Stewgreen.

Your 99% figure has even less validity than a 97% consensus. After readIng that I had no inclination to read much further. And I didn't.

Enjoy your ranting. Hope the thread withers on he vine, but suspect it won't. The BBC (and Guardian) are like red rags to you guys. So frothing at the mouth is a reasonable analogy.

So much for a nuanced approach.

Stewgreen

Of course eventually I did read everything but my initial judgement proved essentially correct. You may think you are not "getting at me" but that is the result you will achieve. I've already said at an earlier time that being on my own beset by a crowd of opponents is not exactly pleasurable.

I note that you did not repost those communications that are vehemently anti BBC, calling for its wholesale demise or for drastic funding reductions (until it "behaves" as if they are fit to judge this).

I find much to criticize, but far more to value and appreciate about the BBC. To many of you here you will only recognize its value if you do manage to cause it harm. I have no wish to help you do this, even as an adversary.

I see no reason to further contribute.

Peace, a once and future gem, now being badly cut.
===============

Unless we do something about the BBC NOW, we will all forget what good television was really like. Our children, and grandchildren will laugh at all the stupid warnings about global warming, being repeated endlessly, by fresh faced BBC presenters in 50 years time, all wrapped in modern thermal underwear made out of the skins of verminous polar bears, looting and pillaging around northern Europe, having walked from England to invade France.

Of course, this assumes that BBC TV can still be broadcast using electricity from Cryopower, harnessed to replaced the failed Solarpower, and killer whales can be trained to use blowholes beneath ice mounted wind mills.Thankfully, the EU will relax fishing quotas, if the fish are used to 'pay' killer whales for electricity generation, but the use of fish to feed starving people will remain banned.

Salopian, I think I know that sketch, without clicking the link!

Also relevant was the series from the mid 80s "A very peculiar practice", loosely based/inspired by UEA, and some of it filmed there too. Dodgy goings-on amongst University Academic staff, with a new Vice-Chancellor seeking external investors.

Perhaps UEA could be gifted to the Commonwealth as the University of East Australia, as an antipodean rival to University of Western Australia, they could compete for daftest recruitment, and output, by niche Departments/Units.

Salopian, if UEA went to the Arctic, they could compete with Polar bears in running races for food. Winners eats all.

I agree with just about everything Stewgreen has posted here. It's hardly ranting or frothing at the mouth. As a lover of classical music, I am hugely grateful to the BBC for its coverage, its orchestras and the Proms. Even though the right on and dumbing down factors are increasing, there is still an enormous amount to enjoy and be grateful for. Mind you programmes such as Sky Arts and Classic FM show that it need not be a monopoly.

The programme W1A although a spoof accurately captured the problems at the BBC and why so many of its programmes (to my mind) are poor. Programme making goes through so many levels and committees any originality has been squeezed out and likewise any "unacceptable" views. (You could argue of course that W1A proves this is wrong, but it was a rare exception where basically one man wrote the scripts.) The subtle but persistent political bias is intensely irritating.

I accept that news coverage is likely to be left of centre. There is much more human interest in a single mum on benefits struggling to cope than an arid dissection of the economic problems the country is facing. But isn't the BBC's mission to educate and inform?

Salopian,

CRU was only founded in 1971 so can hardly be the source material for the parody. UEA almost certainly, it was a brand new institution, but not your climate nemesis.

Neither were I or my "mates" there at this time.

Am I now tarnished for all time by my former UEA affiliation? The butt of your lazy "jokes"?

The BBC is the whispering ‘friend’ who endlessly puts us down so that we don’t feel confident we can survive without them. It brings up our flaws, both long past and present and charge us a fortune to trumpet those flaws on the World Service. On every front they seek to find others with whom we compare badly and if any study concludes that this is a good place to live they let us know that our fortune has been won off the backs of others. They court those who condemn us and never hesitate to air the views of terrorists and their sympathisers to let everyone know that the British public deserve whatever happens to them. If this was a marriage we could separate on the grounds of verbal abuse and mental torture.

Whatever party is in power, the BBC is the unofficial opposition, which allows it to claim it is unbiased but it is significantly left wing. It was comically gob smacked by the election results, sure that it had secured a Labour victory. Now, it alternates between glee and horror at the election of Jeremy Corbyn to Labour leader. It loves his far left views but also realises that he is almost unelectable. And maybe, just maybe those far left opinions would bankrupt the country and affect the lovely gravy train the BBC enjoys. However, whatever party is in, the BBC disagrees with every policy except ones that aline with its hard left stand point, which is almost every prudent financial or political plan. For the BBC the money pot is infinite.

Because the BBC is built of ‘artistic’ people, it leans heavily towards drug taking, alcoholism, promiscuity and what it calls ‘pushing the boundaries’, which is code for saying or doing whatever the employees do and don’t like to be condemned for. The BBC regularly chooses to offer a platform for extremists of all varieties. Some won’t remember but the BBC flirted heavily with those who wanted the age of consent reduced. Until Jimmy Savile, letting teenagers have sex with older people if they wanted to, seemed cool and progressive. Hmmm.

The culture of sex abuse is inherently part of the BBC operation. It thinks that celebrities should be worshipped. Jimmy Savile became fair game for parts of the BBC simply because he was no longer the in crowd but he still held some of his old power which is why the abuse stories were kept quiet so long. Plus the BBC wanted to protect itself. Sod the victims. What excesses is the BBC ignoring from the young celebs today?

The Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross thing was typical of the BBC. Nobody from the presenters to the complaints department thought that there was that much wrong with two rich, powerful men (physically and professionally), bullying a little old man whose wife was in hospital. Those who complained were old fuss pots who just didn’t get the humour. And that’s where the BBC is at its most biased. It hates traditional values and anyone over thirty (unless they act like they’re 5) and its whole output reflects that. But… but it shows historical dramas and culture stuff!

Yes, historical dramas that portray the things the BBC condemns us for. They make much of our evil empire and the left wing picture of the down trodden masses. When did they last make a drama that celebrated the good things this country did? Government and business is always evil. The police might have a few good ones but most of them are corrupt thugs. The system is always bad and the only bright lights are the few people who stand up to it… unless they’re climate deniers. We don't fit their idea of freedom fighters. Too bad.

It doesn’t matter to me that the BBC produces very few programmes that I want to watch. I wouldn’t resent it if it was wall to wall soaps (modern or period costume or farming) or banal fact free documentaries or quiz shows or antique programmes. I’d forgive its terrible output if it just stopped being the arbiter of how Britain should be run. For that I’d happily see the back of it tomorrow.