Jump to content

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation


bickster

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

You say it's clear, but they don't seem to define "TV" which to me seems a bit of an oversight. Unless I'm being stupid. Is CNN TV? Is a live stream of a rocket launch on YouTube TV? Do they mean specifically UK produced programmes? Or any programmes that are shown on TV in the UK, but then does that include, say, clips of Hey Duggee on YouTube?

I don't think it's clear at all.

I posted about it earlier the thread, easily missed with everything that's going on, though. There's a guy on YouTube called Blackbelt Barrister who has done a lot of videos on the topic. 

If you watch any live broadcast, from anywhere in the world, on any device, you need a TV licence. 

When the issue of live broadcasts has been queried with the regulator, they say it's any broadcast that's released in a regular schedule, to a certain level of production, from a broadcaster who can be reasonably deemed as being professional...or words to that effect. So things like ITV2 +1 does count as a live broadcast. 

This Barrister guy posits that with that definition, it may well be reasonable to deem many, many online streamers on a variety of platforms as being broadcasters worthy of requiring a TV license to view based on the info he's been given. 

Now in his view, he doesn't actually believe anyone would be charged with an offence if they only watched live broadcasts from say twitch in their home and they didn't have a TV licence - but the lack of clarity is indicative of outdated and unclear guidelines. 

He did ask for a list of recognised broadcasters for purposes of requiring a TV licence, for clarity, but his request was declined. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Someone somewhere in the tory ranks has tried to move that line because they were upset by a truth.

Quite possibly, if they did then it should be made public by the BBC. All I have come across is media blather. 

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I listened to the Sue Ellen puff piece on Radio 4 today with tory and political journalist Nick Robinson. She came out with some shite about Lineker talking about the holocaust being offensive. But Lineker didn’t do that, Robinson knew he didn’t do that, but he didn’t correct her, he didn’t edit it out.

I presume you mean Suella? So journalists should edit interviews that report inaccurate information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fruitvilla said:

Quite possibly, if they did then it should be made public by the BBC. All I have come across is media blather. 

I presume you mean Suella? So journalists should edit interviews that report inaccurate information?

Her name is Sue Ellen. She likes to be called Suella. Journalists that hear deliberate twisting of facts should challenge it or add context, or add commentary, or not broadcast it. Not broadcast it without correction.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Her name is Sue Ellen. She likes to be called Suella. Journalists that hear deliberate twisting of facts should challenge it or add context, or add commentary, or not broadcast it. Not broadcast it without correction.

Tbf as much as she is an utter word removed, I think she can be called whatever name she prefers to be called, and this whole thing of calling her Sue Ellen and calling Osborne Gideon, and Johnson Alexander is kind of lame

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, trekka said:

I bet the viewing figures are up tonight (mainly those who are curious). The BBC might well be thinking after seeing them, "Cor! Look at the money we could save".

i turned it on purely to see whether they're seriously going to show highlights without commentary. watched about 10 seconds...can't believe they actually did it. how utterly pathetic. know when you're beaten BBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Tbf as much as she is an utter word removed, I think she can be called whatever name she prefers to be called, and this whole thing of calling her Sue Ellen and calling Osborne Gideon, and Johnson Alexander is kind of lame

Sue Ellen believes trans people should be dead named. Surely that rule works two ways?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Tbf as much as she is an utter word removed, I think she can be called whatever name she prefers to be called, and this whole thing of calling her Sue Ellen and calling Osborne Gideon, and Johnson Alexander is kind of lame

OK Kenty. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You would knowingly broadcast something you knew wasn’t true without letting people know it wasn’t true?

I would probably get fired for a variety of reasons before it ever got this far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Anyway enjoyed that mini episode of MOTD… missed the commentary more than the punditry

I'm not their target audience, but me too. Haven't watched motd in a decade, and I'm one of those who tunes in for kick off then mutes the sound at half time.

The likes of Lineker, Shearer, Neville, etc have never added an ounce of value to my viewing of football.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â