FFS! Now even the BBC doesn't know English ...

[OwlHoot]

but the concept of edible unhappy infrastructure is not possible..

A large swarm of army ants could join together to form a bridge, which counts as infrastructure.

If the bridge was large enough, you could try and walk across it. But the ants would soon become very unhappy.

But if you were an anteater, you could eat them.

[Old Greg]

A large swarm of army ants could join together to form a bridge, which counts as infrastructure.

If the bridge was large enough, you could try and walk across it. But the ants would soon become very unhappy.

But if you were an anteater, you could eat them.

An interesting try, but not relevant to the question.

[Incognito]

I have conceded that there is a prooblem with the second sentence, but your arguments about the first sentence remain incorrect because you confused semantics and grammar.

You learn something new every day. Apparently there is such a thing as a collective proper noun.

Alan Gardiner - The Theory of Proper Names: A Controversial Essay

(Read onwards from page 22)

Examples of such being the Commons, the Vatican, the United Nations

A Comprehensive grammar of the ... - Google Books

I would add the BBC to that list myself, therefore I do hold my point is valid and is not about semantics. The BBC in this context is a collective proper noun and he should have used the third person plural verb form 'do'.

[Old Greg]

You learn something new every day. Apparently there is such a thing as a collective proper noun.

Alan Gardiner - The Theory of Proper Names: A Controversial Essay

(Read onwards from page 22)

Examples of such being the Commons, the Vatican, the United Nations

A Comprehensive grammar of the ... - Google Books

I would add the BBC to that list myself, therefore I do hold my point is valid and is not about semantics. The BBC in this context is a collective proper noun and he should have used the third person plural verb form 'do'.

You have been busy. I can do no better than a wiki copy and paste. Both forms are correct, I would suggest, meaning that you are incorrect to say the original first sentence is incorrect.

Collective noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition," "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches," etc. In American English, collective nouns usually take singular verb forms (formal agreement), but either a singular or plural verb is correct American usage where the noun is understood as a group of individual components. In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "the team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or simply "the team is fighting.") See American and British English differences - Formal and notional agreement.

[RichardCranium]

I'm referring to the BBC as an instituition you absolute dunderhead, ignorant, poorly educated cock-rot knob-end.

HTH

institution
dunderheaded

Also, shouldn't it also be "poorly-educated, cock-rotten knob-end"?

And finally, I think the smiley should have a little swastika armband.

(I can't find an image of a Swastika Smiley. Which is odd. I thought the Internet would have readily-available videos of lesbian swastika smileys having group sex.)

[Old Greg]

institution
dunderheaded

Also, shouldn't it also be "poorly-educated, cock-rotten knob-end"?

And finally, I think the smiley should have a little swastika armband.

(I can't find an image of a Swastika Smiley. Which is odd. I thought the Internet would have readily-available videos of lesbian swastika smileys having group sex.)

I believe that the son of a notorious fascist leader who may or may not be prominent in a motor sport may or may not have such a smiley.

[Incognito]

You have been busy. I can do no better than a wiki copy and paste. Both forms are correct, I would suggest, meaning that you are incorrect to say the original first sentence is incorrect.

You got me thinking with your comment on semantics. I could see why you were saying that, because in my original statement I was referring to what was trying to be implied rather than the correct grammatical usage of the assmunchers original title.

I then thought to myself, well surely a proper noun can refer to a 'collective,' your usage of 'Corporation' led me down that path, a little bit of digging and hey presto.

I still hold true to my original assertion, whilst I entirely agree the BBC can take either the singular or plural verb form, in this case it should be the plural. That Wiki link was quite good, it gives me the basis of my next argument because I have to admit I would have had to have googled 'metonymic shift'. Leading back to my original point about where the Corporation as a single entity does not produce the individual content, it is the Corporation as a collective of individuals that produces the content, using the example from wiki:

A good example of such a metonymic shift in the singular-to-plural direction (designated by the Latin term plurale tantum) is the following sentence: "The team have finished the project." In that sentence, the underlying thought is of the individual members of the team working together to finish the project. Their accomplishment is collective, and the emphasis is not on their individual identities, yet they are at the same time still discrete individuals; the word choice "team have" manages to convey both their collective and discrete identities simultaneously.

Now my argument is that the assmuncher's bastardised grasp of the English language was meant to convey that the BBC editorial staff members [staff] don't have a grasp on the English language. The underlying thought is of the individual members of the staff not having a grasp of the English language. Their failure is collective, and the emphasis is not on their individual identities, yet they are at the same time still discrete individuals.

The staff do not have a grasp of the English language; not the staff does not have a grasp of the English language.

Either way, what with RC pointing out assmuncher's abject failure to even get his insult out correctly I do believe we are dealing with a cretin of the highest order.