On 26/10/2021 10:06, MB wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 02:04, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB<MB@nospam.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
>>> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed.  Will hopefullhy get
>>> quite expensive for Channel 4.
>> How does that actually help anybody?
>
> If sufficiently expensive then they will be more careful to stick the
> rules in future.
>

I take it you are not a fan of restorative justice - as in action to try
to help those injured by the offence.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/10/2021 10:25, Robin wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 10:06, MB wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 02:04, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB<MB@nospam.net>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
>>>> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed.  Will hopefullhy get
>>>> quite expensive for Channel 4.
>>> How does that actually help anybody?
>> If sufficiently expensive then they will be more careful to stick the
>> rules in future.
>>
> I take it you are not a fan of restorative justice - as in action to try
> to help those injured by the offence.

If the hit with a penalty then they will be more careful in future, that
seems what is needed for those affected.

So-called "restorative justice" seems to consist of the guilty party
reading out a statement (presumably written by their legal advisors)
saying they are sorry.

On 26/10/2021 13:40, MB wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 10:25, Robin wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 10:06, MB wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2021 02:04, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB<MB@nospam.net>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM
>>>>> will be
>>>>> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed.  Will hopefullhy get
>>>>> quite expensive for Channel 4.
>>>> How does that actually help anybody?
>>> If sufficiently expensive then they will be more careful to stick the
>>> rules in future.
>>>
>> I take it you are not a fan of restorative justice - as in action to try
>> to help those injured by the offence.
>
> If the hit with a penalty then they will be more careful in future, that
> seems what is needed for those affected.
>
> So-called "restorative justice" seems to consist of the guilty party
> reading out a statement (presumably written by their legal advisors)
> saying they are sorry.
>

Did you miss my post where I pointed out that in the past broadcasters
who failed to meet their access service targets had undertaken to make
up the difference by providing more of them than Ofcom would otherwise
have required in later years? FTOAD that both costs the broadcasters
money and gives the people who suffered something extra.

In contrast fines go to the government and so tend to reduce the
tax/increase spending on services generally. Better for those of us who
don't use the access services of course, if we're being selfish.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>> charles wrote:
>
>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>
>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>
>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>> to fix things at the moment.
>
>> The "political" reason(s):
>
>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>
>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>
>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>> just a company competing with others).
>
>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>> consume or pay for its output.
>
>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>
> OK you are having a love affair with SKY

I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
(with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).

But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
steadily worse and worse.

It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
looks as though that might change.

On 26/10/2021 14:54, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>
>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>
>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>
> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
> if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
> particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
> (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>
> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
> steadily worse and worse.

OSAF. Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/10/2021 03:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 26/10/2021 14:54, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>
>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure
>>>> lack of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>
>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>
>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own
>> future if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter
>> obligations - particularly those relating to the requirement for
>> political neutrality (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>
>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>> steadily worse and worse.
>
> OSAF.  Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!

How old are you?

On 26/10/2021 15:35, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2021 03:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 26/10/2021 14:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>>>
>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure
>>>>> lack of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>>
>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>>
>>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own
>>> future if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter
>>> obligations - particularly those relating to the requirement for
>>> political neutrality (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>>
>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>> steadily worse and worse.
>>
>> OSAF.  Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!
>
> How old are you?

Stop trying to bullshit. Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that claim???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/10/2021 04:23 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 26/10/2021 15:35, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 03:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2021 14:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>
>>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to
>>>>>> ensure lack of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>
>>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>
>>>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own
>>>> future if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter
>>>> obligations - particularly those relating to the requirement for
>>>> political neutrality (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>
>>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>>> steadily worse and worse.
>
>>> OSAF.  Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!
>>
>> How old are you?
>
> Stop trying to bullshit.  Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that claim???!!!

Can you not *remember* that the BBC used to be a quite different
organisation from what it is today?

Alternatively, have you never heard the name "Reith"?

He wouldn't have stood for the BBC as it is now.

But of course, a literal reading of what you SHOUT above can also
support your lack of belief that the BBC has ever adhered to its own
charter.

Well, it once did.

But no more.

On 27/10/2021 10:07, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2021 04:23 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 26/10/2021 15:35, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/10/2021 03:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26/10/2021 14:54, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>>>> steadily worse and worse.
>>>>
>>>> OSAF.  Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!
>>>
>>> How old are you?
>>
>> Stop trying to bullshit.  Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that claim???!!!
>
> Can you not *remember* that the BBC used to be a quite different
> organisation from what it is today?

Yes, but I can't remember that it was any more or less biased than it is
today.

I repeat, where is your *EVIDENCE* for that claim???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:21:07 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>> Do we need to start uk.tech.cannot-be-bothered ?
>>
> It's a deal !  :-)

In the same way that nobody turned up to the initial meeting
of the Apathy Society, is anybody going to do it?

On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 13:40:43 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 26/10/2021 10:25, Robin wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 10:06, MB wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2021 02:04, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB<MB@nospam.net>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
>>>>> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed.  Will hopefullhy get
>>>>> quite expensive for Channel 4.
>>>> How does that actually help anybody?
>>> If sufficiently expensive then they will be more careful to stick the
>>> rules in future.
>>>
>> I take it you are not a fan of restorative justice - as in action to try
>> to help those injured by the offence.
>
>If the hit with a penalty then they will be more careful in future, that
>seems what is needed for those affected.

If you penalise Channel 4 the viewers are hit, Channel 4 is a not for profit
company. Advertising revenue pays for the programmes.

>
>So-called "restorative justice" seems to consist of the guilty party
>reading out a statement (presumably written by their legal advisors)
>saying they are sorry.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>> charles wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>
>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>
>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>
>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>
>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>
>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>
>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>> just a company competing with others).
>>
>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>
>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>
>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>
>I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>(with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>
>But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>steadily worse and worse.
>
>It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>looks as though that might change.

Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 28/10/2021 09:32, Martin wrote:
> If you penalise Channel 4 the viewers are hit, Channel 4 is a not for profit
> company. Advertising revenue pays for the programmes.

And for the large salaries etc of the executives.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:32:12 +0200, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>
>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>>
>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>
>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>
>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>
>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>
>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>
>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>
>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>
>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>
>>I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>>if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>>particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>>(with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>
>>But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>steadily worse and worse.
>>
>>It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>>Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>>looks as though that might change.
>
>Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?

Wake up at the back there!

Referring to Sky? Comcast acquired the entirety of Sky in 2018 for
£17.28 per share. The Aussie has no interests in Sky.

Comcast Corporation (formerly known as American Cable Systems and
Comcast Holdings) is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Google it yourself.

--
brightside S9

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:59:02 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 28/10/2021 09:32, Martin wrote:
>> If you penalise Channel 4 the viewers are hit, Channel 4 is a not for profit
>> company. Advertising revenue pays for the programmes.
>
>And for the large salaries etc of the executives.

Normal for UK. Imposing fines won't effect their salaries,also normal for UK
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:51:35 +0100, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:32:12 +0200, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>>>
>>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>>
>>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>>
>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>>
>>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>>
>>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>>
>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>>
>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>>
>>>I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>>>if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>>>particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>>>(with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>>
>>>But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>>steadily worse and worse.
>>>
>>>It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>>>Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>>>looks as though that might change.
>>
>>Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?
>
>Wake up at the back there!
>
>Referring to Sky? Comcast acquired the entirety of Sky in 2018 for
>£17.28 per share. The Aussie has no interests in Sky.
>
>Comcast Corporation (formerly known as American Cable Systems and
>Comcast Holdings) is an American multinational telecommunications
>conglomerate headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
>
>Google it yourself.

Substitute Americans for Australian :-)
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 28/10/2021 09:32 am, Martin wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>
>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>>
>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>
>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>
>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>
>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>
>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>
>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>
>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>
>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>
>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>> if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>> particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>> (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>
>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>> steadily worse and worse.
>>
>> It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>> Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>> looks as though that might change.
>
> Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?

If you mean Rupert Murdoch, I understand that he is an American citizen.

Not that it matters. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a
television service in the UK, view Freeview or satellite, or, as seems
to be the case more and more, streaming via cable / internet. Should
there be?

And what have you got against Australians?

I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
regard itself as having a right to act politically.

On 28/10/2021 12:35, JNugent wrote:
>
> I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
> law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
> BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
> regard itself as having a right to act politically.

Again, where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim???!!!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:35:11 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 28/10/2021 09:32 am, Martin wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>>>
>>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>>
>>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>>
>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>>
>>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>>
>>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>>
>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>>
>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>>
>>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>>> if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>>> particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>>> (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>>
>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>> steadily worse and worse.
>>>
>>> It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>>> Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>>> looks as though that might change.
>>
>> Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?
>
>If you mean Rupert Murdoch, I understand that he is an American citizen.
>
>Not that it matters. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a
>television service in the UK, view Freeview or satellite, or, as seems
>to be the case more and more, streaming via cable / internet. Should
>there be?
>
>And what have you got against Australians?
>
>I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
>law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
>BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
>regard itself as having a right to act politically.

Criticising a politicians who lie isn't being political. Corbyn complained that
the BBC isn't impartial too.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 29/10/2021 12:04 pm, Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:35:11 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 28/10/2021 09:32 am, Martin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>>>
>>>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>>>
>>>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>>>
>>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>>>
>>>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>>>> if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>>>> particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>>>> (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>>>
>>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>>> steadily worse and worse.
>>>>
>>>> It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>>>> Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>>>> looks as though that might change.
>>>
>>> Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?
>>
>> If you mean Rupert Murdoch, I understand that he is an American citizen.
>>
>> Not that it matters. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a
>> television service in the UK, view Freeview or satellite, or, as seems
>> to be the case more and more, streaming via cable / internet. Should
>> there be?
>>
>> And what have you got against Australians?
>>
>> I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
>> law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
>> BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
>> regard itself as having a right to act politically.
>
> Criticising a politicians who lie isn't being political. Corbyn complained that
> the BBC isn't impartial too.

I can remember when the BBC used to be scrupulously politically impartial.

Dome time after the early (1962) success of "That Was The Week That
Was", for instance, the Beeb decided to discontinue the programme
precisely because 1964 was going to be an election year.

Imagine (if you can, because you can't) that level of impartiality
today, even from newscasters.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 29/10/2021 12:04 pm, Martin wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:35:11 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/10/2021 09:32 am, Martin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to
>>>>>>>>> 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>> considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to
>>>>>>>>> conclude management incompetence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>>>>> if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>>>>> particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>>>>> (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>>>>
>>>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>>>> steadily worse and worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>>>>> Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>>>>> looks as though that might change.
>>>>
>>>> Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?
>>>
>>> If you mean Rupert Murdoch, I understand that he is an American citizen.
>>>
>>> Not that it matters. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a
>>> television service in the UK, view Freeview or satellite, or, as seems
>>> to be the case more and more, streaming via cable / internet. Should
>>> there be?
>>>
>>> And what have you got against Australians?
>>>
>>> I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
>>> law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
>>> BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
>>> regard itself as having a right to act politically.
>>
>> Criticising a politicians who lie isn't being political. Corbyn complained that
>> the BBC isn't impartial too.
>
> I can remember when the BBC used to be scrupulously politically impartial.
>
> Dome time after the early (1962) success of "That Was The Week That
> Was", for instance, the Beeb decided to discontinue the programme
> precisely because 1964 was going to be an election year.
>
> Imagine (if you can, because you can't) that level of impartiality
> today, even from newscasters.
>

Are you sure you aren’t confusing impartiality with deference and lack of
challenge?

On 31/10/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2021 12:04 pm, Martin wrote:
>>
>> Criticising a politicians who lie isn't being political. Corbyn
>> complained that
>> the BBC isn't impartial too.
>
> I can remember when the BBC used to be scrupulously politically impartial.

It still is impartial compared with most other news outlets.

> Dome time after the early (1962) success of "That Was The Week That
> Was", for instance, the Beeb decided to discontinue the programme
> precisely because 1964 was going to be an election year.

That was what they said at the time, but the truth is almost certainly
somewhat different. It always was a highly-controversial programme that
prompted 'outrage' and many complaints about 'trial by television', etc.
Note that it was never re-introduced here after 1964, despite it's
success in America, still with David Frost, why do you think that was?
Hardly impartiality, more like cold feet.

> Imagine (if you can, because you can't) that level of impartiality
> today, even from newscasters.

Despite being repeatedly challenged to do so, you've consistently failed
to come up with any evidence that demonstrates that main stream media
are less impartial than previously (the above not being an example for
the reasons given). Imagine, if you can, that what you see as modern
lack of impartiality is because you have shifted your opinions, not the
BBC its broadly centrist position.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 03:42 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 29/10/2021 12:04 pm, Martin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:35:11 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/10/2021 09:32 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:54:35 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/10/2021 09:12 am, Martin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> charles wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>>>>>>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>>>>>>>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>>>>>>>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to
>>>>>>>>>> 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>>>>>>>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>>> considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to
>>>>>>>>>> conclude management incompetence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>>>>>>>>> to fix things at the moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "political" reason(s):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>>>>>>>> just a company competing with others).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>>>>>>>> certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>>>>>>>> consume or pay for its output.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>>>>>>>> of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK you are having a love affair with SKY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be more willing to settle for letting the BBC decide its own future
>>>>>> if only it could be trusted to adhere to its own Charter obligations -
>>>>>> particularly those relating to the requirement for political neutrality
>>>>>> (with which it *used* to cheerfully comply).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it stopped doing that some time in the 1960s and has just grown
>>>>>> steadily worse and worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It cannot be trusted to do any more than pay temporary lip-service to
>>>>>> Charter requirements in the run-up to a renewal. But with any luck, it
>>>>>> looks as though that might change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Better to have a service influenced and owned by an Australian?
>>>>
>>>> If you mean Rupert Murdoch, I understand that he is an American citizen.
>>>>
>>>> Not that it matters. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a
>>>> television service in the UK, view Freeview or satellite, or, as seems
>>>> to be the case more and more, streaming via cable / internet. Should
>>>> there be?
>>>>
>>>> And what have you got against Australians?
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind who provides television services as long as they obey the
>>>> law and adhere to any charter or licencing conditions which apply. The
>>>> BBC stopped doing the latter some decades ago and seems to collectively
>>>> regard itself as having a right to act politically.
>>>
>>> Criticising a politicians who lie isn't being political. Corbyn complained that
>>> the BBC isn't impartial too.
>>
>> I can remember when the BBC used to be scrupulously politically impartial.
>>
>> Dome time after the early (1962) success of "That Was The Week That
>> Was", for instance, the Beeb decided to discontinue the programme
>> precisely because 1964 was going to be an election year.
>>
>> Imagine (if you can, because you can't) that level of impartiality
>> today, even from newscasters.
>>
>
> Are you sure you aren’t confusing impartiality with deference and lack of
> challenge?

Yes.

Next...

On 31/10/2021 03:53 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 31/10/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/10/2021 12:04 pm, Martin wrote:
>
>>> Criticising a politicians who lie isn't being political. Corbyn
>>> complained that
>>> the BBC isn't impartial too.
>
>> I can remember when the BBC used to be scrupulously politically
>> impartial.
>
> It still is impartial compared with most other news outlets.

Other news outlets are not relevant here. The old "big boys made me do
it" excuse isn't valid.

The issue is the BBC's charter obligations for political impartiality,
with which it does not even try to comply.

>> Dome time after the early (1962) success of "That Was The Week That
>> Was", for instance, the Beeb decided to discontinue the programme
>> precisely because 1964 was going to be an election year.
>
> That was what they said at the time,

Were they lying?

> but the truth is almost certainly
> somewhat different.  It always was a highly-controversial programme that
> prompted 'outrage' and many complaints about 'trial by television', etc.
>  Note that it was never re-introduced here after 1964, despite it's
> success in America, still with David Frost, why do you think that was?
> Hardly impartiality, more like cold feet.
>
>> Imagine (if you can, because you can't) that level of impartiality
>> today, even from newscasters.
>
> Despite being repeatedly challenged to do so, you've consistently failed
> to come up with any evidence that demonstrates that main stream media
> are less impartial than previously (the above not being an example for
> the reasons given).  Imagine, if you can, that what you see as modern
> lack of impartiality is because you have shifted your opinions, not the
> BBC its broadly centrist position.

Have you ever heard of Greg Dyke?

On 31/10/2021 15:58, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2021 03:53 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> I can remember when the BBC used to be scrupulously politically
>>> impartial.
>>
>> It still is impartial compared with most other news outlets.
>
> Other news outlets are not relevant here. The old "big boys made me do
> it" excuse isn't valid.

How can other news outlets ever NOT be relevant, then or now? You have
to have something to compare the BBC against.

> The issue is the BBC's charter obligations for political impartiality,
> with which it does not even try to comply.

Yawn! Circular argument alert! Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that
assertion?

>>> Dome time after the early (1962) success of "That Was The Week That
>>> Was", for instance, the Beeb decided to discontinue the programme
>>> precisely because 1964 was going to be an election year.
>>
>> That was what they said at the time,
>
> Were they lying?

I don't know for certain at the time they made that announcement,
because it may have been true when it was said, but possibly later
became a convenient excuse, otherwise the programme should have been
re-instated after the election, should it not, but it wasn't, despite
the format having proved successful, so why was that?

>> but the truth is almost certainly somewhat different.  It always was a
>> highly-controversial programme that prompted 'outrage' and many
>> complaints about 'trial by television', etc.   Note that it was never
>> re-introduced here after 1964, despite it's success in America, still
>> with David Frost, why do you think that was? Hardly impartiality, more
>> like cold feet.
>>
>>> Imagine (if you can, because you can't) that level of impartiality
>>> today, even from newscasters.
>>
>> Despite being repeatedly challenged to do so, you've consistently
>> failed to come up with any evidence that demonstrates that main stream
>> media are less impartial than previously (the above not being an
>> example for the reasons given).  Imagine, if you can, that what you
>> see as modern lack of impartiality is because you have shifted your
>> opinions, not the BBC its broadly centrist position.
>
> Have you ever heard of Greg Dyke?

Yes I have, see my posts of 5/11/2020 in a thread entitled 'Finally a
new Humax box - Aura' debunking your claims about him, and how very
typical that it should have to have been in a thread dragged OT by Bob
Latham, and that, despite that debunking, you should still be trying to
make the same failed claims months later. Have you ever heard of
checking your facts and finding some actual *EVIDENCE* before parroting
out the same old crap?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk