On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>
>The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.

You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
> Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.

I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.

On 21/01/2023 11:30, Scott wrote:
> You certainly make a valid point. I used to listen to Feedback before
> Roger Bolton was removed (for giving the BBC a hard time?). Whatever
> the issue, the BBC invariably always said the listener(s) were wrong
> and the BBC knew better.

But that is usually the case when you look at a complaint closely,
usually from someone with a chip on their shoulder about something.

What complaints system do other broadcasters have and do they always
agree with anyone complaining?

On 21/01/2023 11:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
> But we don't have one do we? Governments can rewrite the law and do so all
> the time. As for the bib, I have noticed of late that if they put up an
> email for them, nobody ever gets back to you, It seems far worse if its the
> crowd at media City in Salford. I mean its hardly rocket science to send an
> automated reply to the effect that your email has been opened is it?
>
> What is the point in soliciting comment if it never is being read?

Think for a moment about how many letters and EMails the BBC receive?
To give a personalised response to every one would be VERY expensive.

On 21/01/2023 12:33, MB wrote:
> Think for a moment about how many letters and EMails the BBC receive?
> To give a personalised response to every one would be VERY expensive.

Also large numbers will be just moans about popular programmes, many the
same moans but with opposing points of views.

On 21/01/2023 at 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our
>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
>>> deny it was what he said.
>>>
>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>
>>
>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>> British institution?
>
> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>

But that so often means "doesn't agree with me". But let me tell you,
what the BBC does and says very often doesn't align with my views. But
at other times it does. If you only ever look at the times you don't
like what the BBC does in some way, then of course you will see it as
biased / partial. But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty
balanced. You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.
--
Wilf

On 21/01/2023 12:27, MB wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
>> Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.

> I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
> our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
> one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.

If the US constitution had been any good it wouldn't have needed so many
amendments.

--
Max Demian

On 21/01/2023 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:10:41 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
>>> In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>> <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
>>>> our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
>>>> bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
>>>> put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
>>>> didn't deny it was what he said.
>>>
>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>
>>> There is no written constitution
>>>
>>
>> The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
>> codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
>
> Until recently there has been a general understanding of the British
> way of doing things.
>
> As long as you're British of course, or you've been brought up in the
> British way of life. Maybe customs and traditions are not as permanent
> a way of preserving things as we have previously relied upon,
> particularly as we dilute (or some might say pollute) our indigenous
> culture with some other very different ones. Maybe we should consider
> preserving our fundamental values by writing them down for everybody
> to understand.

Maybe all natives should be required to do the British Citizenship Test.
And be thrown out when we fail.

--
Max Demian

On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't
>>> have a
>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments,
>>> and our
>>> constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
>>> reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
>>> into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
>>> deny it was what he said.
>>>
>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>
>>
>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>> British institution?
>
> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>
There was a complaint recently that it was too far to the right, though
it was probably in a left of centre newspaper.

Phil M

In article <tqgn7v$2jmcq$1@dont-email.me>,
Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:

> But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty balanced.

The BBC is extremely :-

Pro EU, Anti Brexit.
Pro BLM.
Pro Net Zero.
Climate change fanatical.
Pro Vaccines, Masks, Lockdown
Pro political correctness.
Pro Immigration and support for poor channel refugees.
Anti Tory (not that there are any now).
Pro people's rights to protest in favour of the above but not against.
Etc. etc. There are plenty of others.

There is never a trace of balance on any of those subjects ever.
The BBC's upper middle class liberal/left opinion is fact in their
eyes.

> You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.

But on all the issues of the day, there's is never any balance. It's
not even allowed for anyone to make a counter argument certainly not
without sneering and an "expert" view quickly used dismiss the
heretic POV.

The BBC is not what it was a decade or two ago, it is now a
propaganda outlet for the establishment and the far left and nothing
more. Just look at their weather maps now, with the dark red and
black areas, nothing to do with science just pure undiluted
propaganda.

During covid we had daily death figures pushing the agenda, funnily
I'm told we don't have that for the ~100 people per day excess deaths
(5 year average) we have in the UK at the moment. I can't think why
that might be, oh maybe I can.

Disingenuous, awful BBC, supplier of bias reinforcement to the
clapping seals.

Such a shame.

Bob.

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>
>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>
> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>

I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
are specialised sub groupings.

On 21/01/2023 12:23, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>
> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American
> qualification, doesn't exist in the UK)

And is also a perfectly acceptable non-specific term for legal personnel
in this country.

> and boy does it show.

Lack of valid counter-argument and resort to ad hominem noted.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tqgn7v$2jmcq$1@dont-email.me>,
> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>
>> But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty balanced.
>
> The BBC is extremely :-
>
> Pro EU, Anti Brexit.
> Pro BLM.
> Pro Net Zero.
> Climate change fanatical.
> Pro Vaccines, Masks, Lockdown
> Pro political correctness.
> Pro Immigration and support for poor channel refugees.
> Anti Tory (not that there are any now).
> Pro people's rights to protest in favour of the above but not against.
> Etc. etc. There are plenty of others.
>
> There is never a trace of balance on any of those subjects ever.
> The BBC's upper middle class liberal/left opinion is fact in their
> eyes.
>
>> You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.
>
> But on all the issues of the day, there's is never any balance. It's
> not even allowed for anyone to make a counter argument certainly not
> without sneering and an "expert" view quickly used dismiss the
> heretic POV.
>
> The BBC is not what it was a decade or two ago, it is now a
> propaganda outlet for the establishment and the far left and nothing
> more. Just look at their weather maps now, with the dark red and
> black areas, nothing to do with science just pure undiluted
> propaganda.
>
> During covid we had daily death figures pushing the agenda, funnily
> I'm told we don't have that for the ~100 people per day excess deaths
> (5 year average) we have in the UK at the moment. I can't think why
> that might be, oh maybe I can.
>
> Disingenuous, awful BBC, supplier of bias reinforcement to the
> clapping seals.
>
> Such a shame.
>
> Bob.
>
>

Here’s what the general population think

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:

>Here’s what the general population think
>
>https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right

Interesting, probably reflects the insidious socialist propaganda machine
that is out in force.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 21/01/2023 14:54, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <tqgn7v$2jmcq$1@dont-email.me>,
> Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>
>> But taken overall, I personally think it's pretty balanced.
>
> The BBC is extremely :-
>
> Pro EU, Anti Brexit.
> Pro BLM.
> Pro Net Zero.

Like a majority of people in the country then.

> Climate change fanatical.

Nonsense

> Pro Vaccines, Masks, Lockdown

Because they work.

> Pro political correctness.

Because they have to be.

> Pro Immigration and support for poor channel refugees.

No evidence for that AFAIAA.

> Anti Tory (not that there are any now).

More like anti government of the day when it disastrously cocks up, as
this one has been doing ever since elected.

> Pro people's rights to protest in favour of the above but not against.

No evidence for that AFAIAA.

> Etc. etc. There are plenty of others.

No there aren't, you've just given a long and tedious list of the things
that *you* are most bigoted about, which we didn't need because we all
know it off by heart anyway, because you're making these bollocks claims.

> There is never a trace of balance on any of those subjects ever.
> The BBC's upper middle class liberal/left opinion is fact in their
> eyes.

Overall the BBC is pretty well balanced, and is immeasurably more so
than yourself.

>> You can't expect balance in each and every report or programme.
>
> But on all the issues of the day, there's is never any balance. It's
> not even allowed for anyone to make a counter argument certainly not
> without sneering and an "expert" view quickly used dismiss the
> heretic POV.

An expert view is there for a reason, to debunk bollocks. We could do
with more experts and less bollocks.

> The BBC is not what it was a decade or two ago, it is now a
> propaganda outlet for the establishment and the far left and nothing
> more. Just look at their weather maps now, with the dark red and
> black areas, nothing to do with science just pure undiluted
> propaganda.

Puerile paranoia left in for everyone else to have a laugh at.

> During covid we had daily death figures pushing the agenda, funnily
> I'm told we don't have that for the ~100 people per day excess deaths
> (5 year average) we have in the UK at the moment. I can't think why
> that might be

No-one else is publishing daily statistics either, because, to the
exasperation of many experts in the field, THE GOVERNMENT decided to
stop collecting them, let alone publishing them, so there aren't any
official sources any more.

> Disingenuous, awful BBC, supplier of bias reinforcement to the
> clapping seals.

You're one of the clapping seals, endlessly regurgitating crap that you
read in online sewers like Shitter.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:

>Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>>The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>
>>>The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>
>>You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>
>
>I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
>lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
>are specialised sub groupings.

Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is

On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh3kq$2louj$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>Overall the BBC is pretty well balanced, and is immeasurably more so than
>yourself.

Presumably that is just your opinion (which you are entitled to of course)
since it is not supported by fact.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Though no-one can go back and make a new start, everyone can start from
now and make a new ending.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
>>>> constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
>>>
>>> As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
>>> can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
>>> it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
>>> unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
>>
>> Do we not have common law either then?
>
>See section 'Common law and statute':
>
>https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/

Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
say does not exist

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 12:33:47 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 11:08, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> But we don't have one do we? Governments can rewrite the law and do so all
>> the time. As for the bib, I have noticed of late that if they put up an
>> email for them, nobody ever gets back to you, It seems far worse if its the
>> crowd at media City in Salford. I mean its hardly rocket science to send an
>> automated reply to the effect that your email has been opened is it?
>>
>> What is the point in soliciting comment if it never is being read?
>
>Think for a moment about how many letters and EMails the BBC receive?
>To give a personalised response to every one would be VERY expensive.
>
There is a chapter in a book about the history of Ryanair, where it
recounts a period when Michael O'Leary actively encouraged staff to
tell any customers making complaints to fuck off.

On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>
>>The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>
>You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.

You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 12:27:34 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
>> Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
>
>I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
>our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
>one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.
>
I would almost go with that.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 12:03:57 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:10:41 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>>On 21/01/2023 10:00, charles wrote:
>>> In article <xn0nx3wu444naeu006@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>> <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
>>>> Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
>>>> constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
>>>> democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and
>>>> our constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual
>>>> bland reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to
>>>> put it into a context where it would be a true statement, although they
>>>> didn't deny it was what he said.
>>>
>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>
>>> There is no written constitution
>>>
>>
>>The UK constitution is largely in writing. What we don't have is a
>>codified constitution in a single document. That's unusual but not unique.
>
>Until recently there has been a general understanding of the British
>way of doing things.
>
>As long as you're British of course, or you've been brought up in the
>British way of life. Maybe customs and traditions are not as permanent
>a way of preserving things as we have previously relied upon,
>particularly as we dilute (or some might say pollute) our indigenous
>culture with some other very different ones. Maybe we should consider
>preserving our fundamental values by writing them down for everybody
>to understand.
>
An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
devolution in Scotland and Wales.

On 21/01/2023 in message <6e5oshd79ehhhl9cs0lamsdjmgi6frnnvn@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:

>On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>>The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>
>>>The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>
>>You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>
>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?

No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
indication of the qualifications or role of a person.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ff$2lio0$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>
>> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>
>>>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>>
>>> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>>
>>
>> I think you will find the Law Society of England and Wales refers to
>> lawyers, as does the Crown Prosecution Service. Solicitors and Barristers
>> are specialised sub groupings.
>
> Creeping Americanism, standards are falling everywhere.
>

The word lawyer has been around since the 14th century, somewhat before
America was discovered.

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:12:40 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1...@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>
> >On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >>
> >>Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld? Christian
> >>Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK doesn't have a
> >>constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one of the oldest
> >>democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of Parliaments, and our
> >>constitution is one of the oldest in the world. I got the usual bland
> >>reply telling me they had watched a recording and then tried to put it
> >>into a context where it would be a true statement, although they didn't
> >>deny it was what he said.
> >>
> >>The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
> >>
> >
> >And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
> >British institution?
> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.

Is that right?

Or is it you?

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> The first five days after the weekend are the hardest.