What grinds my gears...

[Facecloth]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The idiots on both sides of the channel have had literally years to properly staff the border, but this it definitely the fault of how people voted years ago.

Well the need for the extra staff is a direct result of brexit, so whilst you can say people haven't dealt with it in the right way, it's still caused by brexit.

[UniFox21]

TV licenses, don't see the point of them. 

I watch football on channels I pay subscription for, yet I apparently also need a TV license

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

TV licenses, don't see the point of them. 

I watch football on channels I pay subscription for, yet I apparently also need a TV license

I think there's a few reasons, but the chief one for me is there has to be a source of news on broadcast media that isn't subject to commercial interest. So the funding for it has to be public and ring-fenced.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I think there's a few reasons, but the chief one for me is there has to be a source of news on broadcast media that isn't subject to commercial interest. So the funding for it has to be public and ring-fenced.

But that shouldn’t come at a cost of circa £5 billion pounds. 
 

Every. Year. 
 

It’s truly mind blowing 
 

 

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, Milo said:

But that shouldn’t come at a cost of circa £5 billion pounds. 
 

Every. Year. 
 

It’s truly mind blowing 
 

 

About 44p a day.  

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Milo said:

But that shouldn’t come at a cost of circa £5 billion pounds. 
 

Every. Year. 
 

It’s truly mind blowing 
 

 

I can think of far bigger squandering of "public" funds.

 

But that being said, if such a thing can be done for less money, then the attempt is welcome. I just don't trust, with good reason, those who would seek to kneecap it as a service when the logical next step is that it becomes as beholden to commercial interests as any other news network, which would be a terrible outcome. We're deep enough in "truth decay" as it is.

[Milo]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can think of far bigger squandering of "public" funds

Oh I agree entirely. 

 

However, that observation doesn’t justify the obscene amounts spent annually on the BBC.

 

There will be a generation not too far away who will simply not pay for something they don’t use. 
 

By all means keep the World Service and public service news…but that doesn’t mean all the other guff and fluff has to come along with it. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Milo said:

Oh I agree entirely. 

 

However, that observation doesn’t justify the obscene amounts spent annually on the BBC.

 

There will be a generation not too far away who will simply not pay for something they don’t use. 
 

By all means keep the World Service and public service news…but that doesn’t mean all the other guff and fluff has to come along with it. 

Fair enough.

 

I think what I said above still stands.

 

And as an addendum to this and in keeping with the thread title... the perversion of the very idea of truth that has been perpetuated by commercial media since William Randolph Hearst and vastly accelerated by social media in recent times not only grinds my gears, but on occasion flat out terrifies me.

[Footballwipe]

RE: Potholes, get used to it. Either you fund councils properly or you get lower standards. It's pretty simple really. I'm not sure what people want from their local authorities. It's like people think they're immune from price rises and economic factors in each and every area they serve.

 

Whether it's the ever increasing demand and, as a result, cost of SEND transport, having to use agencies to fill gaps in adult/child social care, fostering etc. It's millions upon millions and it's not being matched by Govt funding. Council Tax can only get you so far (and yeah I find it eye wateringly expensive). Fund em.

[Foxdiamond]

16 minutes ago, Milo said:

Oh I agree entirely. 

 

However, that observation doesn’t justify the obscene amounts spent annually on the BBC.

 

There will be a generation not too far away who will simply not pay for something they don’t use. 
 

By all means keep the World Service and public service news…but that doesn’t mean all the other guff and fluff has to come along with it. 

The BBC is not perfect but beware of those that want to cut to the bone.  It costs money to produce programmes many of which are popular with a lot of viewers. For example the wildlife films with David Attenborough. 

[Milo]

3 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

RE: Potholes, get used to it. Either you fund councils properly or you get lower standards. It's pretty simple really. I'm not sure what people want from their local authorities. It's like people think they're immune from price rises and economic factors in each and every area they serve.

 

Whether it's the ever increasing demand and, as a result, cost of SEND transport, having to use agencies to fill gaps in adult/child social care, fostering etc. It's millions upon millions and it's not being matched by Govt funding. Council Tax can only get you so far (and yeah I find it eye wateringly expensive). Fund em.

My local authority recently declared bankruptcy for the third time in two years, which is pretty impressive. 

 

Lots of jiggery pokery at the top table - the last thing I want to do is to give them more money.   

[Foxdiamond]

The government cuts the grants to councils and the councils gets the blame. Of course some authorities are better than others. 

[Milo]

10 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

The BBC is not perfect but beware of those that want to cut to the bone.  It costs money to produce programmes many of which are popular with a lot of viewers. For example the wildlife films with David Attenborough. 

I'm never quite sure how it works, tbh - don't the BBC buy the content from the Silverback? I'm pretty sure they don't make the documentaries. 

 

And haven't Disney just won the rights to it.

 

I'm not at all militant anti BBC, and obviously there are some excellent parts, I just see it along the same lines as something like FIFA - fat, bloated, self serving and vastly, obscenely over funded. 

  

[Foxdiamond]

23 minutes ago, Milo said:

I'm never quite sure how it works, tbh - don't the BBC buy the content from the Silverback? I'm pretty sure they don't make the documentaries. 

 

And haven't Disney just won the rights to it.

 

I'm not at all militant anti BBC, and obviously there are some excellent parts, I just see it along the same lines as something like FIFA - fat, bloated, self serving and vastly, obscenely over funded. 

  

From the little I understand there are more cuts to programming. We could lose the excellent parts you refer to if certain politicians get their way. I don't think you get much on a shoestring budget.

[StanSP]

When your flight home is delayed for 2 hours 

[Milo]

On 31/03/2023 at 20:39, Izzy said:

Potholes. Everywhere.

 

For a so called advanced nation, the quality of our roads are a Fvckin disgrace.

 

I can’t believe with all this modern technology there’s not a long term solution to it.

 

Absolute crap.

Just need to be creative, mate 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65138491

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

RE: Potholes, get used to it. Either you fund councils properly or you get lower standards. It's pretty simple really. I'm not sure what people want from their local authorities. It's like people think they're immune from price rises and economic factors in each and every area they serve.

 

Whether it's the ever increasing demand and, as a result, cost of SEND transport, having to use agencies to fill gaps in adult/child social care, fostering etc. It's millions upon millions and it's not being matched by Govt funding. Council Tax can only get you so far (and yeah I find it eye wateringly expensive). Fund em.

 

9 hours ago, Milo said:

My local authority recently declared bankruptcy for the third time in two years, which is pretty impressive. 

 

Lots of jiggery pokery at the top table - the last thing I want to do is to give them more money.   

Two sides of an interesting debate here.

 

Speaking personally, it seems that if you want to cut down things enough to eliminate the "jiggery pokery at the top table" (an admirable aim in itself), you're also going to end up with the corollary of the service itself being of much lesser quality and people that don't deserve it getting caught in the crossfire, as it were.

 

Which way does someone go, given that the "perfect" solution in this case appears unobtainable?

[oakman]

How inconsiderate people are becoming in their everyday lives. Just watched someone park their hire ebike diagonally across the pavement blocking the entire thing. I asked him if he was just going to leave it like that and he ignored me and walked off. Had to pick it up and move it.

[Izzy]

26 minutes ago, oakman said:

How inconsiderate people are becoming in their everyday lives. Just watched someone park their hire ebike diagonally across the pavement blocking the entire thing. I asked him if he was just going to leave it like that and he ignored me and walked off. Had to pick it up and move it.

I pulled up at some traffic lights yesterday and the chap in the car next to me was taking some sweets out of their wrapper. He then casually winds down his window and throws the wrapper onto the road.

 

I just looked at him and shook my head then he gave me the middle finger as he drove off.

 

What can you do? Some people are just cvnts.

 

 

[The Doctor]

On 03/04/2023 at 16:21, leicsmac said:

 the logical next step is that it becomes as beholden to commercial interests as any other news network, which would be a terrible outcome. We're deep enough in "truth decay" as it is.

as opposed to being beholden to the interests of the state? state funded media regularly functions as propaganda for the state. everyone acknowledges that with the likes of North Korea, but still misses it with the way the Tories have stacked the BBC higher up positions with their donors

[Free Falling Foxes]

9 hours ago, Izzy said:

I pulled up at some traffic lights yesterday and the chap in the car next to me was taking some sweets out of their wrapper. He then casually winds down his window and throws the wrapper onto the road.

 

I just looked at him and shook my head then he gave me the middle finger as he drove off.

 

What can you do? Some people are just cvnts.

 

 

Outside some shops, I saw a fella throw several lottery tickets from his car window as he went to drive off.

He was parked next to a bin as well.

I pointed out the bin to him. He said why should I, the place is a tip.

Yes, because of cvnts like you.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

as opposed to being beholden to the interests of the state? state funded media regularly functions as propaganda for the state. everyone acknowledges that with the likes of North Korea, but still misses it with the way the Tories have stacked the BBC higher up positions with their donors

And that's an issue too, yeah. It's very easy for "publicly funded broadcaster" to become "state mouthpiece".

 

However, I don't think that idea negates the necessity of having some source of news that everyone can access that isn't reliant either on moneyed and powerful interests or on subscription and clicks, because in both cases it's both easy and a matter of record to see that such sources then tell people what they want to hear, rather than the truth itself. 

 

A publicly funded news agency might not give you truth every single attempt, but long term it's the only possible method. If there is an example of a news agency funded by its users or corporate interests that bucks this trend by delivering more truth than, say, the Beeb, I'd be happy to hear it.

[leicsmac]

On topic and relevant to this thread title:

 

How do you deal with deliberate misleading misinformation peddled in public like this? You can't convince them otherwise (because they have flat-out said they're not listening) and you can't ignore them either (because people may well buy into what they say).

 

So what can you do other than report, hopefully have their platform booted out from underneath their feet and have them whine about "freedom of speech", and that seems like "not cricket" to me?

[marbles]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On topic and relevant to this thread title:

 

How do you deal with deliberate misleading misinformation peddled in public like this? You can't convince them otherwise (because they have flat-out said they're not listening) and you can't ignore them either (because people may well buy into what they say).

 

So what can you do other than report, hopefully have their platform booted out from underneath their feet and have them whine about "freedom of speech", and that seems like "not cricket" to me?

You don’t  deal with it.

People have the right to their opinions, no matter how right or wrong they may be.

If people still buy into things that go completely against everything else that’s out there - that’s on them.  

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, marbles said:

You don’t  deal with it.

People have the right to their opinions, no matter how right or wrong they may be.

If people still buy into things that go completely against everything else that’s out there - that’s on them.  

 

That's fine up until the point what they buy into affects other people as well as themselves.

 

What then?