Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Tell that to Top of the Pops, born around the same time and was also a social institution.  Ratings do matter for the BBC - it is one of the ways it keeps it’s licence and funding. 

Not sure what you mean? I know they matter to them, I'm just saying what these things are supposed to be imo, obviously within reason. Even then they're still not beholden in the way other programmes are - to advertisers.

 

 

Edited by Kid Icarus

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

The main issue around all of this carry on, is that they're absolutely not. 

 

The main issue for me isn't whether asylum seekers should be turned back or allowed in, it's that presenters like Gary Lineker should be allowed to have an opinion. We have plenty of other more repugnant individuals like Alan Sugar giving us their views, and he's also a BBC figure as far as I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

The main issue for me isn't whether asylum seekers should be turned back or allowed in, it's that presenters like Gary Lineker should be allowed to have an opinion. We have plenty of other more repugnant individuals like Alan Sugar giving us their views, and he's also a BBC figure as far as I know.

 

As Piers Morgan (hock, spit) pointed out, the BBC encouraged them to discuss and criticise a foreign state...rightly so as well.

 

Then when he gives his opinion on something the BBC don't like, they do this. Pathetic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Not sure what you mean? I know they matter to them, I'm just saying what these things are supposed to be imo, obviously within reason. Even then they're still not beholden in the way other programmes are - to advertisers.

 

 

 

They aren’t beholden to advertisers, but sports broadcasting (or at least sports broadcasts which aren’t classed as major events and therefore have regulations requiring them to be shown on free to air TV - what used to be called ‘terrestrial’) doesn’t fall into the ‘public service broadcasting’ category.  If the BBC was pulling in fewer than a million viewers for MOTD it would likely face the ax. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

They aren’t beholden to advertisers, but sports broadcasting (or at least sports broadcasts which aren’t classed as major events and therefore have regulations requiring them to be shown on free to air TV - what used to be called ‘terrestrial’) doesn’t fall into the ‘public service broadcasting’ category.  If the BBC was pulling in fewer than a million viewers for MOTD it would likely face the ax. 

:thup: That's within reason imo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

The main issue for me isn't whether asylum seekers should be turned back or allowed in, it's that presenters like Gary Lineker should be allowed to have an opinion. We have plenty of other more repugnant individuals like Alan Sugar giving us their views, and he's also a BBC figure as far as I know.

 

Well yes, absolutely. But thats a different issue, even if it is one born from the original.

 

Its all part of the extreme right of the Tory party plan, drive a narrative that is contrary to the facts, and find justification regardless of its legitimacy. 

 

Hopefully this willingness to go along with the ERG's demands to cleanse our collective culture will stain the Tory party forever. Pandering to extremes to keep a party in power to the detriment of the national good isnt exactly leaving a pleasant taste in the vast majority of peoples mouths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CM1961 said:

 

Of course genuine asylum seekers should always be given the oppotunity to apply for asylum, but they are not to be conflated with the priority given to economic migrants.  I'm sure you would agree.  It's not surprising that people from all over the world want to come and live in the UK.  We are the most generous and tolerant country in the world with a high standard of living compared to a lot of other countries.  We should be proud of that.

 

beyonce-noxrammers.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CM1961 said:

 

Of course genuine asylum seekers should always be given the oppotunity to apply for asylum, but they are not to be conflated with the priority given to economic migrants.  I'm sure you would agree.  It's not surprising that people from all over the world want to come and live in the UK.  We are the most generous and tolerant country in the world with a high standard of living compared to a lot of other countries.  We should be proud of that.

The cunts have made sure that is not the case, the standard of living in this country is on a sharp decline, and it's by design.

 

The politics of the people in power, who have been voted in for three successive terms, is one of hate, discrimination and dividing policies, with next to no care or compassion for the suffering person.

 

Like absolute fuck, am I proud of this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

That’s an odd assumption tbf - most people don’t have Sky, and a solid chunk of MOTD’s audience aren’t at home watching TV c.8pm on a Saturday.  That’s why ‘The Premiership’ on ITV failed - they thought showing highlights in prime time shortly after the games finished was a winner.  It wasn’t, and the time slot was cancelled. 

 

By Sky I'm just talking about the short highlight videos they upload for free to YouTube/Twitter in the evening. I imagine most people just want to see the goals/main talking points and they can do it on their own terms from their phone without having to sit through an hour of actual programming. The reason I mentioned the MOTD audience being presumably older is that they're probably people who aren't particularly online (of course there'll be some who want extended highlights or the discussion, or who just in general enjoy the tradition of MOTD, but I would expect fewer people watch since highlights became available in the UK much more quickly since 2019 or whenever it was that Sky started it).

 

 

Edited by buzz

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CM1961 said:

 

Of course genuine asylum seekers should always be given the oppotunity to apply for asylum, but they are not to be conflated with the priority given to economic migrants.  I'm sure you would agree.  It's not surprising that people from all over the world want to come and live in the UK.  We are the most generous and tolerant country in the world with a high standard of living compared to a lot of other countries.  We should be proud of that.

Is it because we are being too generous and tolerant that it looks like the plans will fall foul of the 1951 Refugee convention and the ECHR. Also do the figures about how many refugees we take in prove we are the most tolerant,  generous etc ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, madras said:

Is it because we are being too generous and tolerant that it looks like the plans will fall foul of the 1951 Refugee convention and the ECHR. Also do the figures about how many refugees we take in prove we are the most tolerant,  generous etc ?

 

From World Population Review - Statistics Section

 

Worldwide top 10 countries with the highest number of Refugees/Immigrants - Source United Nations

1st United States — 50.6 million

2nd Germany — 15.8 million

3rd Saudi Arabia — 13.5 million

4th Russia — 11.6 million

5th United Kingdom — 9.4 million

6th United Arab Emirates — 8.7 million

7th France — 8.5 million

8th Canada — 8.0 million

9th Australia — 7.7 million

10th Spain — 6.8 million

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CM1961 said:

 

Of course genuine asylum seekers should always be given the oppotunity to apply for asylum, but they are not to be conflated with the priority given to economic migrants.  I'm sure you would agree.  It's not surprising that people from all over the world want to come and live in the UK.  We are the most generous and tolerant country in the world with a high standard of living compared to a lot of other countries.  We should be proud of that.

It’s absolute fucking bullshit though.

Loads from Latin America wish to go to the USA. People from Asia wish to go the Middle East and Australia. Most people from Eastern Europe wish to go to Germany, and loads from North Africa wish to go to France.

People who have more of a choice to go to different countries are finding places like Canada and the USA as places to live, to a lesser extent Japan, Korea, and Australia.

 

The idea that all the immigrants want to come to the U.K. is a myth that’s not even backed up by numbers. We as a nation have simply made up that notion, and also in the case of the right wing amongst us, became afraid of it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CM1961 said:

 

From World Population Review - Statistics Section

 

Worldwide top 10 countries with the highest number of Refugees/Immigrants - Source United Nations

1st United States — 50.6 million

2nd Germany — 15.8 million

3rd Saudi Arabia — 13.5 million

4th Russia — 11.6 million

5th United Kingdom — 9.4 million

6th United Arab Emirates — 8.7 million

7th France — 8.5 million

8th Canada — 8.0 million

9th Australia — 7.7 million

10th Spain — 6.8 million

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/refugees-by-country

 

 

 

Look further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stifler said:

It’s absolute fucking bullshit though.

Loads from Latin America wish to go to the USA. People from Asia wish to go the Middle East and Australia. Most people from Eastern Europe wish to go to Germany, and loads from North Africa wish to go to France.

People who have more of a choice to go to different countries are finding places like Canada and the USA as places to live, to a lesser extent Japan, Korea, and Australia.

 

The idea that all the immigrants want to come to the U.K. is a myth that’s not even backed up by numbers. We as a nation have simply made up that notion, and also in the case of the right wing amongst us, became afraid of it as well.

 

I didn't say ALL the immigrants want to come to the UK.  That would be nonsense.

 

For the numbers you refer to ... see my post above yours.

 

Anyhow, I've had enough of this topic now so I'm moving on.

 

Bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CM1961 said:

 

From World Population Review - Statistics Section

 

Worldwide top 10 countries with the highest number of Refugees/Immigrants - Source United Nations

1st United States — 50.6 million

2nd Germany — 15.8 million

3rd Saudi Arabia — 13.5 million

4th Russia — 11.6 million

5th United Kingdom — 9.4 million

6th United Arab Emirates — 8.7 million

7th France — 8.5 million

8th Canada — 8.0 million

9th Australia — 7.7 million

10th Spain — 6.8 million

Man I wonder why there are a lot of displaced humans from these places, it’s really a mystery, it can’t be that we’ve waged war in their countries, it can’t be. The most tolerant country would never 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...