Michael thank you for your understanding.

Perhaps the new step by step exchange with stewgreen will help..

However 1) why wasn't I left alone when I asked to be and 2) how can I deal with such rampant abuse as given by such as lurcker, hunter and tinyco2? I am not built not to respond in kind but it got kind of wearysome so I developed my shorthand which annoyed even more.

Alan, then back off. You don't have to respond to everybody.

Let's translate AK's bloviation into plain words: "you meanies wouldn't let me say what I want without challenging me, and you dared to not agree I am right, so I will stomp my little feet until I get my way." There, all clear now.

Martin A. I am taking your advice, reviewing the past to discover how we got into this mess, and attempting (again) to remember and review my reactions to what transpired here. I'll start with only the first few days now because there is too much to cover in one post.

1) Things began badly from the outset. I was not consulted about the discussion thread, even though it relied heavily on my cooperation. Stewgreen began by attributing to me two "strange viewpoints", covering himself with the words "seems to have". This was because he (she?) couldn't remember what I actually had said, but wanting to get this thread underway, made things up, so setting (for me) the whole tone of the thread.

2) Nowhere did I claim the BBC was 99% O.K., nor did I ever accuse BH regulars of "frothing at the mouth trying to kill off the BBC". I don't believe I ever gave any percentage, but I probably expressed my opinion that the BBC have wide support. I also wrote somewhere that SOME regulars do want the destruction of the BBC as evidenced by their written words.

3) Stewgreen then followed with 8 repostings, two from me. What is noticable about this group is a) all are reasonable, not one of them from a BH regular who called for the demise of the BBC (this absence apparently confirming one ofStewgreen's assertions about my strange viewpoints), and b) neither of my repostings even mentioned either "strangenesses". I concluded I was being set up and the decks were preloaded.

4) Consequently I wrote in a reply to Stewgreen a complaint about his madeup 99% claim and the lack of relevant repostings. I gave my opinion that this would be just another attacking BBC site, and that I wouldn't contribute.

5) Stewgreen responded saying he wanted my viewpoint. But I saw nothing to convince me and again proposed abstaining from contributing. There it would have rested but for

6) Salopian (Apr 17: 11.03pm) wrote "Actually the Beeb, courtesy of Monty Python, had AlanK and his mates at the UEA sussed out back in 1971. This I took as a cheap shot, aimed directly at me.

7)I responded calmly pointing out inaccuracies in his statement.(Apr 18. 8.55am)

8) Salopian responded (Apr 18. 7.45pm) writing "if [I] can't take it, then don't diss it out". What did I ever dish out?

9) then I was encouraged "to grow some" and the more general attacks and abuse grew from there.

That was the beginning as I saw it. I am not blameless here, but I definitely feel more sinned against, both in the originating distortion of my views and the unprovoked attack, initiated and stoked up by Solopian.

I have no real hope that any of this will work. I have merely given my opponents yet more ammunition to attack me with. Just watch.

AK, we're not out to get you but we are fed up of being told what we can and cannot think. Your comments came across as telling us off for not supporting the BBC and airing those views. MartinA in particular came out with a very good reason for hating the BBC - did you conceed he has plenty of justification?

The BBC will fail because while it sometimes admits it's not perfect, it doesn't think it's bad enough to actually change. It represents the view point of an ever smaller section of society, much like the Guardian. While the Guardian will shrink to reflect its declining relevance, the BBC gets to maintain its dominance because of the licence fee. It convinces itself that it's actually better because it doesn't reflect the public. Which is arrogance in the extreme. It very much considers itself a national treasure that we'd miss if it went. So when it kicks dirt in the face of at least one half of society, it thinks it has a mandate to do so.

People are beginning to abandon the BBC. The next generation more so. There will come a government eventually that won't be afraid of the public support of the BBC (much of which is habit rather than real feeling) and do what you fear will happen. The only way to reverse it is for the BBC to stop listening to people like you who think it's basically ok and listen to people who don't like it.

Tiny. Please read my 8.47am post here. You will find I never wanted to even contribute (so far from telling you what to think) but was drawn into it by someone who I feel was in fact very much "out to get me".

As to the rest of your post- read it, it's full of unsubstantiated assertions and your opinions. There is no support offered for any of it. I'll not accuse you of trying to tell me how to think, because believe me I truly do not want to offend and start the wbole mess up again. You are entitled to your opinions, but likewise,if you post them here, I surely have the right to counter them with my own?

Perhaps you could point me to where I told you what to think and what not to think, in this thread or elsewhere. If I find you are correct, I'll apologize. You might even acknowledge that I tend to apologize a lot on BH.

ALAN

AK you contributed plenty on unthreaded and stewgreen quite rightly moved it here. You may not view your tone as telling others what to think but it didn't look that way from the other side. Even your stupid scoring system was a judgement on others. My further comments are not, unless specifically stated. directed at you.

The BBC just doesn't listen to the public. Watch Samira Ahmed in Newswatch sternly put some viewer's complaint to BBC staff and then watch her nod sagely as she accepts the lame excuse the producer or whatever gives in reply. The conclusion is almost always that the public will just have to put up with it because the BBC thinks it's ok. For a while they even disputed the sound problems on Jamaica Inn. Their first instict was to blame the hearing of the public, because audience blaming works 99% of the time. They reacted to the Brand, Ross incident in the same way. The Savile thing says that they've had the attitude for a long time. They admit they can't get Conservatives to be audience members on Question Time but can't see how it's their fault. They must think Conservatives don't debate stuff or more likely don't like to drive after dark. After all we're all 80 or 90 you know... Ungrateful lot we are, they put on all those antique programmes for us and still we don't like them.

Tiny. I did ask for specifics. Quote me the words I wrote that caused you to conclude I was preaching at you.

The stupid scoring system was only employed when you all refused to leave me alone despite my entreaties to do so. It was more a judgement on how much all your comments were hurting me. Did any of you even consider my feelings at all? It felt at times like being attacked by a pack of dogs. A few commented how out of character my behaviour was and speculated (sometimes insultingly) about another problem I might be experiencing. Not one of you thought to question the biased set up of this thread nor the troll like attacks I was subjected to by Salopman and then later by all and sundry.*

As I previously offered, prove to me that I acted in a preachy way and I will apologize without reservation. Otherwise I will conclude that it was you who reacted inappropriately. I cannot offer to do anything more

* if you wish to make a scientific judgment here, examine my posts on other non discussion threads over the same time period. Was I exhibiting weirder than usual behaviour there? If you find a difference, then you must attribute a cause related to this particular discussion thread. You surely cannot attribute it to any great overwhelming desire of mine to protect mother Beeb? Over on unthreaded I criticized a particular BBC programme for its bias.

Tiny. Please add to the third from bottom line, after "difference" the words "between those threads and this one" Without them it makes no sense.

AK “Stewgreen (6.14am) Do you expect me to be surprised? Or perhaps were you hoping I would release a string of invective supporting academic practices.”

You were projecting nasty personality traits on stewgreen after no provocation I could see.

SG “No @Alan, I was just drawing your attention to empirical evidence. Not that that is the be all and end all.”

AK “You.are more condemning of people's inactivity when confronting a rotten system, I hope I'm more understanding of the plight of those caught up in that system. We are both right, we just see it slightly differently.
You need to emphasize your empathy more, I need to trample over mine.”

Arrogant, suggesting you are more empathetic than stewgreen. Not to mention wrong.

Tomo “@Stew , @Alan

There are superficial similarities between academic research and the BBC - but the pivotal issue for many is that the BBC gets its lolly regardless of performance - and if it is judged - it's by its own rules - made up on a case by case basis. Even when *criminal* antics are involved when the matter surfaces the perps are almost exclusively outside the organisation or conveniently dead even.....

The system is not entirely rotten but but it's a common trait of both groups to present belief as fact and subborn evidence in support of those beliefs. It is curious how the BBC's luvvies (28gate) set the tone and and act as the gatekeepers to public perception of nature - yet don't bother to consult widely on on the facts or present uncertainty honestly.

Anybody who has views on a contentious subject in the workplace generally has to be careful about upsetting a zealot higher up the food chain.”

AK “Tomo, you know my feelings about the BBC. You judge it through the narrow lens of its treatment of climate change, I judge it by the quality of its better output (both TV and radio) which give me much pleasure.”

It comes across that were chiding Tomo for deliberately upsetting you. Did Tomo know and should it have made a difference as to whether the opinion was posted? You were also suggesting Tomo has only one interest - climate change, whereas you take a broader view. Arrogant.

SG “@Alan i think most of us here are capable of compartmentalising
- We don't need to talk about the things the BBC gets right only the wrong
Likewise our Lew and our Ken might be perfectly good parents and dog walkders but it's their climate propaganda that we are worried about.
- I contrast that with times I have been with Alarmists and they have mostly acted truly tribally with an obsessive hate to their rhetorical opponents ..I've had them waving pointed fingers and shouting "you people" at me when I attempted to engage.”

SandyS “Alan Kendall
Re BBc, don't you find much of the output has been dumbed down considerably? Particularly in the scientific/technical areas and to a lesser extent the News coverage. My particular irritants are Matermind, Horizon and Question Time, I can no longer watch the latter without shouting at whichever Dimbleby* is in charge to let the panelists answer, the audience have enough phone-ins and Any Answers.

*Am I imagining it or are there a lot of family links in BBC personnel?”

AK “Expected a greater onslaught from you anti-BBC [snip - manners]. I thought I was being set up again for ritual flogging.

Are you getting tired of trying to convince me of your certainties?

Willing to believe in compartmentmentalism, but I have never read anything here that is positive about the BBC, and much that is stridently negative. Such negative suggestions that, if acted upon, would destroy what I hold dear. Hence my opposition.”

Where the heck did that come from? There was nothing on Unthreaded that justified such an aggressive comment. Frankly, you were baiting those who’d been reasonable to you.

M Courtney “ Alan Kendall,

Although not positive of the BBC my comment here:
- Apr 5, 2016 at 3:28 PM | Registered Commenter M Courtney
Is, at least more critical of the criticism of the BBC.

In my opinion, the BBC has a lot wrong with it. And that which is wrong is gaining in strength.
But the benefits of a uniquely British broadcaster - immune form commercial Americanisation - are great.

Yet those benefits are not infinite. The BBC needs humility and repentance.
Instead they seem to be doomed by hubris.
A pity.”

TinyCO2 “It won't be grumpy right wing climate sceptics that destroy the BBC, it will be da youf, whom the BBC has so fiercely courted but who don't pay for it. If they pay for anything it would be for BBC luvvies to hunt each other down in a fight to the death. BBC will vanish from its own narrow world view. Grumpy right wing climate sceptics just won't speak up for the BBC, when it needs them most.”

AK “

M.Courtney, agreed. In fact in a less defensive mood I might have written something very similar. Clearly then I have no beef with you. I am concerned with those who would tear everything down, remove the license fee and force the BBC to sell off its marketing arm and its commercially successful programmes. Destroying the BBC in this way would also cause ITV (and other channels) to deteriorate significantly as they would then be operating in a less competitive market. A USA type market would then ensue. Having experienced this over many years, I would strive to protect the BBC, warts and all if what what it takes.

I apologize for missing your post.”

So you were declaring war on us for trying to destroy the BBC, where all people were doing was having a bit of a moan.

AK “TinyCO2. But they should. Warts and all, its worth saving, especially if after license renewal we have a go at the warts.”

In your opinion. Once the license is renewed the BBC will not change one iota.

SandyS “Alan Kendall
especially if after license renewal we have a go at the warts.
and there's the rub

TinyCO2 “Alan Kendall, to you the BBC is warts and all to me it's almost all wart. It's no recommendation that ITV competes to produce similar unsightly growths.”

AK “TinyCO2. There are programmes (BBC and ITV) that are viewed by 6-8 million people but which I would never watch. There are whole channels of which I watch nothing (BBC3 was one, but then it wasn't aimed at me). I don't go around complaining about them or seeking their demise, I just never turn them on. If you are so opposed, switch off completely, don't pay a licence fee. If you do this, however, you loose the right to complain.

At this time of year I regularly find one programme of interest to watch each night, and some nights the tv recording thingy works overtime. That situation was a rare occurrence in the USA. Here we get to see only the very very best of US television, which gives a false impression. To me the BBC output is so much better and I want to save it from being destroyed.”

You were saying that I have no better reason to dislike the BBC than I don’t like some of it’s output. That if I didn’t like the BBC I should lose all TV by not paying the fee, suffer harassment from the licence people and also not be allowed to complain. What, be a good little peasant and sit in silence and consider my behaviour?

That was back on April 14th and from there in you got more and more offensive.

Thank you Tiny, I'll look in more detail at your evidence. At first sight I can see how it might seem I was arrogant, but I had no intention of being so. I will particularly look at the context in which my writing was set. If I agree with your assessment I will of course apologize to all that I offended. Thank you for your time and effort.

I would have hoped for one iota of understanding of the position I was in. Why didn't you all call me out if you considered my behaviour objectionable as and when any offence was taken? Why oh why wasn't I left alone when I pleaded with you all? Why wasn't the objectionable behaviour of others not taken into any account. As I wrote earlier, I doubt that I am blaneless, but I have also been sinned against.

So first a conditional apology, if I have been arrogant and thereby caused offense to anyone here, I sincerely apologize for such behaviour. I'll consider making it unconditional.

I don't know why I'm procrastinating. If I was arrogant and caused offence by it, it doesn't matter if I feel any justification, I still.offended. Therefore, stewgreen, tomo, SandyS, M. Courtney,, TinyCO2 (all identified by tiny) and others who consider I was arrogant towards you, I apologize unreservedly. I had no intention of imposing my views on you, I just wished to justify my own beliefs that the BBC had value and was worth saving.

Thank you Alan. I am sincerely pleased to see the possibility of drawing a line under this divisive post.

Lurker, for what are you thanking me for?

I see the BBC has finally been taken over by Russia Today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556177/Was-MH17-shot-Ukrainian-fighter-jet-BBC-documentary-claims-Boeing-777-targeted-plane.html

Lurker
Shouldn't it be stewgreen who draws a line under the discussions?

Actually I think this has been a classic discussion of a contentious subject amongst friends. Starts with a bit of a disagreement, gets quite heated, everyone, or almost everyone takes a step back and reviews the others position. Decides they don't want to lose what's good about the relationship and agrees to disagree because we all like different things. We continue to discuss other stuff which doesn't cause issues. We also know a bit more about each other and if we value the friendship we don't knowingly press the wrong button and have to go round the loop again.

I value the contributions of Alan Kendall on this discussion and elsewhere, I understand his feelings about the BBC, I don't share them all but it's down to personal taste and choice so we're not going to change that easily. So for me it'll just be one of those things not worth losing sleep over. I hope Alan continues posting comments at BH.

Sandy S. My newly found found friends here are greatly cherished and appreciated. I count you amongst them.

M.Courtney. for my own sanity, I probably won't involve myself in any new post about the BBC. So I'll briefly comment about somethings you, and others, have raised here - the dumbing down of the BBC and its lack of numeracy within its programmes.

Dumbing down I think reflects the deterioration of our education system. I've watched first hand this dumbing down in both teaching and assessment within universities, and see my granddaughter suffer from it in her high school academy.

Ennumeracy afflicts our entire society. Even Stephen Hawkings was warned by his publisher to expunge all equations and mathematics from his book A Short History of Time. Even then, it is said, most copies bought were never read to the end.

I fully acknowledge the importance of this second problem. My mathematical skills are puny. Way back when I took A levels, I took Geography instead of Physics. For those who took Physics but not Mathematics there was an additional class to bring their mathematical knowledge up to the standard necessary to take Physics. I tried to attend that additional class but was excluded from it. I therefore grew up without a knowledge of calculus and the like. A deficiency I regretted for the whole of my working life. I am dreading being outpaced by my granddaughter, her scorn will be beyond measure!

M. Courtney.
Sorry, forgot to ask.
I have never watched Little Red Pony.
Is it like Game of Thrones?

Alan Kendall
The lack of numeracy amongst the the UK populace never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps this'll morph into a discussion on the failings of various improvements to the education system

I gave up History amongst other subjects in concentrating on technical subjects, even at 14 I'd have happily swapped Metalwork for History. Fortunately History is much easier to teach yourself than Calculus.

SandyS.
For my own reasons I would wish this thread to just fade away rather than morph.
I doubt if a splendid butterfly could emerge from this husk of a chrysalis.