Reply to: Agas

[KentPhilip]

The fact that you haven't got laid in 43 years is enough for me to discount your judgement about the world completely.
HTH.

42 years. Keep up

[Spacecadet]

The fact that you haven't got laid in only 43 years is enough for me to discount your judgement about the world completely.

You have to get to 60 years with out a shag to be as clever as moi

HTH.

FTFY

[sasguru]

It's going to be OK, Sas.
.

It is OK.

[sasguru]

No I do see the difference.
I guess the underlying problem is that the BBC should be impartial and non-political, according to their charter and that they are being paid for by everyone. The fact that they're saying things that people are interpreting as political (in my case seeing as left-wing) is bias.

If the BBC came out and said they were left-wing then I would be happy with it. It's the problem that they are indoctrinating especially the young into thinking that their views are the "official" opinion is wrong in my view.
They should stick to reporting the facts, preferably by a computerised voice incapable of using style of delivery / emotions to imply a certain sentiment.

By the way google: bbc wing bias
and see that three of the four autocomplete options say left wing bias, with only one saying right wing bias.

Then try googling: biassed
and see the suggested word: BBC

As for the question of being a loon and frothing at the mouth, of course I am - I'm on here!

The fact that you haven't got laid in 43 years is enough for me to discount your judgement about the world completely.
HTH.

[Old Greg]

Actually the Victorians more or less invented the modern police force, introduced compulsory education and legislated a great deal on the matter of public health, including introducing compulsory vaccination for smallpox.

And they more or less invented Health and Safety at work and greatly liberalised the criminal justice system. And don't forget public libraries.

[Old Greg]

Funny, I thought lower middle class was a poor poly "education", a penchant for beaten-up BMWs, a complete lack of interest in anything not financial, and a complete poverty of spirit.

It's going to be OK, Sas.

Back to the OP. If you want character without the running cost. Sell the Aga and get a wood burner. If you have a bit of land, you could try some willow coppicing. If not just find your local cheap log supplier.

[doodab]

I guess the problem is not so much explicit bias in the BBC's reporting - after all all strong-willed thinkers such as you and I will generate our own opinions, left or right. The problem is that the BBC tends to choose stories to cover where the implicit solution is more left-wing policies

I think the problem is in your mind.

You perceive news stories as demonstrating the existence of a problem.

You think the fact they are being reported implies that the reporter thinks the problem needs to be solved.

Because you advocate a small government / non interventionist approach to everything you consider all policies aside from doing nothing "left-wing"

Therefore you perceive a lot of left wing bias because all news stories imply a problem, which implies a solution, which implies a left wing policy.

The story we're talking about is a case in point. They were reporting on someone else's publication of a report on rural poverty. It's worth noting that the reporter suggested what many would consider to be the "right wing" solution (i.e. move to the city) to the person being interviewed, and this was the only "solution" given any airtime at all. Yet somehow you construe this as evidence of left wing bias. Surely it's evidence of the exact opposite?

[KentPhilip]

But in this case it's not what they were saying that you're interpreting as political, it's what they didn't say. They asked her why she didn't move to the city (which, from a different angle, could be seen as implying that this was the sensible course of action) and left it at that. You're interpreting the fact they didn't they didn't go on to tell the interviewee to "bloody well starve", as evidence of left wing bias. That's deranged.

I guess the problem is not so much explicit bias in the BBC's reporting - after all all strong-willed thinkers such as you and I will generate our own opinions, left or right. The problem is that the BBC tends to choose stories to cover where the implicit solution is more left-wing policies.

For example you rarely hear stories on the BBC on the woe of a rich relative who had to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax when the elderly owner dies. Or the problems of new graduates who are unable to find work because employers need real-world experience not academic learning. Or the problems of unemployment in the north east because they're all thick and lazy up there*



*OK not all of them then

[doodab]

It worked for the victorians, during which time Britain was the most successful and powerful country in the world.

Actually the Victorians more or less invented the modern police force, introduced compulsory education and legislated a great deal on the matter of public health, including introducing compulsory vaccination for smallpox.

[doodab]

No I do see the difference.
I guess the underlying problem is that the BBC should be impartial and non-political, according to their charter and that they are being paid for by everyone. The fact that they're saying things that people are interpreting as political (in my case seeing as left-wing) is bias.

If the BBC came out and said they were left-wing then I would be happy with it. It's the problem that they are indoctrinating especially the young into thinking that their views are the "official" opinion is wrong in my view.
They should stick to reporting the facts, preferably by a computerised voice incapable of using style of delivery / emotions to imply a certain sentiment.

But in this case it's not what they were saying that you're interpreting as political, it's what they didn't say. They asked her why she didn't move to the city (which, from a different angle, could be seen as implying that this was the sensible course of action) and left it at that. You're interpreting the fact they didn't they didn't go on to tell the interviewee to "bloody well starve", as evidence of left wing bias. That's deranged.

By the way google: bbc wing bias
and see that three of the four autocomplete options say left wing bias, with only one saying right wing bias.

Then try googling: biassed
and see the suggested word: BBC

Well, disregarding the fact that this is based what google think people might be looking for and not any sort of truth or weight of evidence, try googling "is it wrong to" or "am I a" and I think you'll see that there are much bigger problems in the world than news organisations that don't share your point of view.

[KentPhilip]

So we should let everything go to the highest bidder? Free markets, open borders, shut any schools and hospitals that can't pay their way and disband the police so the market can fill the void?

It worked for the victorians, during which time Britain was the most successful and powerful country in the world.

I do support a basic welfare state though.

[KentPhilip]

Like most frothy mouthed loons you're far too biased to form any sort of judgement on the impartiality of others and seemingly incapable of understanding the difference between somebody not expressing a view and somebody not sharing yours.

No I do see the difference.
I guess the underlying problem is that the BBC should be impartial and non-political, according to their charter and that they are being paid for by everyone. The fact that they're saying things that people are interpreting as political (in my case seeing as left-wing) is bias.

If the BBC came out and said they were left-wing then I would be happy with it. It's the problem that they are indoctrinating especially the young into thinking that their views are the "official" opinion is wrong in my view.
They should stick to reporting the facts, preferably by a computerised voice incapable of using style of delivery / emotions to imply a certain sentiment.

By the way google: bbc wing bias
and see that three of the four autocomplete options say left wing bias, with only one saying right wing bias.

Then try googling: biassed
and see the suggested word: BBC

As for the question of being a loon and frothing at the mouth, of course I am - I'm on here!

[doodab]

Let the markets sort it out. Relax planning controls to let entrepreneurs build power stations wherever they want them. OK the green lobby don't want a power station in the lake district? Well then the greens can outbid the power companies on the land if they value the "view" that much.

So we should let everything go to the highest bidder? Free markets, open borders, shut any schools and hospitals that can't pay their way and disband the police so the market can fill the void?

[doodab]

Have a read of biasedbbc.org for regular examples of BBC left-wing bias, and see what you think.

I think that your perception of bias in that particular article appears to based on the fact they didn't make the same value judgement as you.

Like most frothy mouthed loons you're far too biased to form any sort of judgement on the impartiality of others and seemingly incapable of understanding the difference between somebody not expressing a view and somebody not sharing yours.

That's what I think.

As for that site, anyone who sits there looking solely for examples of left wing bias in the output of a media organisation is going to suffer from confirmation bias.

[KentPhilip]

The majority of the country expect a bit more from the government

This is the problem - people should stop thinking that government are part of the solution. Normally they're part of the problem.

Either way, my point was that your perception of bias in the article was due to your own prejudice.

Have a read of biasedbbc.org for regular examples of BBC left-wing bias, and see what you think.

I would say it's absolutely vital that a country can be in control of it's own Energy supplies. The Governments have over recent years decided that is not important. Hence for example importing gas from Eastern Europe. If they can print money to bail out the banks, waste 32 billion on a railway that stops in a couple of places, they can build some power stations

Maybe one day you will not be able to afford to heat your house and perhaps that will change your opinion of what a Government should do. Stand back and let the country fall apart would seems to be your current view.

Let the markets sort it out. Relax planning controls to let entrepreneurs build power stations wherever they want them. OK the green lobby don't want a power station in the lake district? Well then the greens can outbid the power companies on the land if they value the "view" that much.

Maybe I won't be able to heat my house. I'll just put on some extra clothing, or light a fire with twigs from the garden. We've all only had central heating for the past 50 years or so - it's hardly a god-given right.