SURVEY: Brexit, do you support it?

[Grouse]

What nonsense!

Do you listen to any serious Radio 4 programs?

You should

Radio 4. Part of the Biased Broadcasting Company?

Now THAt is a joke.

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

The unbiased BBC

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.html

The Telegraph is obviously biased

As the BBC is so biased, here's the other side

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/uk-does-get-back-some-of-350m-it-sends-to-eu-boris-johnson-admits/

Biased also no doubt!

(Please check my spelling and punktuation)

I note the BBC received 3M from EU for research over 3 years. That is 0.09% of their annual income. They should have declared it even though such a small sum is lost in the noise.

However, to suggest this has resulted in bias is just silly.

Much more likely is the fact that, statistically, highly educated people at the BBC will probably be pro EU.

[Grouse]

We are a sovereign nation, why pay 365 million a day to be dragged down to equality with 3rd world countries and ruled from Brussels?

365M what?

UK net contribution is about 24M GBP per day

Please supply source.....

Its still 24M GDP too much. Better spent on our own

You are of course entitled to your opinion

But please don't circulate disinformation

[Caps]

We are a sovereign nation, why pay 365 million a day to be dragged down to equality with 3rd world countries and ruled from Brussels?

365M what?

UK net contribution is about 24M GBP per day

Please supply source.....

Its still 24M GDP too much. Better spent on our own

Did you have something specific in mind?

Yeah, NHS, helping our own homeless, OAP's.....anything but give it away to them

[Caps]

We are a sovereign nation, why pay 365 million a day to be dragged down to equality with 3rd world countries and ruled from Brussels?

365M what?

UK net contribution is about 24M GBP per day

Please supply source.....

Its still 24M GDP too much. Better spent on our own

You are of course entitled to your opinion

But please don't circulate disinformation

I think you will find I didn't do the original post, so no disinformation from me

Edited May 18, 2016 by Caps

[Grouse]

So 3.7 billion in license fees PLUS EU grants totalling 3 million over four years, wow, that 3 mill. should certainly sway their opinion, not!

It's a bit like a little old lady receiving a 100 quid grant from a labour council to help insulate her home home in the hope it will make her a labour supporter.

You highlight my point perfectly.

Well done.

The only difference being that the old lady would not try to hide the £100 unlike the BBC.

Hilarious! Again you miss the point totally!!!!

[chiang mai]

So 3.7 billion in license fees PLUS EU grants totalling 3 million over four years, wow, that 3 mill. should certainly sway their opinion, not!

It's a bit like a little old lady receiving a 100 quid grant from a labour council to help insulate her home home in the hope it will make her a labour supporter.

You highlight my point perfectly.

Well done.

The only difference being that the old lady would not try to hide the £100 unlike the BBC.

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

[Grouse]

We are a sovereign nation, why pay 365 million a day to be dragged down to equality with 3rd world countries and ruled from Brussels?

365M what?

UK net contribution is about 24M GBP per day

Please supply source.....

Its still 24M GDP too much. Better spent on our own

You are of course entitled to your opinion

But please don't circulate disinformation

I think you will find I didn't do the original post, so no disinformation from me

I know. That's why I asked that contributors not CIRCULATE the disinformation. I apologise you felt I was accusing you ?

[SgtRock]

So 3.7 billion in license fees PLUS EU grants totalling 3 million over four years, wow, that 3 mill. should certainly sway their opinion, not!

It's a bit like a little old lady receiving a 100 quid grant from a labour council to help insulate her home home in the hope it will make her a labour supporter.

You highlight my point perfectly.

Well done.

The only difference being that the old lady would not try to hide the £100 unlike the BBC.

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

Did you miss this part ?

What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the information out of them.

Edited May 18, 2016 by SgtRock

[sandyf]

This whole debate is turning into a fiasco.

Farage is now talking about a second referendum if it doesn't go his way and Johnson is losing the plot. If David Cameron were to learn to keep his mouth shut he would win by default.

Which ever way the vote goes, UK politics will be the laughing stock of the world for a long time to come.

[stag4]

What nonsense!

Do you listen to any serious Radio 4 programs?

You should

Radio 4. Part of the Biased Broadcasting Company?

Now THAt is a joke.

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

The unbiased BBC

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.html

The Telegraph is obviously biased

As the BBC is so biased, here's the other side

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/uk-does-get-back-some-of-350m-it-sends-to-eu-boris-johnson-admits/

Biased also no doubt!

(Please check my spelling and punktuation)

I note the BBC received 3M from EU for research over 3 years. That is 0.09% of their annual income. They should have declared it even though such a small sum is lost in the noise.

However, to suggest this has resulted in bias is just silly.

Much more likely is the fact that, statistically, highly educated people at the BBC will probably be pro EU.

Blind Freddy can see that the BBC are biased, just look at the way they try to put down Nigel Farage in every interview only to have it backfire on them as he is onto their games and outsmarts them at every turn.

Getting more like FOX news every day!

Strange that they don't show the Migrants arriving by the boatload like they used to and don't tell me that's because they have stopped arriving because no, they just keep on coming.

In fact the Whole referendum debate has been very biased, just look at the £9 million of taxpayers money spent on Remain leaflets, surely in a fair society Brexit should have received an equal amount.

[chiang mai]

You highlight my point perfectly.

Well done.

The only difference being that the old lady would not try to hide the £100 unlike the BBC.

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

Did you miss this part ?

What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

[SgtRock]

This whole debate is turning into a fiasco.

Farage is now talking about a second referendum if it doesn't go his way and Johnson is losing the plot. If David Cameron were to learn to keep his mouth shut he would win by default.

Which ever way the vote goes, UK politics will be the laughing stock of the world for a long time to come.

Not turning into a fiasco. It has been a fiasco from day one, and lets not forget who started that fiasco.

That also swings the other way. If Johnson and Farage had kept their cakeholes shut, project fear would have been enough to see a Brexit. I am also starting to think that Johnson is actually a plant.

As to your last point. No need to be worried about that. Politics is a laughing stock worldwide, not just the UK.

[SgtRock]

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

Did you miss this part ?

What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

[sandyf]

UK: Latest UK Brexit polls...

UK: Latest UK Brexit pollsPollster              Remain  Leave  undecided          sample--------------------------------------------------------------TNS           May-16      38     41         21  onlineORB           May-16      51     45          4   Phone     800ICM           May-16      47     39         14   phoneICM           May-16      43     47         10  onlineICM           May-09      44     46         10YouGov        May-08      42     40         18BMG Research  May-04      43     45   13 (sic)TNS           May-04      39     36         25ICM           May-03      44     45         11ICM           May-01      43     46         11Opinium       Apr-30      41     42         17ORB           Apr-30      49     51             Online     800YouGov        Apr-28      41     42         17

Source: Market News International (MNI) – A Deutsche Börse company

17. May 2016 22:40:47

[SgtRock]

UK: Latest UK Brexit polls...

UK: Latest UK Brexit pollsPollster              Remain  Leave  undecided          sample--------------------------------------------------------------TNS           May-16      38     41         21  onlineORB           May-16      51     45          4   Phone     800ICM           May-16      47     39         14   phoneICM           May-16      43     47         10  onlineICM           May-09      44     46         10YouGov        May-08      42     40         18BMG Research  May-04      43     45   13 (sic)TNS           May-04      39     36         25ICM           May-03      44     45         11ICM           May-01      43     46         11Opinium       Apr-30      41     42         17ORB           Apr-30      49     51             Online     800YouGov        Apr-28      41     42         17

Source: Market News International (MNI) – A Deutsche Börse company

17. May 2016 22:40:47

9 polls out of 13 have '' Out '' ahead.

Comment sections on the UK MSM show outers to be far more than inners. Even on what would be classed as pro EU sites.

June 24 will reveal all. Just look to the US to see that 99% of political hacks and opinion polls called it massively wrong regardinf Trump.

[Grouse]

So 3.7 billion in license fees PLUS EU grants totalling 3 million over four years, wow, that 3 mill. should certainly sway their opinion, not!

It's a bit like a little old lady receiving a 100 quid grant from a labour council to help insulate her home home in the hope it will make her a labour supporter.

You highlight my point perfectly.

Well done.

The only difference being that the old lady would not try to hide the £100 unlike the BBC.

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

Did you miss this part ?

What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the information out of them.

0.03% of their funding per annum

Who gives a rat's ass to coin a quaint Americanism ?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Grouse

[Grouse]

What nonsense!

Do you listen to any serious Radio 4 programs?

You should

Radio 4. Part of the Biased Broadcasting Company?

Now THAt is a joke.

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

The unbiased BBC

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.html

The Telegraph is obviously biased

As the BBC is so biased, here's the other side

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/uk-does-get-back-some-of-350m-it-sends-to-eu-boris-johnson-admits/

Biased also no doubt!

(Please check my spelling and punktuation)

I note the BBC received 3M from EU for research over 3 years. That is 0.09% of their annual income. They should have declared it even though such a small sum is lost in the noise.

However, to suggest this has resulted in bias is just silly.

Much more likely is the fact that, statistically, highly educated people at the BBC will probably be pro EU.

Blind Freddy can see that the BBC are biased, just look at the way they try to put down Nigel Farage in every interview only to have it backfire on them as he is onto their games and outsmarts them at every turn.

Getting more like FOX news every day!

Strange that they don't show the Migrants arriving by the boatload like they used to and don't tell me that's because they have stopped arriving because no, they just keep on coming.

In fact the Whole referendum debate has been very biased, just look at the £9 million of taxpayers money spent on Remain leaflets, surely in a fair society Brexit should have received an equal amount.

Poor Nigel, even UKIP can't abide the man.

The government are entirely correct to present their recommendations to the voters. What are suggesting?

[Grouse]

This whole debate is turning into a fiasco.

Farage is now talking about a second referendum if it doesn't go his way and Johnson is losing the plot. If David Cameron were to learn to keep his mouth shut he would win by default.

Which ever way the vote goes, UK politics will be the laughing stock of the world for a long time to come.

Not turning into a fiasco. It has been a fiasco from day one, and lets not forget who started that fiasco.

That also swings the other way. If Johnson and Farage had kept their cakeholes shut, project fear would have been enough to see a Brexit. I am also starting to think that Johnson is actually a plant.

As to your last point. No need to be worried about that. Politics is a laughing stock worldwide, not just the UK.

I object to that. Boris is a vegetable

[Grouse]

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

Did you miss this part ?

What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

Deary me!

No comment

[Grouse]

The bookies are always wrong

https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result

[Grouse]

The Economist poll of polls

http://infographics.demo.economist.com/2016/minifiedbrexit/?n=21011894/2016/01/daily-chart-18&w=595

Establishment, biased, elitist I know, but there you are. Too close to call.

IMHO, for an issue as serious as this, a simple majority vote is not reasonable. A majority of those registered to vote would be more sensible. Those who are too ambivalent to vote should be counted as not wanting a change

That's put the cat amongst the pidgeons!

[Johnyo]

I really hope this happens. It will only leave worthwhile retirees in Spain. The UK can deal with the leftovers. You worried about immigration? He he just wait for the hoards of expats returning home.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/expat-pensioners-in-eu-will-be-50000-poorer-in-event-of-brexit/

Edited May 18, 2016 by Johnyo

[nontabury]

The Economist poll of polls

http://infographics.demo.economist.com/2016/minifiedbrexit/?n=21011894/2016/01/daily-chart-18&w=595

Establishment, biased, elitist I know, but there you are. Too close to call.

IMHO, for an issue as serious as this, a simple majority vote is not reasonable. A majority of those registered to vote would be more sensible. Those who are too ambivalent to vote should be counted as not wanting a change

That's put the cat amongst the pidgeons!

I will be very surprised,if by June 22nd polls do not show a majority willing to vote to remain in. This will be due to scare tactics from Cameron and the establishment, with the majority of electors not even looking into the pros and cons or even registering a vote, preferring instead to watch some brain dead show on the T.V.

I just wonder how many of those who do vote to remain in, will regret their decision within the next two years,when they discover what the Bureaucrats in Brussels have had in store for the EU. This is when reality will checks in.

Exactly as what happened after 1975.That is why some of us will think "Fool me once,shame on you,fool me twice,shame on me".

[sandyf]

UK: Latest UK Brexit polls...

UK: Latest UK Brexit pollsPollster              Remain  Leave  undecided          sample--------------------------------------------------------------TNS           May-16      38     41         21  onlineORB           May-16      51     45          4   Phone     800ICM           May-16      47     39         14   phoneICM           May-16      43     47         10  onlineICM           May-09      44     46         10YouGov        May-08      42     40         18BMG Research  May-04      43     45   13 (sic)TNS           May-04      39     36         25ICM           May-03      44     45         11ICM           May-01      43     46         11Opinium       Apr-30      41     42         17ORB           Apr-30      49     51             Online     800YouGov        Apr-28      41     42         17

Source: Market News International (MNI) – A Deutsche Börse company

17. May 2016 22:40:47

9 polls out of 13 have '' Out '' ahead.

Comment sections on the UK MSM show outers to be far more than inners. Even on what would be classed as pro EU sites.

June 24 will reveal all. Just look to the US to see that 99% of political hacks and opinion polls called it massively wrong regardinf Trump.

I would be more concerned if the polls showed the remain ahead.

Very unlikely Trump will see the White House, or Clinton, come the convention there is every chance another hat will get thrown into the ring. Watch out for those that have publicly declared they don't intend to stand, speak with forked tongue.

[nontabury]

The analogy of the 100 Pounds is that it's a paltry and wholly insignificant amount that is not capable of influence, within the context of the larger picture. And whether or not the EU grant was actually hidden or not remains in dispute, since the grant was disclosed in the annual report I'd suggest it wasn't hidden at all.

Did you miss this part ?

What is undeniably true is that the BBC has acted with characteristic slyness by concealing that it ever requested, let alone received, this European cash, suggesting that it is uneasy about the public being aware of its financial arrangements.

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671271/BBC-poll-watchdog-Remain-campaign-Leave-Brexit-News-watch

[WhamBam]

"The country, along with the rest in the Schengen, was ordered by Brussels to accept thousands of migrants or face a £195,000 fine (250,000) per person rejected."

This from Hungary who are voting on whether to let more migrants into their country. Hungary feel they are being bullied by the E.U. Now, who would have thought that the E.U would try to force such a thing through? And this coming from elected representatives? NO.

We do need to vote OUT to stop our own beautiful country being under an E.U. dictatorship.

IMHO of course

So Whambam, what would you suggest doing about the refugee crisis? Separately, in this age of global media, what would you do about economic migration?

I'm all ears!

Which 'refugees'?

Have you seen how many of these 'refugees' are fit, healthy young men? These should be back in their own countries fighting to help liberate them. Instead, they move into Europe where they try ti intimidate the local populations. There are reports of them patrolling streets insisting life should be lived their way.

Women are harassed for wearing western style clothing. Women and children are accosted in streets, on trains, in swimming pools.

These 'immigrants should be deported back to their own countires.

I see no reason why these 'immigrants' should be forced onto any country that does not want them.

The women and children - and there seem to be very few of these - should be given safe haven in the FIRST safe country they land in. This should be a temporary measure until their own countries are deemed safe once again (which - admittedly - may take some time). But these genuine refugees should not then be allowed to have all their dozens of relatives join them. They, also, should not be allocated to a country that does not want them, but remain in the safe countries they land in.

If Turkey - as the E.U. says - is a safe place, then they should stay there, not be shipped to Europe.

I suppose you would have them flood into the U.K. and live here on benefits, get free housing, white goods and free schooling? They do not integrate wherever they go.

There are reports today that another refugee place has been torched in Italy. That would make it the 3rd time they have torched this particular place. A safe place where they are looked after and given shelter. Not that it means much to them.

[chiang mai]

Did you miss this part ?

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671271/BBC-poll-watchdog-Remain-campaign-Leave-Brexit-News-watch

You should read the article, not just the headline!

Much of it is rehashed, where they have deliberately looked at programmes from only select dates and in such a way as to provide an unfair and unrepresentative picture of the BBC’s referendum coverage"

.

“The BBC provides clear and impartial information about the different sides of the argument and will ensure that its coverage is balanced across the duration of the campaign.”

“We don’t accept this so-called analysis, which comes from a group with a clear agenda".

[nontabury]

Did you miss this part ?



It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671271/BBC-poll-watchdog-Remain-campaign-Leave-Brexit-News-watch

You should read the article, not just the headline!

Much of it is rehashed, where they have deliberately looked at programmes from only select dates and in such a way as to provide an unfair and unrepresentative picture of the BBC’s referendum coverage"
.
“The BBC provides clear and impartial information about the different sides of the argument and will ensure that its coverage is balanced across the duration of the campaign.”

“We don’t accept this so-called analysis, which comes from a group with a clear agenda".

This article is based on News-watch.

Of course they're picking certain dates. Dates when the BBC has been anything but impartial. Throughout this campaign and before,it has shown a complete bias to the remain group. Remember when they were Forced to make a public apology to UKIP over the make up of the BBC Question time audiences.
This is just one of many examples. Edited May 18, 2016 by Scott

[allanos]

Here is another example of the BBC's biased reporting and lack of impartiality. I believe it has yet to provide its answer, but it is under

an injunction to respond within 60 days.

It concerns climate change (global warming to the BBC), and where a complete disregard for the

"guidelines" which are handed down from on high. Here is a small excerpt from the complaint:

. . . "It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not"

The full article makes interesting reading. Here is the link.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/major-new-complaint-submitted-to-bbc-over-climate-bias/

[chiang mai]

Have we all of a sudden moved away from discussing Brexit and on to a discussion of whether BBC is impartial on it's views of global warming! Regardless, the BBC is just one piece of the communications services that serve the UK populous, it seems tedious to continue to debate attributes of the the BBC unless there is an over riding point to be made and/or, folks are inclined to bash the BBC anyway - I thought not and I thought so!