Last night of the Proms

[AndrewJB]

The reason so many 'Conservatives' have turned against the BBC is obvious. It should be apolitical. It can't ignore politics, but it should give a balanced debate. The last few years it has been blatantly biased towards the left, wether daily politics or Brexit. Wether this was as a directive from the top, or just a lack of control of its front men/women I dont know.
It doesn't appear to have the ******** to stand up for British values, traditions, or customs, and many Brits find that disappointing.
I understand that there are people out there who also dont give a damn about British culture or history either, but that doesn't justify the BBCs stance.
I don't think anyone wants the BBC to swing to the right, that would be just as bad as it is today, just regain that independence and give an opportunity for politicians to give their views , rather than listen to the presenters view.

You say it is biased toward the left, but looking at the facts - such as most of the political editors have links with the Tory Party, and UKIP and the Brexit parties were given masses of coverage despite not having any MPs, whereas the Green Party is more or less ignored, and numerous complaints by the Labour Party (images of Corbyn were photoshopped to have the Kremlin in the background! Imagine the fury if Johnson were pictured with a swastika?). Looking at the facts, they add up more to a right wing bias. Feel free to provide your evidence.

I think what is probably more the case is UK newspapers are so right wing, that anything else looks left wing by comparison.

As for your claim that the BBC doesn’t stand up for British values and culture and customs, what examples do you have in mind? To me, the BBC is British values, customs, and culture.

[AndrewJB]

I'm impressed with the obsession with normal marketing routines.

Is this an attempt at diverting?

The licence fee isn't fair to those who don't use the BBC quite simply, it's not fair for those who pay for digital TV and then have to pay the licence fee on top of that.

You can blather on about advertising streams all you like, you can even include your Burnley tickets that mean you're forced to see adverts at TM etc if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

If the license fee isn’t fair to those who don’t watch the BBC, then the 20% of the price of products advertised on Sky is not fair to those who don’t watch Sky.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Which products are only advertised on Sky that you are forced to buy ?

[AndrewJB]

Yet another party political broadcast by the absolutely out of touch “my-politics-have-been spectacularly-rejected-at-the-ballot-box-but-I-can’t-accept-it-and-still-think-Britain-needs-Tony Benn” party.

Bore off.... it’s extremely biased towards anything left of centre so hardly surprising you’re supporting it so vehemently.

It’s become so predictable.... constantly telling us all its neutrality is what makes it so trustworthy has become soooo tiresome. No one believes it anymore, unless you are the same side of the political divide as the corporation. You clearly are.

Attacking the bbc is like attacking our country and it’s history? Wake up to yourself... it’s the crazy minded un-silent minority that want to attack our history by rewriting it, abolishing it, ignoring it and generally abusing it.

Shame on them.

This is what happens when decades of reading anti BBC propaganda collides with the reality of the BBC being far more British than the foreign owned right wing newspapers attacking it.

[Rileybobs]

I’m not sure I agree that the license fee should be compulsory - however 91% of people use BBC services on a weekly basis. I’m guessing the other 9% includes people who use the services but less frequently and also people who don’t pay the fee. Do those of you who refuse to pay the fee honestly never use any BBC services?

[Rileybobs]

I also find it strange that the patriotic people on this board who are so keen to stand up for our British values and history are the same ones who hate a reputed British institution such as the BBC.

[AndrewJB]

Which products are only advertised on Sky that you are forced to buy ?

Sky don’t publish a list, which prevents me from making informed consumer choices.

The BBC belongs to all of us, which is why we all chip in. £157.50 a year is small beans compared to what Sky charge. Probably less than what Sky gets from me via my consumer purchases.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I’m not sure I agree that the license fee should be compulsory - however 91% of people use BBC services on a weekly basis. I’m guessing the other 9% includes people who use the services but less frequently and also people who don’t pay the fee. Do those of you who refuse to pay the fee honestly never use any BBC services?

I can think of Line Of Duty and any David Attenborough series on the BBC I watch. If you didn't pay for Sky or BT and switched your tv on and had access to these for free would you watch them ?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Sky don’t publish a list, which prevents me from making informed consumer choices.

The BBC belongs to all of us, which is why we all chip in. £157.50 a year is small beans compared to what Sky charge. Probably less than what Sky gets from me via my consumer purchases.

So you don't know then ?

[aggi]

I’m not sure I agree that the license fee should be compulsory - however 91% of people use BBC services on a weekly basis. I’m guessing the other 9% includes people who use the services but less frequently and also people who don’t pay the fee. Do those of you who refuse to pay the fee honestly never use any BBC services?

I suspect they don't watch it unless there is something on that they want to watch, or look at the website, etc.

You'll find plenty of the posters on here who claim to never watch the BBC also taking about match of the day so I'd suggest something doesn't stack up.

Ringo also illustrated it nicely when he copied and pasted (with some weird edits) a BBC article whilst ranting about the BBC being useless.

[Colburn_Claret]

This harks back to my previous comment about politics being like supporting a football team now. This reads pretty much like all of the people complaining that media outlet X is biased for/against team Y.

It's not just Colburn and the right wing, I know plenty of left wingers who complain about how the BBC is biased to the right citing some of Laura Kuenssberg's stuff, the constant appearance of Farage, etc as examples.

If they're upsetting people on both sides of the spectrum they're probably doing OK.

It is of course worth noting that when Colburn complains about not standing up for British values, traditions or customs he does of course mean his values, traditions and customs which could of course be very different to someone else's idea of British values, traditions or customs. He just assumes everyone has the same as him.

Some of what you say may be true, but it is up to interviewers to interview, not interpret or put a spin on anything. Even if they think a politician, of whatever colour rosette, is lying through their back teeth, they should put on a show of impartiality. They can interview the opposition to pick holes in any statement afterwards. Too many of the political shows today are fronted by presenters with an axe to grind. If they want a job in politics they should quit whichever news source and stand for Parliament.
Rather like the press who would rather create news stories, than report on the real thing.
As for me believing British values are what I believe, thats natural. I've already said, if there was a groundswell of support for changing TLNOTP, I wouldnt be opposed to it, even though I think it would be a shame. Why I'm so against even the threat or suggestion of diluting it is because it is to succour a tiny minority of intolerant biased individuals, who think they speak for the rest of us.
And before you accuse me of doing the same thing, you show me the evidence that a majority of people want the proms to change.

[Rileybobs]

I can think of Line Of Duty and any David Attenborough series on the BBC I watch. If you didn't pay for Sky or BT and switched your tv on and had access to these for free would you watch them ?

How about the football European Championships or the World Cup? I'm sure you access more BBC content than you're letting on.

Apologies, I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking if I had free access to Sky or BT would I watch them? If so then of course I would, not sure what you're getting at though.

[claretonthecoast1882]

How about the football European Championships or the World Cup? I'm sure you access more BBC content than you're letting on.

Apologies, I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking if I had free access to Sky or BT would I watch them? If so then of course I would, not sure what you're getting at though.

Apologies I forgot about the 3 or 4 England games every 2 years when the BBC have live football on.

The point I am making is that if something is available to watch for free all people will watch. If I don't pay for my Sky they turn it off very quickly and don't force anyone to pay. I guess they have faith in their product and let people choose.

If I had to pay to gain access to the BBC for those few programmes I would decline their offer and miss those shows or watch at a later date on a different method ie DVD, Netflix or Amazon.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’m not sure I agree that the license fee should be compulsory - however 91% of people use BBC services on a weekly basis. I’m guessing the other 9% includes people who use the services but less frequently and also people who don’t pay the fee. Do those of you who refuse to pay the fee honestly never use any BBC services?

Motd, Line Of Duty, occasionally Graham Norton and same again with 5Live.

I can live without Motd if needs be as any goals we score can be found online, same with Norton and Line of Duty is filming its final season but that's been shown on Netflix in the past.

I sometimes listen to 5live on the way home from work for about 10mins Mon-Fri but usually its Heart, Talksport or Jack FM.

[Rileybobs]

Apologies I forgot about the 3 or 4 England games every 2 years when the BBC have live football on.

How about the BBC website, BBC radio, Glastonbury coverage, Match of the Day, snooker, FA Cup games? No need to respond to each point, what I'm saying is that you admit that you access BBC services - so you should pay for them. By not paying your fee, yet accessing the service, all of the honest fee-payers are subsidising you.

You may not agree with the compulsory fee, in many ways I don't - it would be better if this was incorporated into another tax as suggested above, but would it then be free from government interference?

[Rileybobs]

Motd, Line Of Duty, occasionally Graham Norton and same again with 5Live.

I can live without Motd if needs be as any goals we score can be found online, same with Norton and Line of Duty is filming its final season but that's been shown on Netflix in the past.

I sometimes listen to 5live on the way home from work for about 10mins Mon-Fri but usually its Heart, Talksport or Jack FM.

So you also refuse to pay the fee but admit to using BBC services? Of course you could live without the BBC, we all could. I could live without lots of things that I pay for but I like to use them, so I pay for them.

[claretonthecoast1882]

How about the BBC website, BBC radio, Glastonbury coverage, Match of the Day, snooker, FA Cup games? No need to respond to each point, what I'm saying is that you admit that you access BBC services - so you should pay for them. By not paying your fee, yet accessing the service, all of the honest fee-payers are subsidising you.

You may not agree with the compulsory fee, in many ways I don't - it would be better if this was incorporated into another tax as suggested above, but would it then be free from government interference?

And as I said if you switched on your tv and found you had access to Sky without paying you would watch it, the honest paying subscribers would be funding you.

If you want people to pay to use your product have confidence in it and make it optional. What other consumer products come with a mandatory payment ?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

So you also refuse to pay the fee but admit to using BBC services? Of course you could live without the BBC, we all could. I could live without lots of things that I pay for but I like to use them, so I pay for them.

My land lord pays the fee but I have told him not to bother as he doesn't even live in the same house

That's my point, you like using the BBC regularly so you pay for it, I rarely use it and can go months without but I could potentially be forced to pay the same amount.

That would be like you being forced to pay for the top sky package your neighbour has even if you didn't use Sky.

[Murger]

Line of Duty and Silent Witness are the only things I watch on the BBC. Packed MOTD in years ago. Don't listen to the radio.
It absolutely should be a subscription service. Just pay for catergories you use, etc Sport, Drama, Radio etc.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Line of Duty and Silent Witness are the only things I watch on the BBC. Packed MOTD in years ago. Don't listen to the radio.
It absolutely should be a subscription service. Just pay for catergories you use, etc Sport, Drama, Radio etc.

Yes, similar to Sky or their subsidiary Now TV

[Damo]

I watch the BBC and pay my licence fee. I don't have a problem with the content and I don't expect everyone who is employed by it to be completely impartial.
My problem is being forced to subscribe to it (and I would subscribe to it if it was optional at the price of the current fee) if you want to watch any TV at all.

[Damo]

At least we're all happy and content in our lives that the only thing we're worrying about is a song that you all don't really care about is potentially stopping on a show that none of you even watch.

A good rule of thumb, is when someone is discussing a particular subject, is to assume that's the only thing that they have to worry about in life.
Yours must be pretty good if the only thing you have to worry about, is what other people are worrying about

[Damo]

Ah, so as I thought, no composer is involved in this.
You're referring to a young Ukrainian conductor of Icelandic heritage who is married to a Rock star. You inadvertently went some way to exonerating the BBC in your previous post.
She is the GUEST conductor for this concert, most probably booked before the pandemic struck, and she will have virtually no influence on the programme which is largely driven by commercial interests. She is young, probably idealistic but crucially not British. She was asked for her view, which coming from a forward-thinking young Ukrainian, is hardly surprising. She's entitled to that view. It's not the case of a "woke" or liberal "leftie" British conductor questioning it. She won't be aware of the cultural significance of this event. In the past when British conductors have expressed reservations about the "flag-waving" they've either been rebuked, replaced or voluntarily stepped down.
As in all previous cases (except 9 /11), it's actually the BBC who have insisted that they be included. (They have a huge commercial interest in doing so, since rights for the Last Night are sold worldwide because of its unique brand).
There's no suggestion anywhere that it was the BBC who proposed cutting them and then made a U-turn. Having stuck to their guns for so many years they're hardly likely to change course at this crucial time in their and the country's history.

Ah, did I say composer instead of conductor? Well done pal. Might as well lock the thread now.
Oh, she's finish and not Ukrainian

[Rileybobs]

And as I said if you switched on your tv and found you had access to Sky without paying you would watch it, the honest paying subscribers would be funding you.

If you want people to pay to use your product have confidence in it and make it optional. What other consumer products come with a mandatory payment ?

There are plenty of things I could get for free if I wanted to, I don't really see your point. I could get in my car and drive without insurance if I wanted. You consciously choose not to pay the license fee yet access BBC services, that is breaking the law.

Again, I don't disagree that the fee shouldn't be compulsory - but you choose that access their services so you're wrong not to pay the fee.

[Rileybobs]

My land lord pays the fee but I have told him not to bother as he doesn't even live in the same house

That's my point, you like using the BBC regularly so you pay for it, I rarely use it and can go months without but I could potentially be forced to pay the same amount.

That would be like you being forced to pay for the top sky package your neighbour has even if you didn't use Sky.

I don't use the BBC particularly regularly though (that said I have 6 music on most days). Like others I use mainly the things already mentioned - I could easily do without it but see it as good value for money for what it is and can't be bothered with the hassle of worrying about fines.

As above, I'd be happy for the license fee to be optional, with access to those services behind a paywall. I don't disagree with anyone who holds this view. What I do disagree with is people claiming to never use the BBC so not paying for it, whilst at the same time admitting that they do use the BBC.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

People will use owt for nowt.

Now if the BBC switched to a subscription based service then it wouldn't be an issue.

[claretonthecoast1882]

There are plenty of things I could get for free if I wanted to, I don't really see your point. I could get in my car and drive without insurance if I wanted. You consciously choose not to pay the license fee yet access BBC services, that is breaking the law.

Again, I don't disagree that the fee shouldn't be compulsory - but you choose that access their services so you're wrong not to pay the fee.

Stupid comparison with regards insurance but to be expected. Again I admit to using there services occasionally but I don't see it as breaking the law, more a consumer choice that I don't wish to pay for.

[Rileybobs]

Stupid comparison with regards insurance but to be expected. Again I admit to using there services occasionally but I don't see it as breaking the law, more a consumer choice that I don't wish to pay for.

It was just an example of something that I can do without paying for, it wasn't a comparison. You may not see it as breaking the law, but you're wrong. Pure and simple.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It was just an example of something that I can do without paying for, it wasn't a comparison. You may not see it as breaking the law, but you're wrong. Pure and simple.

Herein is the problem.

It shouldn't be a criminal offence, it should be optional.
If people are that enamoured with it then they'll pay to use it.

Talk about insurance or marketing is just odd.

I can do without the BBC, I shouldn't be at risk of having a criminal record just because I own a laptop, games console, TV, Mobile Phone, Tablet etc.

[AndrewJB]

Herein is the problem.

It shouldn't be a criminal offence, it should be optional.
If people are that enamoured with it then they'll pay to use it.

Talk about insurance or marketing is just odd.

I can do without the BBC, I shouldn't be at risk of having a criminal record just because I own a laptop, games console, TV, Mobile Phone, Tablet etc.

It can’t be optional because we all own it together. It’s like a communal garden that we all share the upkeep costs. Just because you only use it once a week and I’m in it every day doesn’t mean you get out of paying your share.

If you’re not happy with their content, write them a letter with suggestions of things you would like.

[TVC15]

Personally think it’s great value for what you get.
The cost of cable etc in Canada and America is more expensive and lots of Europe charge for their main channels now (Rai 1 etc). Plus these channels are often full of absolute bobbins TV whereas BBC drama is exported successfully all over the world.

I agree that it probably should be optional but it would then become a lot more expensive for those who want it - and that could be a lot of the older generation who like it and can’t afford to subscribe to sky etc.

[Cubanclaret]

They should just bin the proms altogether. Get Match of the Day on earlier.

[RingoMcCartney]

I suspect they don't watch it unless there is something on that they want to watch, or look at the website, etc.

You'll find plenty of the posters on here who claim to never watch the BBC also taking about match of the day so I'd suggest something doesn't stack up.

Ringo also illustrated it nicely when he copied and pasted (with some weird edits) a BBC article whilst ranting about the BBC being useless.

The Left-

When you supply facts and information from "right wing" websites they have no validity.

Supply information and facts from the Left wing BBC its hypocrisy !

[jurek]

From my experience the BBC is one of the best, if not the best providers of
of a range of programmes (drama, news, documentaries, comedy, music, light entertainment)
on the planet. Certainly compared to what I have seen both in Europe and North America.
It may have lost much of the sports side/coverage but compares well in terms of cost,
breadth and depth of coverage in most other areas.

The view that it is biased towards the left wing in terms of its political stance
doesn't really hold much in terms of a reasoned argument.

For me the fact that I don't have programmes I wish to watch constantly cut short
or interrupted by adverts is a major plus.

[AndrewJB]

From my experience the BBC is one of the best, if not the best providers of
of a range of programmes (drama, news, documentaries, comedy, music, light entertainment)
on the planet. Certainly compared to what I have seen both in Europe and North America.
It may have lost much of the sports side/coverage but compares well in terms of cost,
breadth and depth of coverage in most other areas.

The view that it is biased towards the left wing in terms of its political stance
doesn't really hold much in terms of a reasoned argument.

For me the fact that I don't have programmes I wish to watch constantly cut short
or interrupted by adverts is a major plus.

The fact there are no ads means they’re not in hock to major sponsors. That’s why a lot of American television is bland and insipid.

[aggi]

Some of what you say may be true, but it is up to interviewers to interview, not interpret or put a spin on anything. Even if they think a politician, of whatever colour rosette, is lying through their back teeth, they should put on a show of impartiality. They can interview the opposition to pick holes in any statement afterwards. Too many of the political shows today are fronted by presenters with an axe to grind. If they want a job in politics they should quit whichever news source and stand for Parliament.
Rather like the press who would rather create news stories, than report on the real thing.
As for me believing British values are what I believe, thats natural. I've already said, if there was a groundswell of support for changing TLNOTP, I wouldnt be opposed to it, even though I think it would be a shame. Why I'm so against even the threat or suggestion of diluting it is because it is to succour a tiny minority of intolerant biased individuals, who think they speak for the rest of us.
And before you accuse me of doing the same thing, you show me the evidence that a majority of people want the proms to change.

Well that's the issue that some on the other side of the political spectrum have with the BBC, that they do put a spin on it (e.g. the complaints around various coverage of Corbyn, bias towards Johnson, etc).

Although I think we may have quite different definitions of impartiality. Challenging a politician who is lying through their back teeth is well within the scope of an interviewer, otherwise what is the point of them being there. It's just a glorified press release.

I assumed you were speaking more generally about the BBC rather than specifically referring to the LNOTP as there is no evidence whatsoever that the BBC was seeking to change it. Personally I'm well aware that what I view as British values isn't going to be universal and I wouldn't presume otherwise.

[aggi]

The Left-

When you supply facts and information from "right wing" websites they have no validity.

Supply information and facts from the Left wing BBC its hypocrisy !

You've got to take yourself really seriously if you don't find the irony that you copy and pasted a BBC article whilst complaining how useless the BBC was amusing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It can’t be optional because we all own it together. It’s like a communal garden that we all share the upkeep costs. Just because you only use it once a week and I’m in it every day doesn’t mean you get out of paying your share.

If you’re not happy with their content, write them a letter with suggestions of things you would like.

I don't want to be part of a group who own the BBC together, nor do millions of others.

My share of usage is disproportionate to yours, so why should the fee be the same?
It's something you can't seem to wrap your head around.

Why should people pay twice to watch it?
If they can't access free view, they've got to get Sky/Virgin/BT and pay their costs PLUS the licence fee.

[AndrewJB]

I don't want to be part of a group who own the BBC together, nor do millions of others.

My share of usage is disproportionate to yours, so why should the fee be the same?
It's something you can't seem to wrap your head around.

Why should people pay twice to watch it?
If they can't access free view, they've got to get Sky/Virgin/BT and pay their costs PLUS the licence fee.

That’s what living in a modern country is like. I know a lot of people who pay tax and don’t drive. Should their share of taxes that funds roads be refunded? I’m not a fan of Trident, so can I have that back?

Just as we all benefit from roads, whether we have a car or not, we all benefit from the BBC whether we directly use it or not. It expresses Britain’s soft power on the world stage, and is a major player in our domestic economy.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That’s what living in a modern country is like. I know a lot of people who pay tax and don’t drive. Should their share of taxes that funds roads be refunded? I’m not a fan of Trident, so can I have that back?

Just as we all benefit from roads, whether we have a car or not, we all benefit from the BBC whether we directly use it or not. It expresses Britain’s soft power on the world stage, and is a major player in our domestic economy.

If you're not a fan of trident can I suggest you write to your local MP expressing your dislike of it.

[nil_desperandum]

Ah, did I say composer instead of conductor? Well done pal. Might as well lock the thread now.
Oh, she's finish and not Ukrainian

Yep, you did say composer, which is an entirely different thing, and that's why I questioned it, since as I said this story was the "work" of Richard Morison in The Times. He referenced the young European conductor, who had raised legitimate issues about the format of this unique - "behind closed doors" concert.
Unlike you, I'm prepared to hold my hand up and admit to making an error. I didn't check her background as I thought I knew it. For some reason I thought she was Ukrainian / Icelandic, but as it turns out (on checking) she was born in Kiev, (which is why I described her as Ukrainian), but is married to the great-grandson of the great Finnish composer - Jan Sibelius, is now a citizen of Finland, and holds a major conducting post there.
The important point I was making though is that she is young, (just 33), not British, and engaged as a Guest conductor for the Last Night. It is not unreasonable to expect her to question the musical programming, (especially in light of the social distancing / no audience etc), nor is it any surprise that the BBC are not for changing, and are sticking pretty closely to the usual format - even though the number of performers is limited, (particularly the absence of a choir).

[dougcollins]

'When Britain was Great' apparently doesn't include the BBC.

[martin_p]

I don't want to be part of a group who own the BBC together, nor do millions of others.

My share of usage is disproportionate to yours, so why should the fee be the same?
It's something you can't seem to wrap your head around.

Why should people pay twice to watch it?
If they can't access free view, they've got to get Sky/Virgin/BT and pay their costs PLUS the licence fee.

I’ve been to the doctors about three times in the last 20 years and never been in hospital as a patient since the day I was born. Why am I paying the same rate of tax as everyone else

[nil_desperandum]

'When Britain was Great' apparently doesn't include the BBC.

The ultimate irony of this thread is that those who are making a big noise about "losing" Rule Britannia etc., are, in general, the same people who would like to see the BBC defunded and shut down.
Shut down the BBC, .... you shut down the 6 BBC funded orchestras and 3 choirs ........ you shut down the BBC funded Proms ....... flag waving at the Last Night of the Proms????

[The Sofa Shifter]

Land of dopes and tories.

[Devils_Advocate]

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’ve been to the doctors about three times in the last 20 years and never been in hospital as a patient since the day I was born. Why am I paying the same rate of tax as everyone else

**** me, now you're using the NHS .

Just give it up, you've no credible argument in favour of everyone paying for the BBC.
Adverts, NHS and whatever garbage you can come up with will do either.

[martin_p]

**** me, now you're using the NHS .

Just give it up, you've no credible argument in favour of everyone paying for the BBC.
Adverts, NHS and whatever garbage you can come up with will do either.

If you want the less well off to just have ITV and Channels 4 and 5 then fine, make the BBC subscription based. There’s no way they’ll be able to offer the service they do now charging subscribers £13 a month. It’ll be the poor and old that suffer. I bet you’re one of those calling for the BBC to hand free licences to pensioners. Switch to a subscription model and a lot of pensioners won’t be able to afford it!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If you want the less well off to just have ITV and Channels 4 and 5 then fine, make the BBC subscription based. There’s no way they’ll be able to offer the service they do now charging subscribers £13 a month. It’ll be the poor and old that suffer. I bet you’re one of those calling for the BBC to hand free licences to pensioners. Switch to a subscription model and a lot of pensioners won’t be able to afford it!

Ooo you're going with the pensioners now.

Anything you want to try with next?

[martin_p]

Ooo you're going with the pensioners now.

Anything you want to try with next?

You might want to try engaging with the points I’m making, if you’re able.