7 ms·

Gotta love the BBC Headline currently on the home page: "Surveillance law: Revised bill adds privacy safeguards".

branchless 11y ago
The BBC is state TV. They care for you on articles about salt intake or the lack of bees. State business they would sell you out in a flash.
- orf 11y ago
  Its actually completely seperate from the state, and for good reason. That being said it's biased on Some topics, this included.
  - branchless 11y ago
    It's not separate from the state. When push comes to shove the establishment tell the BBC what to do. We've seen this in the 2011 riots. We've seen this in the 2008 banking crisis and subsequent massive wealth transfers. Now we see it with state surveillance. The BBC is on your side until it matters. I don't care what their charter says, I look at what they do. The UK is preparing. As living standards continue to fall state surveillance will become more and more necessary to try and suppress alternate views. How long before posting a blog on the UK's intractable deficit and massive private debt is "financial terrorism"?
    - asuffield 11y ago
      The main flaw in your argument is that living standards are better than at any time in history before now.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        Insert the word "perceived" into that sentence and none of that matters. Also, ignoring for the sake of argument whether this is actually true, there are numerous possible caveats: - Living standards could be better now, but also more fragile than at any time in history. - Average living standards could be high, but with growing extremes and a shrinking middle. - Living standards in a historical perspective are 100% irrelevant to someone who is currently living half the lifestyle they did five years ago because their industry dried up and they have to serve food for a living. - etc.
        asuffield 11y ago
        It is certainly true that a common political tactic is to attempt to convince people that there was some time in the past when they were better off than today. Remarkably, people are far more willing to believe this (even in the face of all the data which inevitably shows it isn't true - in the UK we've been on a near-vertical climb for a century with even the recent economic messes being little more than a quiver), than they are willing to believe that things could be made better in the future. There are plenty of places in the world where living standards are low. The UK is not one of them. If you live here, even if you are the poorest person in the country, you are rich beyond the dreams of half the population of the world. I'm not buying into any of this "life is terrible, you should give me more" meme.
        motters 11y ago
        "If you live here, even if you are the poorest person in the country, you are rich beyond the dreams of half the population of the world" Really? Have you ever been in The Work Programme? Have you ever visited a food bank? Have you ever had neighbours pleading with you for food for their children because they have no money? You can prefer to live inside of a cosy bubble of ignorance if you wish, but this is the UK in 2016.
        asuffield 11y ago
        The answer to all of your questions is approximately yes (names vary). I've also done a lot of work to address these problems when they come up, and I've read the data on the current state of the economy. How many of these things have you done? Have you ever had people pleading with you for food/money and, instead of berating people on the internet, got them into the drugs treatment programme that they desperately needed? Have you ever got people to correctly file appeals when the jobcentre made a mistake and didn't give them the money they were entitled to? Have you ever taught people the skills they need to be productive members of society and provide for themselves? Because I've also done all of those things on multiple occasions, and I think I have a much better sense of the problems that we face than you do. I also think that your refusal to admit these are the real problems and put work into fixing them is one of the major reasons why we still have them. It's very easy to say "I want more, it's not fair", and much harder to figure out why things aren't working when there's plenty for everybody and get something done about that.
      - branchless 11y ago
        Yes I'll be retiring at 65 no problem! :-) Oh no wait they are pushing back all the problems...
      - motters 11y ago
        As someone who has always been a UK citizen and is old enough to remember decades past I can say with confidence that this statement is not accurate.
        branchless 11y ago
        Thank you - most old people lie about this (I suspect due to guilt).
      - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
        > The main flaw in your argument is that living standards are better than at any time in history before now. For some, yes. For some, and that growing inequality is the problem. Food bank use and rough sleeping are rising steeply over the last few yeas, and that's not a problem of perception, it is based in fact. But everything is fine for me, so what's the problem, right?
        nbevans 11y ago
        Food bank use is increasing out of certain social classes realising there is free food on offer. Rough sleeping is by choice in the UK; if they want a homeless shelter there are plenty on offer, all government funded. All they have to do is walk into their local council social services and they will be dealt with. As usual, modern leftist opinions love to attack the "welfare state" that they originally helped to build. As though it is crumbling away. It isn't...
        adaline 11y ago
        Do you have some evidence to support any of this? Sounds like a collection of easy to repeat lines... I say this because I have actually tried to get a homeless person into a shelter once, only to be told that half them were closed down due to funding cuts, the rest needed a lengthy referral procedure or a £20 payment for the night - aka a normal hostel. And all this was possible because I had a smartphone on me with internet to look up and call various places. A homeless person without such access has very little chance!
        nbevans 11y ago
        Several of our customers (IT projects) are organisations for homeless. So I can tell you they do exist. Two types of referral exist: from the council, or a walk in from the street. There are also numerous TV shows that document the process. Sometimes it is called "sheltered housing" other times "homeless hostel" and other times "emergency accommodation". It is effectively all the same thing. Like I said "living rough" i.e. the stereotypical homeless person is basically not a real thing in the UK. They do it because they either choose to do so or have other mental or social problems that prevent them from seeking free help.
    - s_kilk 11y ago
      > When push comes to shove the establishment tell the BBC what to do. See also "The Thick Of It".
      - arethuza 11y ago
        I also remember reading that during the Alistair Campbell days that the Today program on Radio 4 would get a call immediately they said anything critical of the Blair government. However, these calls would often be answered by someone senior picking up the phone, listening politely for a short while and then the caller (who was presumably calling from No 10) being told to "F*ck Off".
    - toyg 11y ago
      To be fair, they tried standing up to "the man" once, in 2003 on the Iraq invasion. They pushed the revelations from Dr. Kelly and condemned "sexing up" of dossiers that tried to justify the war, something that is now accepted historical fact on both sides of the Atlantic. Dr. Kelly killed himself in a field, and BBC head Greg Dyke was forced to resign and pushed in the political wilderness for a decade.
      - branchless 11y ago
        Agreed, that was the day hope died in the UK.
  - motters 11y ago
    The BBC is very much a state run organization. The people who ultimately decide what happens to the BBC - The BBC Trust - are appointed by "queen in council", which in practice means government ministers.
- anewhnaccount 11y ago
  As if News Corp is any better.
- vidarh 11y ago
  Every side always insist the BBC is biased towards the other side. The big issue with the BBC is not bias (I'm not saying there is none - I don't believe that is possible, but I don't think it is a major problem), it is that they're spineless: They try exceedingly hard to avoid taking a stance. Any stance. Even over relatively un-controversial things. And that is ironically usually what causes them to be attacked as being biased, because people tend to assume that when someone isn't condemning thing they see as obviously bad, then it implies a bias rather than the absence of a stance. As far as I can tell, the BBC article is actually quite balanced, including both sides views. And while I disagree that the new privacy concessions are sufficient, it seems that the headline is factually accurate. What the article doesn't do, is actually try to weigh the arguments up against each other or carry out much actual journalism, by for example questioning the statements (of either side) in any remotely critical fashion and arriving at a conclusion.
  - collyw 11y ago
    The problem with the BBC's idea of balanced is that it gives equal time to nonsense like anti-vaccers.
    - hfsktr 11y ago
      Somewhat related to that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE Dara O'Briain talking about how giving a 'balanced' opinion.

The BBC is state TV. They care for you on articles about salt intake or the lack of bees. State business they would sell you out in a flash.

orf 11y ago
Its actually completely seperate from the state, and for good reason. That being said it's biased on Some topics, this included.
- branchless 11y ago
  It's not separate from the state. When push comes to shove the establishment tell the BBC what to do. We've seen this in the 2011 riots. We've seen this in the 2008 banking crisis and subsequent massive wealth transfers. Now we see it with state surveillance. The BBC is on your side until it matters. I don't care what their charter says, I look at what they do. The UK is preparing. As living standards continue to fall state surveillance will become more and more necessary to try and suppress alternate views. How long before posting a blog on the UK's intractable deficit and massive private debt is "financial terrorism"?
  - asuffield 11y ago
    The main flaw in your argument is that living standards are better than at any time in history before now.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Insert the word "perceived" into that sentence and none of that matters. Also, ignoring for the sake of argument whether this is actually true, there are numerous possible caveats: - Living standards could be better now, but also more fragile than at any time in history. - Average living standards could be high, but with growing extremes and a shrinking middle. - Living standards in a historical perspective are 100% irrelevant to someone who is currently living half the lifestyle they did five years ago because their industry dried up and they have to serve food for a living. - etc.
      - asuffield 11y ago
        It is certainly true that a common political tactic is to attempt to convince people that there was some time in the past when they were better off than today. Remarkably, people are far more willing to believe this (even in the face of all the data which inevitably shows it isn't true - in the UK we've been on a near-vertical climb for a century with even the recent economic messes being little more than a quiver), than they are willing to believe that things could be made better in the future. There are plenty of places in the world where living standards are low. The UK is not one of them. If you live here, even if you are the poorest person in the country, you are rich beyond the dreams of half the population of the world. I'm not buying into any of this "life is terrible, you should give me more" meme.
        motters 11y ago
        "If you live here, even if you are the poorest person in the country, you are rich beyond the dreams of half the population of the world" Really? Have you ever been in The Work Programme? Have you ever visited a food bank? Have you ever had neighbours pleading with you for food for their children because they have no money? You can prefer to live inside of a cosy bubble of ignorance if you wish, but this is the UK in 2016.
        asuffield 11y ago
        The answer to all of your questions is approximately yes (names vary). I've also done a lot of work to address these problems when they come up, and I've read the data on the current state of the economy. How many of these things have you done? Have you ever had people pleading with you for food/money and, instead of berating people on the internet, got them into the drugs treatment programme that they desperately needed? Have you ever got people to correctly file appeals when the jobcentre made a mistake and didn't give them the money they were entitled to? Have you ever taught people the skills they need to be productive members of society and provide for themselves? Because I've also done all of those things on multiple occasions, and I think I have a much better sense of the problems that we face than you do. I also think that your refusal to admit these are the real problems and put work into fixing them is one of the major reasons why we still have them. It's very easy to say "I want more, it's not fair", and much harder to figure out why things aren't working when there's plenty for everybody and get something done about that.
    - branchless 11y ago
      Yes I'll be retiring at 65 no problem! :-) Oh no wait they are pushing back all the problems...
    - motters 11y ago
      As someone who has always been a UK citizen and is old enough to remember decades past I can say with confidence that this statement is not accurate.
      - branchless 11y ago
        Thank you - most old people lie about this (I suspect due to guilt).
    - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
      > The main flaw in your argument is that living standards are better than at any time in history before now. For some, yes. For some, and that growing inequality is the problem. Food bank use and rough sleeping are rising steeply over the last few yeas, and that's not a problem of perception, it is based in fact. But everything is fine for me, so what's the problem, right?
      - nbevans 11y ago
        Food bank use is increasing out of certain social classes realising there is free food on offer. Rough sleeping is by choice in the UK; if they want a homeless shelter there are plenty on offer, all government funded. All they have to do is walk into their local council social services and they will be dealt with. As usual, modern leftist opinions love to attack the "welfare state" that they originally helped to build. As though it is crumbling away. It isn't...
        adaline 11y ago
        Do you have some evidence to support any of this? Sounds like a collection of easy to repeat lines... I say this because I have actually tried to get a homeless person into a shelter once, only to be told that half them were closed down due to funding cuts, the rest needed a lengthy referral procedure or a £20 payment for the night - aka a normal hostel. And all this was possible because I had a smartphone on me with internet to look up and call various places. A homeless person without such access has very little chance!
        nbevans 11y ago
        Several of our customers (IT projects) are organisations for homeless. So I can tell you they do exist. Two types of referral exist: from the council, or a walk in from the street. There are also numerous TV shows that document the process. Sometimes it is called "sheltered housing" other times "homeless hostel" and other times "emergency accommodation". It is effectively all the same thing. Like I said "living rough" i.e. the stereotypical homeless person is basically not a real thing in the UK. They do it because they either choose to do so or have other mental or social problems that prevent them from seeking free help.
  - s_kilk 11y ago
    > When push comes to shove the establishment tell the BBC what to do. See also "The Thick Of It".
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I also remember reading that during the Alistair Campbell days that the Today program on Radio 4 would get a call immediately they said anything critical of the Blair government. However, these calls would often be answered by someone senior picking up the phone, listening politely for a short while and then the caller (who was presumably calling from No 10) being told to "F*ck Off".
  - toyg 11y ago
    To be fair, they tried standing up to "the man" once, in 2003 on the Iraq invasion. They pushed the revelations from Dr. Kelly and condemned "sexing up" of dossiers that tried to justify the war, something that is now accepted historical fact on both sides of the Atlantic. Dr. Kelly killed himself in a field, and BBC head Greg Dyke was forced to resign and pushed in the political wilderness for a decade.
    - branchless 11y ago
      Agreed, that was the day hope died in the UK.
- motters 11y ago
  The BBC is very much a state run organization. The people who ultimately decide what happens to the BBC - The BBC Trust - are appointed by "queen in council", which in practice means government ministers.
anewhnaccount 11y ago
As if News Corp is any better.
vidarh 11y ago
Every side always insist the BBC is biased towards the other side. The big issue with the BBC is not bias (I'm not saying there is none - I don't believe that is possible, but I don't think it is a major problem), it is that they're spineless: They try exceedingly hard to avoid taking a stance. Any stance. Even over relatively un-controversial things. And that is ironically usually what causes them to be attacked as being biased, because people tend to assume that when someone isn't condemning thing they see as obviously bad, then it implies a bias rather than the absence of a stance. As far as I can tell, the BBC article is actually quite balanced, including both sides views. And while I disagree that the new privacy concessions are sufficient, it seems that the headline is factually accurate. What the article doesn't do, is actually try to weigh the arguments up against each other or carry out much actual journalism, by for example questioning the statements (of either side) in any remotely critical fashion and arriving at a conclusion.
- collyw 11y ago
  The problem with the BBC's idea of balanced is that it gives equal time to nonsense like anti-vaccers.
  - hfsktr 11y ago
    Somewhat related to that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE Dara O'Briain talking about how giving a 'balanced' opinion.