>>28996
>The Ofcom report found that 60% of people in the higher AB socio-economic group thought the corporation was impartial, compared to just 49% in the lower CD group
Yet if you try and say poor people are stupid and easily-influenced, people get offended.

>>28997
It could be that it's confirmation bias for those in the AB group and they're less likely to challenge the BBC because its output fits with the worldview of their cozy little bubble.

>>28998
It could be, but it isn't.

>>28999
Oh, why isn't it?

I question any poll that shows Sky News and Channel 4 as impartial. It reads more like people are responding to confirmation bias which the BBC doesn't do outside of those areas I'm on my soapbox about.

But yeah, the BBC is fucked. Poor management and subpar content have only added to a machine not suited to the current model of broadcasting. This week I watched that documentary on Thatcher but only because I currently lack a daily programme to eat my dinner to.

>>28998
Excuse me but your scepticism of BBC impartiality has identified you as someone neither wealthy nor educated. Please delete your posts and leave the premises at once.

To be fair, BBC News has really gone downhill in the last couple of years. I want to see the news, not five minutes of news interspersed with 25 minutes of vox-pops from morons and "human interest stories". I don't give a toss about what people in Burnley Market think and I don't give a toss about how Joe Arsehole's life has been affected by this story.

I'm a wishy-washy liberal in the metropolitan elite bubble, but I feel that Sky News are just doing a better job at the moment. The less said about ITV news the better.

>>29004

Perfect opportunity to post this classic Sky News bit


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybiM51194MA

All the news channels today are bad due to being owned by a very small group of Oligarchs who generally use their position to influence Political Policy via campaign donations.

I'm particularly concerned about recent developments regarding the Govt's Clearing House which is responding to journalists differently if it suspects their reporting might hurt its image.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/how-uk-government-undermining-freedom-information-act/

Right now the level of corruption and incompetence is so high that if journalists were to report accurately and honestly on it this would likely result in mass civil unrest (esp. once the ramifications of Brexit start being felt by the people what voted for it).

By definition it is impossible to be impartial.

All this poll shows is that sky's Audience is thicker than any of the others.

If you asked me in a poll if the BBC was impartial I would say no. If you asked me if it was less bias than the other news broadcasters named I would say yes.

>>29005
>All the news channels today are bad due to being owned by a very small group of Oligarchs who generally use their position to influence Political Policy via campaign donations.

This.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nao53PcFLus

>>29005
Fuck, if only Open Democracy had a TV channel.

>>29004
BBC being heavily reliant on vox pop has been going on for a lot longer than a couple of years, usually interspersed with field reports making puns on whatever they've decided to connect their report together with.

There's simply fuck all worth watching on the BBC these days. When was the last time the BBC actually broadcast a genuinely funny comedy series? I think they have it better in Scotland but for the rest of us the only ones I'd class as being above par in at least the past 10 years are Detectorists and Episodes, possibly also The Trip and the fishing one with Monkhouse and Whitehouse if they count. BBC Three was largely shit but if you couldn't sleep then you could at least put on utter mindless bollocks like Family Guy, Don't Tell the Bride or Snog, Marry, Avoid.

Question Time has been ridiculous ever since Brexit and the rest of their political output has gone off the boil. I'll probably watch the new series of Line of Duty when that's out but that is literally it. Nothing appeals.

>>29013

>When was the last time the BBC actually broadcast a genuinely funny comedy series?

This Country. Fleabag, The Young Offenders and There She Goes were all bloody brilliant. On the other hand, Not Going Out does make me think that ISIS have got a point.

>>29014

You have a very low bar for quality.

With the amount of content available online, from all over the world, there is little reason for anyone under 70 to watch the BBC. Even my parenta have got around to cancelling their licence.

It's very metropolitan-centric isn't it the BBC?

>>29017

I'm quite a bit under 70, although middle age has been creeping up on me, and I quite like BBC Four's late night documentaries. They are perfect for me because I often work at home till late at night on some projects, especially now with the whole lockdown what-have-you, and having Jim Al-Khalili explain quantum physics to me is just the kind of come down I need so that I can drift off to sleep.

>>29025

I'd keep the license fee just for BBC Four and Radio 4 alone, frankly. Besides you don't get stuff like Horizon anywhere other than the BBC, unless you like your documentaries directly funded by the interest groups and supporting/opposing lobbies of the matter at hand. Whichever way you look at it the BBC has to modernise how it gets its funding, but there's definitely a place for a broadcaster which isn't beholden to the insidious will of the free market- Just look at the kind of shite Discovery or the History Channel has to pump out these days.

Personally I think where the BBC went wrong is in trying to compete with commercial channels for their trashy ad-supported junk-TV. The BBC should doggedly retain focus on snooker, gardening and archaeology, in that order, regardless what people think they want to watch. People are idiots and don't know what's good for them, the BBC should be giving them brain nourishment whether they like it or not, even if they only see snippets of it while the adverts are on on the other channels. Gradually it'll start to take root.

>>29026

You're right that free markets don't always lead to the best results when it comes to broadcast quality.

The Discovery Channel gets away with its shite pseudoscience programmes because the market for actual science programmes the way the Beeb commissions them is much too small to be profitable. Jim Al-Khalili talking quantum physics is aimed at the discerning, university educated viewer with not just a passing interest in science but also the capacity to follow quite complex thought. And with that, you're then talking about maybe ten to fifteen percent of the entire TV audience, at the most.

Meanwhile, the Discovery Channel makes shedloads pandering to the lowest common denominator by asking what would happen if the Sun disappeared tomorrow. Which is exactly the high mark of the common, thick as pig shit viewer who thinks science and all that suff is somehow "awesome", but whose understanding of science is GCSE-level at best.

>>29028

>Jim Al-Khalili talking quantum physics is aimed at the discerning, university educated viewer with not just a passing interest in science but also the capacity to follow quite complex thought. And with that, you're then talking about maybe ten to fifteen percent of the entire TV audience, at the most.

You say that, but I'm the lad supporting it and I'm not university educated. I dropped out of college twice, and I spent those years of my life taking drugs in between casual jobs. I like watching that sort of stuff probably all the more because I never formally studied any of it.

You could be right and I'm a fringe case, but that's kind of the thing. Services like the BBC should be there to provide knowledge and mental enrichment to people who haven't gone through the typical middle-class routes to education and culture. Even the quantum physics documentaries you are referring to didn't just dive in with an assumption the viewer knew his strange quarks from his Higgs Bosons, it gave a relatively simple and digestible overview before it tackled the meatier topics.

>>29028
The BBC used to have quality scientific programmes on its mainstream channels. They dumbed things down horrendously.

>>29030
>They dumbed things down horrendously.

And apparently it's still too smart.

>>28996
>Is the BBC fucked? I can't even remember the last time I actually watched it on the telly.
I hope not. Everyone else has said it already, but compare Classic FM and Radio 3.

>>29045
What's Scala like?

>>29045
Classical programming, radio or otherwise, is still sadly largely dominated by drawing a broader audience in with more popular pieces. Not that they're bad pieces by any means, just that total overexposure makes them banal and washes away any contextual significance, take The Ride of the Valkyries which has taken on a different flavour than setting the scene for deceiving and defying a vengeful god.

That said, your point does stand. Radio 3 really does go out of its way to introduce the listeners to something "unusual" or not as well known.

The BBC's main charm is in local radio, Radios 3, 4 and 6, BBC Four and the occasional televised sport.

BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/16/bbc-licence-fee-to-be-abolished-in-2027-and-funding-frozen

The Conservative Party have raped and robbed this country for twelve years now.

>>36638
I think it will be a surprisingly popular policy.

>>36640
People do like not having to pay for things, plus the BBC is far less popular these days.

>>36641
My wife loves Strictly - there are a couple of things on BBC4 I might pay a few pence for, but nothing else; it looks poor value compared to any other entertainment service right now. Everything else is nostalgia.

>>36638
I can see it, it's not that the BBC is being abolished but that they will look at new ways to fund the BBC from 2027. No matter who is in power the idea of a levee on television sets to pay for programming seems anachronistic - some of us do not even own a television.

Shame about the funding freeze though, not that the BBC is known for fiscal prudence with its inter-racial threesomes and hamfisted morality tales but when times are tough you would think that entertainment would be viewed as rather important for people. TV series give you something small to look forward to and allow you to temporarily forget your troubles.

Is anyone still watching Mock The Week/HIGNFY? I'm always shocked that MTW is still going, I haven't heard anyone talk about it since the Boyle days.

I'm a huge fan of the BBC, although I've noticed there's more pandering now. Brexit and everything about it really fucked over the BBC. When large parts of the country complain that they are being ignored by the metropolitan media, the BBC listened and insisted on regional accents fucking everywhere. You can't just announce that we're watching the BBC; now there needs to be a picture of a cup of tea, because that's what you like, isn't it? Nothing too challenging. Nothing too pretentious. If an illiterate 80-year-old who worked as a chimney sweep for 85 years thinks it's too up itself, then it has to go. And on top of this, the Conservative government said they weren't happy with the aggressive journalism and fact-checking from the BBC, so they threatened to stop letting the BBC interview bootlicking ministers whenever a story happened. I would have welcomed this, because the news is meant to challenge those in power; if Boris does something good, we can rest assured he will tell us himself. But the threats worked, somehow, and the BBC lay down supinely to just become a mouthpiece for the establishment, because Ethel from Newcastle-under-Lyme doesn't want to hear what a bunch of absolute charlatans she voted for.

And even then, Boris Johnson had the brazen audacity to make the TV licence free for anyone over 75, which is phenomenally treacherous when the average BBC viewer is in their 60s. It was a deliberate attempt to strangle the BBC, and it worked. They rolled over in every way conceivable, and still Nadine fucking Dorries is trying to phrase this as a brave fightback against the evil enemy. She's trying to privatise Channel 4 as well, the only channel whose news is willing to criticise the government (and that's all it ever does, so I'm impressed it's made it this far to be honest).

Just make the licence fee a tax on TV ownership. Close all the loopholes where you don't have to pay if you only use Netflix and Amazon Prime. Make the decrepit mummies who watch Bargain Hunt and Escape to the Country pay their own way; fuck your freebies. And stop trying to interfere with one of the most iconic brands in the country.

It would be nice if the BBC News at Ten started tonight with, "The government is trying to shut us down so here are all the scandals they're guilty of that we've been too scared to report", but of course that won't happen. Spineless fannies.

>>36644
I watch HIGNFY last month so I could have some television voices on instead of eating my chicken breast, rice and carrot dinner in lonely silence.

It wasn't very good, they had Armando Iannucci on who isn't someone who can really do panel shows and Martin Clunes was host but he doesn't have enough personality for it. The mandated woman was that northern news presenter you lot fancy.

>>36645
>I'm a huge fan of the BBC

Why?

>>36648
Some people get it drilled into them that they have to blindly worship the BBC and the NHS.

>>36648
>>36649
Radio without adverts. The market wants Classic FM, but the BBC can give you Radio 3.

>>36650
Is that worth £159 a year though? You could have Spotify premium for less than that.

>>36649
And yet here I am, surrounded by people who make passive-aggressive comments implying I'm some sort of mong cultist.

>>36648
No adverts is good. It provides a lot of stuff I like. It's better than ITV, it pisses all over Channel 5, and Sky is seedy and feels exploitative, plus I don't want to pay twice for anything. This also means I don't want to pay for any streaming services. Channel 4 can be okay, and at its best it's better than the BBC, but the BBC is more consistent. Why don't you like the BBC, and what alternatives do you prefer?

>>36651

If the BBC wasn't artificially crippled by competition laws, iPlayer would already be by far the best streaming service. You'd have the entire last 50-odd years of British telly at your finger tips.

>>36657
Isn't it all on Britbox now?

>>36652
> and what alternatives do you prefer?
Just watch random stuff on Youtube.

>>36652
>Why don't you like the BBC

Face it lad, there's not much worth watching on the BBC. That's the real reason it has become a vote winner to scrap the tv licence and why so many people dodge the detector van.

>and what alternatives do you prefer?

Like otherlad I spend a surprising amount of time watching Youtube these days. I don't really need to have content curated to me by some central body and where I do I prefer more specialised content either to my tastes, what internet people recommend or what I stumble upon. Not HIGNFY taking clips off of youtube because they've long-since run out of ideas.

Think of television as like watching a 24 hour news channel, you might get some things you want but it's surface deep and buried under shit you don't care about to the degree that it actually makes you angry how little control you have.

>>36657
Are competition laws really the reason they don't do that? One reason I've always resented the licence fee is that despite the public funding old programmes, if they want to re-watch them they're still expected to buy a DVD or Bluray (at full price) rather than being made available freely or at nominal cost. That rather feels like double-dipping - get the public to pay for production costs, then rake in more cash on selling the finished product.

>>36667
>Are competition laws really the reason they don't do that?

I don't know chapter and verse, but I do recall about 10+ years ago this being a big thing; there was a general feeling that if the BBC had completely free rein to do what it liked online, it would stifle a lot of other potential websites - I believe the actual argument was over the "recipes" section of the BBC site.

>>36666
>I spend a surprising amount of time watching Youtube these days

Me too and I'm relatively late to the party - I am likely to replace the TV license spend with a YouTube Premium account.

>>36667

>Are competition laws really the reason they don't do that?

Not quite, but the BBC Charter (and how it is interpreted by the BBC Governors and Ofcom) has massively stunted iPlayer.

11. Market impact
(1) The BBC must have particular regard to the effects of its activities on competition in the United Kingdom.
(2) In complying with this article, the BBC must-
(a) seek to avoid adverse impacts on competition which are not necessary for the effective fulfilment of the Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes;
(b) have regard to promoting positive impacts on the wider market.

Initially, Ofcom were reluctant to allow iPlayer to include whole series rather than just the last episode; box sets of old series were totally out of the question. Only in the last couple of years have the BBC been allowed to upload iPlayer-only content that hasn't been recently broadcast on TV. The BBC aren't allowed to just make the best streaming platform they can, but have to prove that any improvements they make won't harm their commercial competitors.

ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC wanted to launch a combined streaming platform in 2009, but this was blocked by the Competition Commission. BritBox was eventually allowed because of the rise of increased commercial competition from Netflix and Amazon Prime.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160706114546/http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/bbc-trust/bbc-mias/ondemand/bbc-ondemand/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/04/project-kangaroo-blocked-by-competition-commission

>The BBC has announced that it plans to stop airing CBBC and BBC Four as traditional broadcast channels.

>Director-general Tim Davie announced the content of these networks will continue to be produced and made available for online platforms. This means they would only be available on BBC iPlayer, with Radio 4 Extra moving to BBC Sounds, rather than via their traditional broadcast outlets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61591674

>>38511
Don't worry, they'll probably be back in a few years.

I've probably said here before that if they had completely free rein, the BBC's broadcast channels would only contain live and topical content. The way people consume media has changed massively this century, and the BBC would rather not have linear channels when they could just put all their content online and let people have at it. As >>36671 points out, they had to fight just to get the four-week catch-up they started out with, let alone being able to retain an entire series as it aired.

>>38511
I can't believe one of my favourite TV channels is being taken off air, despite being home to some of the cleverest and most intellectually stimulating content in all of broadcast media. And they're also getting rid of BBC Four.

If BBC Four isn't a proper channel anymore, staying hotels will be much more dull. You'll have to watch the typical shite like Gogglebox, instead of a documentary about the history of vaginas in classical art you'd otherwise never have bothered with.

I wanted BBC 3 back for years so I'm very sorry. If I knew Meet the Khans, a show in which a barely literate man hurtles towards dementia like a spacecraft on reentry as his wife accepts self-respect really does have a price tag, would cost us the entirety of BBC 4, I would have reconsidered my position.

>>38514

Mate, you can get unlimited 5G for £16 a month.

>More teenagers are turning away from traditional media outlets and getting their news from social media, new research from Ofcom has shown.

>The number of people consuming news content on TikTok has increased from 800,000 in 2020 to 3.9 million in 2022. For the first time, Instagram is the most popular news source among younger people - used by 29% of teens in 2022 - with TikTok and YouTube close behind. But print, TV and radio news outlets still dominate in older age groups.

>The growth in news consumed via TikTok is being driven mainly by younger age groups - half of users consuming news on the platform are aged 16-24. The number of people consuming news via the video sharing platform is now similar to the number using the Sky News website and app, Ofcom said.

>TikTok users who took part in the study said they get more of their news from "other people they follow" (47%) than from news organisations' own accounts (24%).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62238307

>ITV news, including regional ITV news bulletins was fourth, while the BBC's two main channels, one and two - historically the most popular news source among this age group - has been knocked down to fifth place, Ofcom said. The number of teenagers using these channels for news has dropped from nearly half (45%) five years ago to around a quarter (24%) now.

>However trust in social media news sources varies - half of YouTube and Twitter users think they provide trustworthy news stories. Despite its popularity, fewer than a third of teenagers (30%) trust TikTok's news content.

https://news.sky.com/story/teenagers-turning-to-instagram-tiktok-and-youtube-for-news-instead-of-traditional-channels-12655915

>A Belfast student has called for Of Mice and Men to be removed from the GCSE English literature course.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65700288

>A threat has been made against a teenage girl who called for a novel containing racial slurs to be removed from the GCSE curriculum.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65780872

The BBC have gone full blown ragebait. Fuck knows why they're doing tabloid shit like giving some prominence to the opinion of one teenager, but they're followed this up by giving platforms to Andrew Tate and that 'prankster' dickhead. Is this them trying to get down with the kids?

>>40251
> by giving platforms to Andrew Tate and that 'prankster' dickhead

Honestly could not agree more. Why the living fuck are they giving airtime to those two pricks?

>>40252
A ham-fisted attempt to be relevant, I presume.

>>40251

Who cares? And who watches the BBC these days? Or TV even. It's completely shite.

>>40251
It's just the BBC's version of the sidebar of shame. The kinds of stories that make no sense for a major news website to be reporting on but seemingly they exist like those irrelevant stories that break up major news reports. On a completely unrelated note, we absolutely know that at least 10% of journos are on the payroll of the intelligence services.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media

>but they're followed this up by giving platforms to Andrew Tate and that 'prankster' dickhead

They did? I'd tell you to grow up for talking about platforms but I don't see it in what you've linked.

>>40254
Every office worker in the country goes on BBC news multiple times a day and as a result it absolutely shapes the popular narrative of the country. The UK even has the advantage that although office drones might go on rival sites they all use the BBC.

>>40255
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0frsnnb/andrew-tate-the-interview
Uncut:

>>40255
The BBC did a 40 minute interview with Tate, which was a complete mess and included things like him bringing up them covering up Jimmy Savile. It was on YouTube but they've pulled it, so he's claiming that as him owning traditional media. It's still on iPlayer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0frsnnb/andrew-tate-the-interview

Mizzy was on Newsnight and called them out for giving Tate a platform.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZNCPmXGrLk

>>40257

Andrew Tate was a car crash waiting to happen all along. You don't just fuck over the entire rest of the world and expect that nothing will precipitate from it. His is a multi-million dollar fraudulent criminal business, built on his cockiness, and with his cockiness built on the fact that he got away with it all for a limited time. But pride still always comes before a fall.

At this point we're just watching it unravel, and it really doesn't matter if you're giving him a platform or if others say you are. Why not just enjoy the show. He'll be in a prison cell soon enough.

>>40258
>But pride still always comes before a fall.
Not really. Very rarely, but not really. There aren't really consquences for anything as best as I can tell.

>>40259
Don't be silly. The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.

>>40258
Allegedly, kids these days are such utter mongs that they watch this spastic and think he's saying great things. I don't know the best way to dismantle his bad influence on society, but ignoring him completely is unlikely to be it. Perhaps reporting on him and then not inviting him to defend himself is the best idea, because honestly, he's a bonehead. I have at least a slight suspicion that he's some kind of weird performance artist, because his jibber-jabber is so cartoonishly wrong and worthless. Look at this retard:

>>40260

>The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed

That is almost poetic.

HE MUST BE TROLLING
HE JUST HAS TO BE

>>40261
Despite being branded "king of the i-c-ls", he himself is not so much i-c-l as in-cell.

>>40263

It's point, were you all women in school or something? Let me explain with a story about John:

While getting changed for PE one week, another boy approached John asking for a hug. John reacted "Er, no, that's gay", to which the room decided: he was uncomfortable in is sexuality, thus he was gay.

The next week it happened again. But, John was one step ahead. After the hug was offered, he confidently agreed. John was disappointed, when someone yelled "ahh he wants to hug a man, he's gay!" and the room again laughed at him.

These things aren't meant to make sense. It's not trolling, it's just how men* communicate. Like that lad whose group chat randomly send ball-pics to 'get' each other.

*a lot of men are spiritually women and thus don't understand this

It was great when the BBC kept inviting Boris Johnson and Are Nige to go on HIGNFY because they were such top lads and deserved to have a cult of personality built around them. It was great when the BBC kept giving airtime to climate change sceptics in the interests of balance. I'm sure doing the same for Andrew Tate will also go well.

>>40265
If it's best described using an analogy from school, are you sure you're not just describing how boys communicate, not men?
Not that girls aren't equally capable of using the same double-bind to bully other girls; calling someone a slut or frigid depending on their answer.
So it's not really "how men communicate" it's "how children bully".

>>40263
He's not "trolling", he's trying to turn himself from a figure of, justified, hate into a figure of fun. The fact every cunt's falling for it embarrassing.

>>40265
You're thick as fuck. How's that for men's communication?

>>40266
Yeah, but I do think they should be less prepared going into these interviews. Making sure the presenter or interviewer has little to no idea who they are talking to or the context around them is a good start, but ideally they wouldn't even know the first name of whichever massive liar is lying to their face.

>>40264
>"king of the i-c-ls"
Kingcel

>>40269
>he's trying to turn himself from a figure of, justified, hate into a figure of fun
I am under the impression that many of his underage acolytes might only be discovering him now. If he's greeting his new fans like a court jester, surely they won't listen to his earlier, genuine opinions? I suppose it might be possible that he's also saying ridiculous things to add plausible deniability, so that if we call out a stupid thing he says, he can just say it was another of his wacky jokes, but I still don't entirely believe that's what's happening.

>>40271

Tate is so camp that it's impossible to tell whether he's serious or not. If you were to invent a parody of a billionaire grindset MRA nutter, you'd never be able to dream up anything as farcically weird as Tate.

>>40261
> I have at least a slight suspicion that he's some kind of weird performance artist, because his jibber-jabber is so cartoonishly wrong and worthless. Look at this retard:

Is he the retard or you? He can't even keep a straight face in that.

>>40276

>Tate is so camp that it's impossible to tell whether he's serious or not

Sure, keeping women as online sex slaves for profit is all just a big laugh.

Four out of five people enjoy a gang rape, you know.

>>40282
I have no issue with the solicitation to start camming. You won't find anyone feeling sorry for weak men who do daft things and get manipulated in the pursuit of pussy.

For me he crossed the line when he pulled the Steve Jobs scam and stiffed the talent on their percentage.

>>40276
A couple of lefty YouTubers have made the point that Tate and his alt-right ilk are intentionally ridiculous in order to filter out the people who are too smart to be taken in by them, like the badly-spelled Nigerian email scams.

>>40289

You can't really argue with that. It's like the whole fake guru / life coach business. Most people know it's a silly idea to pay hundreds for seminars and other advice that all those youtubers offer, but with the kind of fees that they demand, all it takes is a few dozen gullible people to make them absolute tons of money. And it's not even illegal per se. You are well within your rights to rip off sell the dream to people who want to be like you and drive expensive cars and throw around wads of cash.

>>40289
What's the saying? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of people.

>An unnamed BBC presenter is facing fresh allegations by the Sun newspaper after it claimed he paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos.

>The star was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", their mother told the paper. It is unclear how old the young person was at the time, but the paper has claimed they were 17 when payments from the presenter started.

>The allegations, first reported by the Sun on Friday, are that the BBC presenter paid £35,000 for explicit photos over a three-year period. The young person's mother told the paper her child, now aged 20, had used the money from the presenter to fund a crack cocaine habit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66145747

Who do you think it is?

>>40505

As much as I love a celebrity carpet-bagger sweepstakes, The Sun are being verminous even by their standards. If they believe the complaint, they should just name the person; if they don't, then they shouldn't publish it. They've figured out how to libel every male presenter at the BBC without facing any risk of legal action.

>>40506
You know The Sun wanted to expose Savile in 2008 but shied away from defending the libel claim, yes? A genuine belief just isn't good enough.

They don't need to name him. The story's now too big for him to stay anonymous for long.

>>40505
The rumours are it's a radio presenter in Northern Ireland, but he may have been taken off air due to a fallout with politicians over there.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2023/07/05/news/holly_hamilton_step_in_for_nolan-3410446/

It'll be a 'big name' in a very tenuous sense, like when the tabloids report a soap star has died and it turns out to be an extra who was in one episode 17 years ago.

>>40508
I also didn't know who the fuck that is but he's sixth on the BBC's list of highest paid talent.

Why is the BBC even involved?
"Tim Davie assured her the corporation was investigating the claims "swiftly and sensitively", the minister said."

what right / incentive / competence/ whatever do the BBC have to investigate claims? I'd hope my employer would just tell my accuser to go to the police. Nobody (with an bag of spuds) going to believe what an internal investigation says. Isn't it even interfering with the judicial process, or something?

>>40505
Internet says it is Huw Edwards.

It's impressive how they're not announcing the gender of the young party in this. Of course, that just makes me think it's one of the gays. I wonder if it wouldn't be illegal to accuse Tomaszsz Szchaffernackker if I spell his name wrongly enough.

>>40513

It's almost as if they're taking any opportunity to sling shit at the BBC.

Those must have been some seriously filthy photographs for £35,000. Whoever did this is going to feel like a proper div when they realise they could have paid an eighteen year old 1% of that for the same thing, all without breaking the 2003 Sexual Offences Act*.

*Just so we're clear I had to look that up, yeah, I'm not a complete pervert. Like 9/10ths, barely that much even.

>>40515
For that much money, I doubt it was just pictures.

Yorkshirelive has coincidentally just published the name of the BBC's 10 highest paid male stars.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/tv/top-10-male-bbc-star-27287641

How serendipitous to publish this story a year after the results came out.

>>40515
Well as a public body the BBC has to maintain an open and competitive bidding process with consultants.

>>40517
> BBC's 10 highest paid male stars.
>Top 10 male BBC star salaries from Gary Lineker to Huw Edwards and Scott Mills

That's because it's a pure SEO story. Half of the internet is convinced its Huw Edwards, most of TikTok says Scott Mills.

Quite a lot of young men on Twitter posting this sort of thing.

Jeremy Vine is threatening to sue anyone that says that Jeremy Vine is a carpet-bagger.

>>40519
It's going to be awkward if it's him when he covered the Queen's death and funeral. Maybe they can dub Graham Norton over it.

I've seen some very unsubtle hints about Northern Ireland being dropped, so given the very public shitting on Stonewall his programme did I would be very satisfied if it were Nolan.

>>40521
Too niche and not a big enough player. Had to look him up.

>>40519

Currently still on the schedule for tomorrow:
* R1: Greg James
* R2: Jeremy Vine, Scott Mills
* R5: Nicky Campbell
* R6: Amol Rajan guests on Lauren Laverne's show

Also currently on the schedule for tomorrow:
* R5: Stephen Nolan being subbed with Connor Phillips

AIUI, Huw Edwards is semi-retired and now only does occasional contract work for the BBC, so might be difficult to pin down a removal.

>>40522
>not a big enough player
He's on the top 10 highest-paid presenters. Now Steve Wright has left, he's their highest-paid radio presenter, earning more than both Scott Mills and Greg James.

>>40525

The report from The Sun said that the alleged victim's mother recognised the alleged perpetrator from TV. Stephen Nolan is on the telly, but only in Northern Ireland.

>>40523
I'm surprised at how well the monkey covers up how grim the original picture is. The worse part is knowing his large round arse is actually quite impressive.

>>40527
>The worse part is knowing his large round arse is actually quite impressive.

Given the number of times he has clearly been messaging people on the sly, it's only a matter of days/hours before we see the front.

>>40526
Could the lad and his mum live in Norn Iron? Is he a victim? If I was 17 I'd have gladly sent someone a picture of my arse for £35k.

>>40529

It's possible that the victim (we don't know their gender) is from Northern Ireland, but not especially likely. NI has a population of less than 2 million and relatively low availability of crack cocaine. Given the number of people who already want to kneecap Nolan for political reasons, he'd be very silly indeed to get involved with this sort of malarkey.

I wouldn't want to bet on it at this stage, but if you twisted my arm I'd say Huw Edwards.

What possesses a married man with 5 children in his 60s to chase boys online and send them saucy pictures? I suspect this is just what retirement does to you, like being on your own in a hotel room on a work trip. I'd like to avoid it if possible.

>>40529
And what about now? Running a server isn't cheap these days.

>>40531
>What possesses a married man with 5 children in his 60s to chase boys online and send them saucy pictures?
It's concerning, isn't it? Whoever is behind this must just have been so horny as to be rendered insane, but if it can happen to him and it can happen to Keith Vaz, it might just happen to you or I.

>>40531
>What possesses a married man with 5 children in his 60s to chase boys online and send them saucy pictures?

My hypothesis is that when you're as marginally famous and recognisable as he is, you get a ton of random offers of sex from people, far more than you or I might looking the same or having the same amount of money - and you take a few of those up, and then it makes you sloppy/careless.

>>40530
>we don't know their gender

It's changed now, but in at least one article the mother was quoted as talking about her son.

Maybe this is just a wild carpet-bagger chase?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357

>>40517
>>40518
>Amol Rajan
Oh it's definitely him then. The man has pure coomer energy. I really can't believe it's Huw Edwards.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>40536
Won't be him. He was on Lauren Laverne's 6Music show this morning.

>>40536
>The man has pure coomer energy.
Dispatches from the man with a skip for a brain.

https://twitter.com/thehuwedwards/likes

>>40539
Elon's perma-banned the great unwashed from his hallowed screech-site. Can you just screen cap it like a normal person?

>>40540
Nitter was broken too, but its back and working again.

>>40540
He liked two posts yesterday that were linking the BBC article yesterday where the young person's lawyer said the claims were rubbish.

I believe that's what the otherlad is on about. I assume I created a Twitter account at some point so I could keep tabs on Aunty Carol.

I was talking to my mum about this, she didn't know who the alleged presenter was. I told her it was Huw Edwards, and she said "oh yeah he went gay ages ago". I was confused, I told her he's a Christian and married with 5 kids, and she said "he changed his image to look more gay" with no corroborating information. So either my mum has amazing gaydar or she's gone mental.

>>40543
Have you seen how fantastic his arse is for that age? He's definitely gone gay.

Reading between the lines, do we think he paid out £35k because he was being blackmailed?

>>40543

>he's a Christian and married with 5 kids

That's super gay.

>>40543
Older people can usually read people by looking at them. We've been trained not to do that by the cartoons we watched as kids and the rules we had in school, but it is a perfectly normal human ability to be able to look at someone and say "oh he's definitely gay isn't he."

>>40547
Counterpoint; my dad once called me a girl because I stirred my coffee the normal way and then proceeded to show me the proper way which is apprently whisking it like a speedfreak.

>>40548
It might be time to buy yourself a few nice dresses.

>>40547
Why does he stir his coffee? Does he put sugar in it? Does he put milk in it? If so, I'm afraid he can't accuse anybody else of being a girl.

>>40546
Is boxing gay? I'm pretty sure being a little light on your feet is a gay innuendo.

>>40548
If you're putting milk then then you definitely whisk the milk with the coffee first. It makes it fluffy like a big hairy man.

>>40550
Why wouldn't you stir the coffee in? That just sounds wasteful if it all sits at the bottom. Bloody ladies night over here, someone hide the prosecco and blankets.

>A young person has told BBC News they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit photos. The individual in their early 20s was first contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app.
>They say they were put under pressure to meet up but never did. When the young person hinted online they might name the presenter, they were sent abusive, expletive-filled messages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766

Lock his enormous arse up and throw away the key.

>>40552
Sounds like a failed extortion attempt.

>>40551

>Is boxing gay? I'm pretty sure being a little light on your feet is a gay innuendo.

Boxing because you're from a council estate or a gypsy family or your probation officer has told you "you need to channel your aggression into something productive or you'll keep getting locked up" is not gay. Getting into boxing in your late 50s because you want a boxer's physique is quite gay.

Huw Edwards doesn't look especially gay until you remember what he used to look like. He has lost loads of weight, got quite buff, got a skincare routine, a fashionable haircut and massively improved his dress sense. That's not a normal midlife crisis for a married man, even a married man who is having an affair, because women notice that sort of thing and smell a rat. His wife will have figured it out years ago, but either she's in denial or she has agreed to keep things normal for the sake of the kids and his public image.

>>40545
No.

>>40555
I think that's why the lad has been freaking out and got his lawyer to deny anything untoward happened, he doesn't want it to be known that he blackmailed him.

>>40551
Oh, you're talking about instant coffee. I've been caught with my trousers down then.

>>40556
The lawyer being used is way too expensive to be hired by the kid himself.

Also, there are three other people claiming contact now.

>>40558
Is there something wrong with messaging people on Grindr? Is this whole thing a load of barely suppressed homophobia? Dating apps surely aren't salacious these days.

>>40559

I don't think the story would be any different if a man in his sixties was hassling young women. When the story first broke, the gender of the alleged victim hadn't been made public and a lot of people assumed it was a young woman. It's not the app that's seedy, it's the age and power imbalance.

>>40560
When did this alleged hassling take place, before the fully grown adult set his app age preferences to include those in their 60s or after he accepted the message invitation? Given that they had no professional or pedagogical relationship to abuse, what magic powers do you believe old people have?

>>40561

I'm not necessarily saying that it's illegal, just that it's dodgy.

>Given that they had no professional or pedagogical relationship to abuse, what magic powers do you believe old people have?

I don't think that old people have magic powers, but a nationally-recognised figure with extensive connections in media and politics and substantial wealth is obviously much more powerful than a teenage crack addict. That isn't proof of misconduct, but the immense potential for misconduct is reason to be wary. Most public figures avoid creating the appearance of impropriety, even when they're confident that nothing improper has actually taken place.

The public figure at the centre of this story might not technically be a carpet-bagger, but if you're arguing the technicality then you're already in the wrong.

>>40560

>it's the age and power imbalance

It's not though, if they're both adults there's fuck all wrong with it, full stop. Simple as.

We can't allow mealy little weasely "yeah but it's just not right is it?" kinds of things creep into and override our legal freedom as adults to have consenting relationships. I know the intention is good- But the end point isn't. It goes totally against all thefreedoms and legal protections we have won over the years, and pisses directly in the face of the LGBT lot who know very well what it's like to be criminalised for plain normal consensual sex.

If it was legal under the eyes of the law, if he didn't kidnap or forcibly assault or secretly drug spike someone, then he did absolutely fuck all wrong and that's the end of it. This sounds like the kind of unsubstantial accusations YouTubers constantly make at each other for a bit of juicy sex scandal viewer money.

Disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing about this case, you might even be talking about someone else than I thought it's about. But it's the principle.

>>40563
Willing to bet the photos of the lad when he was 17 aren't legal.

>>40564

Then he's done kiddy porn and he's a wrong 'un, full stop. Simple as.

I now it might seem intuitive that there needs to be room for moral grey areas and murky distinctions but that's the point I'm making, there simply are not. These lines have to be black and white. We can't afford the grey areas, because otherwise where does it end. It's not so much a slippery slope, as just that it becomes totally random and arbitrary who done what wrong when someone else done arguably more wrong but nobody gives a shit because they are popular.

Who's going to be complaining in another 10 years time when Leonardo DiCaprio is pushing his 60s and still bags another fresh 19 year old? Absolutely fucking no-one. You can say it's unsavoury or whatever but you can't stop them, it's perfectly legal, and 19 year old birds will want to go out with 60 year old Leonardo DiCaprio, because of course they will.

Likewise it's not unreasonable to believe 19 year old lads want to go out with 60 year old BBC news presenters either. But in this case, he's a carpet-bagger open and shut. Bang him up.

(Well actually if the lad was actually of legal age, but sent pics that were a couple of years old, actually I think that should be allowed, because I mean come on. Anyone could turn you into a pedo by ambushing you with a pic of their underage knob then. But you get what I'm saying.)

>>40563
>Disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing about this case, you might even be talking about someone else than I thought it's about. But it's the principle.

Celebrity meets young man on dating site, exchanges pictures. Young man attempts to blackmail the celebrity, possibly revealing he's actually underage. Celebrity pays the young man off because he doesn't want to be known as a paedo. Young man's parents sell their story to The Sun. Young man denies it through a lawyer. Other people come forward to say they've messaged the celebrity on a dating site, with some pointing out he got irate when they threatened to expose him.

Oh, for the days when Keith Vaz pretended to be a washing machine salesman.

>>40563
JFC, you remind of some of the folks trying to justify the Olsen Countdown. Anyone who thinks a 58yo man grooming a 17yo is a free and consensual relationship needs a firm word with themselves.

>>40565
>Who's going to be complaining in another 10 years time when Leonardo DiCaprio is pushing his 60s and still bags another fresh 19 year old? Absolutely fucking no-one.
Lad, the DiCaprio Bar has inspired memes, charts, and probably has its own subrudgwick by now. It is the exact opposite of nobody caring. In the Hollywood gossip sphere on the internet, you can't move for people pointing out how creepy it is.

>>40566

So either he KNOWINGLY messaged an underage lad, or he didn't. If he KNEW the lad was underage, pedo, jail, lop his bollocks off, the lot. If he DIDN'T know? Then he's for all intents an innocent man.

You can say it's unsavoury or creepy or whatever the fuck you want, but it's never been illegal to be unsavoury or creepy, and as far as I'm concerned if it's legal then it's no cunt else's fucking business. Once you are over the age of 18 you are a legal adult and you are responsible for your own decisions. There has to be a cut off somewhere and that's where it is.

Younguns know damn well what they're getting into when they go out with a 60 year old celebrity. I wasn't daft at that age. Were you?

>>40569
Can children use dating sites? I'm guessing he lied about his age or they'd have not let him sign up.

Huw Edwards' wife has outed him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469

>>40571
But I read on gs it wasn't going to be a big name?

>>40565
>I now it might seem intuitive that there needs to be room for moral grey areas and murky distinctions but that's the point I'm making, there simply are not.
You're simply wrong. The law must be a reflection of the society it seeks to protect, descriptive rather than prescriptive. If it's not, then change must be violent, not peaceful. If the law didn't move in line with moral grey areas homosexuality would still be illegal because "the law is the law."

Slippery slopes work in both directions. Pulling up the ladder once you've reached your goal for the law is quite literally fascism.

Who gives a fuck? After that bollocks that went down with Schofield it's clear to me a lot of the miserable subhumans that populate this country are pyschic vampires, hungering for whatever misery they can milk out of this existence.

>>40572
And what did you know? Until an hour ago your opinions were worth as much as anyone else's; jack shit.

>>40572

>>40574
If you really believe all opinions are equal until the correct opinion is released by the BBC I'm not sure how to help you.

>>40576
Why do people always do this on .gs? You say one thing and some arsehole runs with it until it's reaches a farcical conclusion that was clearly not the intent of the original statement. No, obviously I don't think that. But what were you basing your opinions off? A haircut? Some Tweets? Otherlad's demented mother thinking Huw Edwards looks gay? You had no idea what you were talking about and the BBC didn't say anything, the Press Association released Mrs Edwards' statement regarding her husband, moron.

>>40573

I'm not saying the laws can't be changed and adjusted to reflect the social standards of the day. But I am saying that with respect to the laws as they do exist at a given time, the law must be the law. Otherwise all you have is trial by media and public opinion, which is why I brought up Leo.

Sure a load of busybody knobs on Twitter and rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk might have a problem with it, but everyday society sees it as alright because he's Leo, he's famous and sexy and all that, nobody generally bats an eyelid. Yet if you're more of a normal person, doing exactly the same, you're megapedo of the month. It's not a question of morality for me, but fairness.

Yes, nobody can stop gossip, the papers will fling shit, in the case of a (minor) celeb it's all about reputation anyway; but in the case of a normal person, an everyday regular person, that person shouldn't have to worry about the safety of their job and so on, when they are guilty of no crime.

>>40577
Instinct, reason, and just generally being a human. I thought it was true, some peripheral evidence suggested it was true, I had no reason to disbelieve it, it turned out to be true. Please explain which part of this process makes me evil.

>>40578
>But I am saying
I don't think even you know what you're saying.

>>40577

Of course your opinion is obviously more important because it is angry and has swearwords in it.

>>40579
When did I say you were "evil"? This is exactly the problem; you read one thing, reply to another.

And yeah, you "thought it was true", but you didn't know but you still rocked up acting like you did.

>>40582
Oooh delightful, you've made a tactical mistake and now I get to win the discussion. Sir, can you please, and I say this with the greatest of respect, please point out to me, exactly, wherein, I "rocked up acting like [I] did [know it was true]"?

What are you lot even on about?

The existence of Tater Tots implies the existence of Tater Teens which implies the existence of Tater MILFs In Your Area Looking To Fuck Today Wet Hot Tater Barely Legal Wet Hot Tater Teens Gone Wild Near Wakefield Sign Up Now Free Tater Trial.

>>40584

I don't know! But we should probably make a thing of it in Trafalgar Square this saturday anyway

>>40585

Go away Seppo, we call them "potato croquettes" here, when we can afford them.

>>40587
I think croquettes are generally crispier than tater tots.

>>40585

>Tater Teens Gone Wild Near Wakefield

Wunt tuch 'em wi yuwers meehhht

>>40584
Huw Edwards is a carpet-bagger apparently. The other lad is very upset about it.

>>40573
I agree, death to all bumders. Do you think though that well respected public figures who use their taxpayer funded (presumably?) salary to get boys forty years younger than them to send them naked pics and fund their crack use have committed some kind of crime by betraying the public assumption that they weren't using their taxpayer funded salary for said purposes? That was my instinct, but I'm not really sure now

>>40588

Nothing a bit longer in the frier can't sort out. It's the lingo I'm on about, I can smell it a mile off. Smells like hammers.

>>40590
Police have said there's no evidence of a criminal offence. It looks like The Sun have caused him to have a mental breakdown for shits and giggles.

>>40593

Still, at least he can finally end his sham of a marriage.

>>40591
Quite, they've had it too good these last few years, being allowed to get married, being treated like people, not being beaten to death on the streets. Perhaps there should be some discussion around your licence fee (not mine) being spent on keeping gay teenagers in crack and gay sex now that is has been brought to light, yes. In essence Huw's salary is private once it goes in to his pocket, and in fact the licence fee is private once it goes in to the Corporation's pocket, but that doesn't change the fact this incident leaves a bad taste in the mouth, no pun intended gaylad. We can argue it's his business and the law is the law and shut up you're just a homophobe all we like, but that doesn't change the fact the licence fee just got a little bit easier to abolish.

>>40591
Huw Edwards' salary isn't "taxpayer funded".

>>40596
If you understood his point well enough to correct him you understood his point well enough to understand him.

>>40572
Huw is a short name.

>>40573
No the law is also regularly developed to change social behaviours and attitudes in response to evidence. Smoking bans etc. In this instance you're talking about legal grey areas where a Judge must interpret the law based on the vogue which isn't democratic and it's frankly silly to rely on judge's to be bellwethers for wider society. Just look at the recent Italian judgement about the '10 second rule' for groping to be real https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66174352

Judge's are after all civil servants.

>>40591
How is pictures of naked men not one of the better uses of taxpayer money? It delivers in minutes, satisfies the target demographic, funds our local LGBT community and you don't have to pay an annual fee to keep what you already have. And it's what elderly men evidently go crazy over.

You heard me. Rent boys on the NHS. State-run brothels to calm everyone down.

>>40597

I guess this means we can exact harsher penalties on all such as the cornershop proprietor when he fucks up by defrauding British Gas of all the leccy key top-up money, because "you paid his wages" at some point. We all pay everyone's wages, in some capacity, and it gives none of us any rights to get the cat o' nine tails out or stuff anybody into a wicker man. What a bloody stupid stance. Go and stand in the corner and think about what you've done. And don't come back until you do.

>>40599
That's better, now let's work on your aim. Have a quick go on aimlabs then come back and try to address the correct poster.

>>40600
It's funny you should say that, because when you addressed me (>>40596) I hadn't been previously involved in that particular back and fourth, I was just correcting his statement about Edwards' pay coming from tax money, nothing else. Keep your chin up though, I'm sure being this much of a ponce on an anonymous imageboard will pay dividends soon enough.

Didn't Kevin Spacey blame it on mental health issues when it turned out he was a sexual predator?

>>40598

Love Yes Minister. It's a brilliant programme.

>You heard me. Rent boys on the NHS. State-run brothels to calm everyone down.

You say something like that and I think well yeah wouldn't mind giving it a go, but then I remember the awful people at the other place discussing how a government should license puberty, on an individual basis, and assign partners between citizens.
Your proposal doesn't seem that far removed and my initial thought of it is shameful.

Sex should be private and personal, not something to be governed.
Although that does bring up some interesting questions - could we possibly let people run 'out of control' raping and murdering? Why does it always come round to that - is that actually what becomes of anarchy?

>>40601
Right mate, before you start mincing toward me with your flaming self righteous fury, I never suggested you had previously been involved in that particular back and forth. I was just correcting your statement where you corrected his statement unnecessarily, because as I said, if you understood him enough to correct him you understood him enough to understand him. Afterwards, someone, I assume the other lad now, posted a well thought out clearly expressed opinion, a wrong opinion, but a well presented one nonetheless. Unfortunately I believed you had lazily addressed me, the one correcting your flamboyant correction rather than the lad you corrected in the first place. There's been a bit of a mix up, there's no need for this extravagant teary you're having over it. Both of us should seek employment immediately.

>>40603
I was being flippant but if you seriously want to argue about this then state run/regulated brothels would provide better protection for women and undo a major source of slavery in the UK. The current model is better than outright criminalisation but still incredibly dangerous, encourages exploitation and complicates efforts to improve conditions.

>Sex should be private and personal, not something to be governed.

Sounds like something a paedophile would say. It's not wonder you immediately follow it with a very statist ideological argument.

I bloody hate The Sun. If they hadn’t made such a big deal out of a wholesome man’s less-than-wholesome legal hobby, I would never have had to read all these utterly barmy posts by obvious nutcases.

We should recriminalise buggery to put an end to these sorts of discussions.

Is anyone even saying buggery went on?
More that people who hadn't heard of onlyfans have now heard of it, and are feeling all righteous, whipped up by the scum.

Well I wasn't until you got so upset about it.

Not my cup of tea, but stick your willy where you like, I'm far from upset.
Well, I'm miffed that nobody's offering me piles of cash for my erotic photos, but it'd be a pretty specialist market.

If anyone on .gs wants to start dropping 35 grand on arse pics of middle aged (nu-middle aged, so 30+) men who may or may not be morbidly obese let it be known that I'm first in the queue.

>>40611

I'll give you a quid to keep your pants on.

>Rupert Murdoch’s News UK has offered tens of thousands of pounds to the parents who made allegations about Huw Edwards, in return for a television interview, according to sources at the media company.

>The Guardian understands that an interview with the couple has been recorded and is being edited for broadcast on TalkTV, the sister station of the Sun. Sources said the parents have been offered a significant sum for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/13/parents-in-huw-edwards-case-offered-tens-of-thousands-for-talktv-interview

>>40605
>Sounds like something a paedophile would say
As a sincere request, would you explain why?

Using my office as a barometer for public mood, I'd say that it's the young folk (under 25) that are being extremely anti-BBC about the entire thing. I got the impression they view it as an old fashioned institution that is largely irrelevant to their lives.

>>40615
The BBC probably got half of them through their GCSEs. Ungrateful cunts.

>>40614
It's very simple: the state is a lot like your mum, it climbs into bed with all of us and loves to watch. What goes on in the bedroom is absolutely the state's business and always has been because it's the business of regulating relationships and behaviour.

You can't live like a libertarian meme and bring child sex slave into the bedroom and your wife doesn't owe you sex either.

>>40616
You don't know his employer requires GCSEs to work there.

In principle I don't like the license fee, I don't really like a lot of what the BBC does as an institution, but without them who would make good documentaries?

It's a quandary.

>>40619
Channel 5 make surprisingly decent history documentaries.

>>40619

I know it makes me a massive sperglord, but I think YouTube has made a mockery of factual TV. Some bloke in his spare bedroom with no budget can cover a topic with infinitely more depth and nuance than anything that would be allowed on TV.

Commissioners believe that dumbing down is necessary to reach a mass audience, but they're trapped in a pre-internet mindset. A channel like Wendover or Technology Connections can routinely get a million views for some arse-achingly detailed video about transport logistics or the inner workings of electrical appliances.

>>40621

In some ways it's great, yes, but in other ways it's terrible.

It's undeniably opened up an entire new world of nerdy rabbitholes you can go down watching TechMoan or TC or something where somebody gives you every intricate detail about the precise composition of the PCBs used in Atari cartridges.

But when it comes to bigger picture, higher concept stuff, I really don't think a YouTube channel will ever be able to deliver us quality to rival stuff like Planet Earth and what have you. There's scope for it, big Patreon funded projects or whatever maybe, but even then- It's inherently too free market.

Look at the difference between the BBC's documentaries, and the Yank equivalent. The watered down kiddy shite on Netflix, lowest common denominator true crime bollocks- That's what the libertarian wild west of internet Content Creators will give us. The BBC has always had the ability to do higher brow, classier stuff precisely because it isn't reliant on a cut-throat commercial funding model.

And then that's before even getting to more political or ideological material. There's a lot of quite good factual channels I watch on YouTube, but their biases are much more blatant than any mainstream outlet ever dares to be. They have no obligation to be impartial, and in some ways at least it's good that they're not trying to deceive you- But the trouble is so many people just never even think about that.

One good example is Real Life Lore. On the face of it it's purely factual content, and when I first started watching it it was just about interesting geographical facts and notable events and so on. But of late it has started to drift into what feel very much like soothing geopolitical bedtime stories for insecure Americans. It might not be factually inaccurate, but choosing to focus on those things (although no doubt simply chasing the algorithm) means there's a pretty specific worldview being endorsed.

>>40622
Is there a model in which these things can exist together? Or are we doomed to choose between big picture, world spanning, high production value documentaries or narrow band, technically accurate, made in my bedroom instruction booklets as our entertainment of choice? It looks like there's scope for these things to exist together if you absent mindedly point at the now, but we're in a transition phase where one of these formats is dying and the other is emerging, transition phases are inherently unsustainable.

It's quite possible we live in a factual-entertainment golden era, and nobody will realise it until it's over.

>>40621
Being on the internet means that an audience share of about 1/10000 over a period of several years is perfectly acceptable. The equivalent for TV in the UK is a programme getting 70,000 viewers total across a dozen repeat showings. That's about the viewership Piers Morgan Uncensored gets these days.

>>40622

>Look at the difference between the BBC's documentaries, and the Yank equivalent.

This reflects a bit of a misnomer about how the BBC operates. Those blockbuster documentaries are made by BBC Studios, a for-profit subsidiary of the BBC that isn't funded by the license fee. The revenues from BBC Studios are used to cross-subsidise the license-fee-supported BBC.

We get to watch that stuff as part of our license fee, but it was made by a commercial production company that happens to have "BBC" in the name. The BBC buy rights to broadcast it from BBC Studios, but so do dozens of other broadcasters around the world. The most profitable market for that content is the US. If the government decided to abolish the license fee, all of that content would still get made.

Obviously YouTube can't produce that kind of content, but in a very real sense, neither can the BBC. Those massive projects are complicated international collaborations that are far too expensive for any one broadcaster and are funded more for prestige than for viewing figures.

>>40627
This is like the made in my bedroom technical version of the other lad's post.

>>40605
>>40604
I can't believe my perfectly innocent comment about having the death penalty for bumders has caused such a storm and lead you both to advocating ridiculous and unworkable things like regulated brothels and privacy from the government. Shame on you both.

>>40635
>Oho, I was merely pretending to be a mong! Joke's on you!

>>40646
I could intricately explain how in my original post I wasn't entirely sure about Huw Edwards'salary being provided by taxpayers, but thought that my question about public trust was worth getting across regardless, but did it never occur to you that I just like using the word bumder, and would happily be wrong in every claim I ever made as long as I could use it?

>>28996
This guy is next!

>>40648
There's always been something extremely off about him. He seems ridiculously sycophantic.

>>40649
I don't like the way he speaks or his body language stuff. He gives me the willies.

>>40648
I'm trying to get my head around all this. How do you even get yourself into the position of offering your work colleagues money for nudes and...why?

There's a few women I wouldn't mind a go on in my office but the idea of collecting naked pictures of them is definitely odd. The glimpse of a woman bending over in some sensible trousers is as erotic as this can get, actual pictures of a bare arse of an office woman surely won't be better than your imagination.

>No censorship

When is GBeebies going to post a cartoon of Muhammad then?

>>40651
Why is a very good question. I can't tell if he was doing it just to get his rocks off and/or trying to get comprimising material on people, but either option seems incredibly stupid. However, if your CV is as follows: News of the World, The Sun, The Daily Mail and lately GB News, rational thought was probably never your forté to begin with, but being a creep who lacks basic ehtical boundaries most people take for granted? Could be.

I always thought Dan Wootton's photos always looked eerily familar, but I never realised why until today.

>>40653

That's a trip down memory lane. I wonder if my retirement home will have a meme gallery to remind the elderly millennials of the good old days.

>>40654
Many a youngling will ask you to tell the tale of Quiggins and the lad who should have returned to it, but really they'll be after your opiates and viagra.

>>40655