased BBC should not be allowed to stifle debate by banning opposing views on *anything*. They rely on this climate change propaganda continuing to fund their pension scheme, they also receive large sums of cash from the EU to keep the flawed hypothesis alive.

The only evidence to support this unproven hypothesis are computer models, ie GIGO, yet the BBC stifle any opposing view.

One of the reasons for this is that on every occasion this subject has been publicly debated the skeptical proposition has prevailed.

I for one would get rid of the BBC in it`s present form, it`s a propaganda station for the left and greens, Mark my words, it will do a hatchet job on the coming EU referendum the nearer we get to the vote.

This climate change junk science has made the costs of UK production of power the highest in Europe, almost put the lights out last winter and may yet destroy our steel industry, it`s encouraged millions of diesel cars onto the roads producing unheard of levels of the killer gas NOX, CO2 in submarines reaches 1200ppm 3 times atmospheric yet not one person has ever been harmed because of it, NOX on the other hand has killed and is still killing millions yet the BBC banns any discussion relating to this subject. Nox and CO2 are linked in the fact that diesel cars would never have been acceptable in such large numbers had CO2 not been wrongly considered as dangerous, in fact the lack of it would end life as we know it.

The increased levels of CO2 are probably caused by out gassing from the oceans as the planet warms from the ending of the Little iceage around 1860 plus slight help from CO2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rming.html

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... mate-bias/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12608157

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... iesel.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... rming.html


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

bobclive22 said:


> ...yet the BBC banns any discussion relating to this subject.


The BBC bans discussion on which subject?


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

The BBC bans discussion on which subject?

Global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption or aka anything else the activists can name it. When I refer to discussions I mean a balanced discussion between scientists or anyone knowledgeable in the subject who have different opinions based on science not belief, not a discussion between true believers who hold the consensus view.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

bobclive22 said:


> The BBC bans discussion on which subject?
> 
> Global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption or aka anything else the activists can name it. When I refer to discussions I mean a balanced discussion between scientists or anyone knowledgeable in the subject who have different opinions based on science not belief, not a discussion between true believers who hold the consensus view.


But isn't one of your links above a BBC page where someone (presumably someone whose opinion you trust, otherwise why would you provide the link) counters the consensus view?


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

But isn't one of your links above a BBC page where someone (presumably someone whose opinion you trust, otherwise why would you provide the link) counters the consensus view?

5 Years ago.

You will find NO balanced discussion on the subject of climate change aired on the BBC, only the consensus view is allowed, you don`t do science by consensus. Man made climate change is considered by the majority our green politicians to be the most dangerous threat to human kind. Billions have been thrown at it yet no intrinsic evidence has ever been found to back it up, the only evidence the consensus has is from climate models (computer programs), climate is probably the most complex phenomenon in existence yet the consensus scientists believe they have A complete understanding and can transfer this to their models. The met office even with their very latest £97 million super computer can`t even predict weather for a week how do they expect to predict climate in 100 years. Why is the BBC is so afraid to test this hypothesis on air I wonder.

THIS IS CONSENSUS SCIENCE and the BBC is promoting it by not allowing dissenting views to be aired.

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[8] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[8] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."[8][9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[8] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[

Another one is the flawed 7 Countries study from the 60`s

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0760481486
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... ohn-yudkin
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... th-charity


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

It's not 'consensus science', it's just science. Concensus is a term that is used to describe (accurately or not) the state of the scientific opinion, but that doesn't change the underlying science that drives that opinion.

I hope you also understand that 'balanced discussion' is a very subjective term. For example, I would expect the BBC to devote very little time to the discussion of UFOs from the point of view that they're alien spacecraft, because this is a minority view with very little scientific evidence to back it up. So in that example, it would not be 'balanced' to give equal importance to all viewpoints.

So, as long as 'man made climate change' is the prevailing theory, supported by a large body of evidence (why you think computer models don't count as evidence, I have no idea) and the vast majority of scientists, I think it's reasonable for the BBC to report it accordingly.

I suspect though, that if the BBC completely reversed its position and only reported climate change stories that agreed with your viewpoint, you wouldn't have any issue with their bias.


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

I take it you are a true believer, it is not about what I believe it`s about an honest discussion with all real world evidence put before you, I am totally open minded, that`s why I am skeptical, you have I am sure heard the term GIGO, the accuracy of the computer models is absolutely reliant on the data input into that model. You then test that model run against real world data. 
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.* Albert Einstein*

The overriding proof of man made global warming and agreed by both warmers and skeptic`s is the formation of a hot spot in the upper troposphere, there is none.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new ... l-hotspot/

Please read this in it`s entirety, the whole edifice was based on consensus science as is global warming theory.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016 ... ohn-yudkin


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think if you want to discuss global warming itself you should probably start a new thread. And, being a car forum, you'll probably have lots of people on your side (not that you have a side, of course. You're open minded).

As for the BBC I still think they're reporting it in a balanced way given the weight of evidence and the overall position of the scientific community. If that changed I would be disappointed if the BBCs reporting didnt reflect that.


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

_I think if you want to discuss global warming itself _
_
As for the BBC I still think they're reporting it in a balanced way given the weight of evidence _* FROM CLIMATE MODELS.*

Man made global warming is an example, I sighted it because of it`s importance and the fact that it is almost entirely funded out of our taxes, I want to know if it is true and for that to happen I need to here both sides, I want to know why some of the most eminent scientists regard it as rubbish, the BBC will not allow that to happen.

"I am ashamed of what climate science has become today." The science "community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed."

The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community." The global warming establishment "has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than- ... ms/5403284

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... al_warming


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Have a look at the graph in your Wikipedia link. Now, whilst there are indeed a number of scientists who don't believe that humans are significantly responsible for observed global warming, they are vastly outnumbered. Based on this, how would you define a 'balanced' approach by the BBC?


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

_Whilst there are indeed a number of scientists who don't believe that humans are significantly responsible for observed global warming, they are vastly outnumbered._

Look at the links below and the quality of the scientists within those links, especially take the time to view the video interview with one of the finest minds on the planet, *Freeman Dyson*, If you don`t have a closed mind watch both video`s in their entirety.





 *(Freeman Dyson)*

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax 





http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... fa5d01171b
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualific ... igners.php
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-tuttle
http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-r ... -big-scam/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/ ... l-warming/
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/n ... -58-years/


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

You've accidentally posted this in the BBC thread again instead of the global warming thread.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Global warming is certainly off topic. Using it as a so called example of biased BBC reporting has a very tenuous connection to the original thread topic too.

On that point incidentally, it wasn't very long ago that the BBC was being accused, on its own feedback programme, of giving too much exposure to deniers of man-made climate change - accused of a mistaken effort to present both sides of the argument in balance but which ran the risk that it didn't emphasise that the deniers really wete a minority view and the BBC should instead reflect the majority view.

Seems they can't win - just like being called left wing by the right and right wing by the left - appears to me the balance is about right.

The majority view after the 
public consultation was very positive for the BBC too.


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

_You've accidentally posted this in the BBC thread again instead of the global warming thread. _

*No I have not,* according to Barack Obama *global warming is the greatest threat to future generations,* I have shown that some of the worlds *greatest scientists disagree *yet the BBC *will not *allow those skeptical opinions to be aired.

Global warming is the one subject that clearly shows how* blatantly biased the BBC is.
*
I am not discussing global warming *as you well know*, the video`s and links are there to indicate how strong the dissenting voices are on this subject and shows that the science is nowhere near settled.[/b]


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

_Global warming is certainly off topic. Using it as a so called example of biased BBC reporting has a very tenuous connection to the original thread topic too._

_On its own feedback programme, of giving too much exposure to deniers of man-made climate change_

Give an example of that exposusure, probably just a comment from the Greens.

*DENIERS* Well that term shows exactly what camp your in, that term is linked to a denier of the holocaust, it is the lowest insult you can throw at anyone, this was an interesting post but you have just screwed it with that comment, I`m gone.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

bobclive22 said:


> _You've accidentally posted this in the BBC thread again instead of the global warming thread. _
> 
> *No I have not,* according to Barack Obama *global warming is the greatest threat to future generations,* I have shown that some of the worlds *greatest scientists disagree *yet the BBC *will not *allow those skeptical opinions to be aired.
> 
> ...


Your links don't prove anything though. They simply show that dissenting voices exist, which is hardly in dispute and isn't a reason for the BBC to suddenly give more weight to their argument than is appropriate given the overwhelming scientific agreement.

I would also recommend you look at the 'vintage' of articles you read. Remember that 'climategate' happened in, I think, 2009. So, there are a great many articles dated around 2009-2010 that are naturally positioned against man-made climate change because there was a huge amount of controversy at the time. But things have changed a massive amount since then, both in terms of scientific understanding and, importantly, openness of data and calculations.

Not that you're discussing it anymore, because John used a completely inoffensive word that has no 'connections' to holocaust deniers, other than being in the same sentence.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

bobclive22 said:


> _Global warming is certainly off topic. Using it as a so called example of biased BBC reporting has a very tenuous connection to the original thread topic too._
> 
> _On its own feedback programme, of giving too much exposure to deniers of man-made climate change_
> 
> Give an example of that exposusure, probably just a comment from the Greens.


Point of view Radio4, the Today programme, PM - multiple programmes at the time and more than once, discussed many times. "Blatantly biased"? "BBC will not allow those skeptical opinions to be aired." Well apparently that's not the case is it? :roll:



bobclive22 said:


> *DENIERS* Well that term shows exactly what camp your in, that term is linked to a denier of the holocaust, it is the lowest insult you can throw at anyone, this was an interesting post but you have just screwed it with that comment, I`m gone.


I spoke only of the subject of bias at the BBC and mentioned that (and you agree) the mainstream view is man-made global warming. I didn't say which view of the cause of global warming I supported yet you seem to conclude from what I wrote that I have shown exactly what my view is.

Remarkable. I think that exemplifies a tenancy to read into something, that, which is not there.


----------



## bobclive22 (Apr 5, 2010)

By By, if you can`t win an argument change the subject.

If you'd asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the *acid brought on by too much stress*. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was *caused by a bacteria*. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. *The "consensus" was wrong.*'


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

bobclive22 said:


> By By, if you can`t win an argument change the subject.
> 
> If you'd asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the *acid brought on by too much stress*. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was *caused by a bacteria*. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. *The "consensus" was wrong.*'


What? :lol: You back then? Excuse me if I've misunderstood you but I started this thread on the subject of saving the BBC in the face of apparent thteats to break it up or stifle it.

As has been pointed out you've been hijacking the thread off topic on the subject of climate change.

Ot did you mean you are yet again hijacking the thread off on a new topic of Helicobacter pylori?

Yes I watched the BBC2 Horizon programme all about it many years ago and a very good report it was too. A very good example of fine BBC journalistic standards following through a story from it's spark of an idea, someone experimenting to prove a point (on themselves as it happens), other peers trialling and reporting results and the BBC following this trough, showing how proper science finds the truth and gets accepted mainstream eventually - if it's true.

I'm afraid you have just been hoisted on the petard of your own arguments.

Hooray for the BBC!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think you must misunderstand scientific method if you think that a consensus being proven wrong is somehow notable. It happens all the time, and it's an excellent sign that the science works very well.

So, all the examples of consensus being proven wrong that you've scattered throughout this thread simply prove that it *can* happen (which we already know). They don't prove anything about global warming though, which is why I've been a little baffled every time you posted them. However, if the consensus on global warming changes, I'm pretty sure the BBC will report that - if they don't then you'll actually have something to complain about in this thread.


----------



## Jimmyptt (Aug 19, 2016)

The BBC,

British Brainwashing Corporation.

Global warming is nothing but a Global Tax Scam!!


----------



## Jimmyptt (Aug 19, 2016)

bobclive22 said:


> _You've accidentally posted this in the BBC thread again instead of the global warming thread. _
> 
> *No I have not,* according to Barack Obama *global warming is the greatest threat to future generations,* I have shown that some of the worlds *greatest scientists disagree *yet the BBC *will not *allow those skeptical opinions to be aired.
> 
> ...


Well said I totally agree.

The Global warming tax scam is just another way to try and tax the masses yet again for nothing but to line the pockets of the Elite.

Tax them for the air they breath, then tell them its to save the planet !!

:lol: :lol:


----------

