To: The House of Commons - End the BBC Licence Fee

[Gonzo79 14,522]

you are right

I apologise

 

I thought you were being rather kind to the squint-nosed, condescending little witch.

[colinstein 294]

I thought you were being rather kind to the squint-nosed, condescending little witch.

 

quite so

but I was complaining about fake news, there's never been abuse of the tory plant at Labour party interviews ....

if only I'd said right wing puppet instead of cow........

[cooponthewing 1,139]

It's a nice institution run by the middle classes, for the middle classes. Pretentious "do gooders" who send the boys round if you don't "pay up"!!

Oh the irony.......

[Scott7 5,663]

"run by the middle classes for the middle classes"

 

Really? I wish to God it was.

[calscot 0]

While I can see a slight point with the odious cow thing, if you think that way, it does also mean that any time someone calls someone a prick, wanker or a dick etc, they are also giving sexist abuse to men.

 

It obviously even stretches to calling a man bullish. Women use sexist abuse like "cave man", "neanderthal", "hairy ape", "gorilla", "rutting stags" etc all the time, but are never called up for it.

 

I would also say words like c***, f*nny, pussy, ar*ehole, f***wit, b**tard etc are generally used for men, while bitch and cow, which are milder in comparison are used for women. And even though that is the case, I'm pretty sure that using the first few for a woman would still be seen as sexist.

 

In that sense, I cannot see any sexism in the disparaging terms in the above post, just a lack of what people would call political correctness. I can't see evidence that the gender was relevant, I'll bet if it was a man, the insult would be just as great or possibly greater. The only relevance was the gender normative form of the insult.

 

So if you want to insult a woman these days, it seems best to use a gender neutral term. But be as sexist as you want to insult a man as nobody cares.

 

PS I see that "odious" is part of the contention, and I recall Spiers being called, "odious creep", and as creep is a word normatively used for men, does that mean it was sexist abuse? I never heard anyone complain.

Edited September 15, 2017 by calscot

[aweebluesoandso 290]

The wife usually calls me ''A fecking child' she's got me boxed in there lol

[JohnMc 2,609]

While I can see a slight point with the odious cow thing, if you think that way, it does also mean that any time someone calls someone a prick, wanker or a dick etc, they are also giving sexist abuse to men.

 

It obviously even stretches to calling a man bullish. Women use sexist abuse like "cave man", "neanderthal", "hairy ape", "gorilla", "rutting stags" etc all the time, but are never called up for it.

 

I would also say words like c***, f*nny, pussy, ar*ehole, f***wit, b**tard etc are generally used for men, while bitch and cow, which are milder in comparison are used for women. And even though that is the case, I'm pretty sure that using the first few for a woman would still be seen as sexist.

 

In that sense, I cannot see any sexism in the disparaging terms in the above post, just a lack of what people would call political correctness. I can't see evidence that the gender was relevant, I'll bet if it was a man, the insult would be just as great or possibly greater. The only relevance was the gender normative form of the insult.

 

So if you want to insult a woman these days, it seems best to use a gender neutral term. But be as sexist as you want to insult a man as nobody cares.

 

PS I see that "odious" is part of the contention, and I recall Spiers being called, "odious creep", and as creep is a word normatively used for men, does that mean it was sexist abuse? I never heard anyone complain.

 

With a lot of sexism it's largely down to the gender of the person making the comment and why the person is being criticised. There's an assumption, perhaps wrongly, that poster colinstein is male, as such making any reference to her gender is noticeable and unnecessary. In end what gender she is makes no difference to her ability to do her job, either well or badly, so making reference to it in an insult carries isn't relevant. We can over analyse these things and in the end any person working in the public eye will need to grow a thick skin pretty quickly. But it is noticeable that a lot of the insults thrown Kuenssberg's way are gender specific.

 

That aside she must be the least Glaswegian sounding Glaswegian of all time. She makes Sheena Easton sound like Mary Doll.

 

Edit - Oh, and great post by 26th Of Foot.

Edited September 15, 2017 by JohnMc

[Darthter 542]

The biggest issue I have with the license fee is that you are supposed to have one even to watch STV/Ch4/5 etc - these stations don't benefit from the license fee cash though.

 

I heard an argument about having a TV, but not paying the fee. The viewer claimed that since they didn't watch BBC, they didn't need a license. The license "enforcer" claimed that you HAVE the means to watch bbc, so must have a license. The response was "I have the means to kick you in the nuts, but I haven't......yet". The "enforcer" left.

 

The BBC should simply move to a commercial structure like EVERY other tv & radio station - that way they are answerable to their sponsors etc.

[Gonzo79 14,522]

I disagree. Then we'll end up with reality TV on every terrestrial channel. That's why the BBC is useful because it DOESN'T have to answer to sponsors. But who it is answerable to needs to be reviewed because some of the blatant agendas going on are not what the license is paid to cover.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

I disagree. Then we'll end up with reality TV on every terrestrial channel. That's why the BBC is useful because it DOESN'T have to answer to sponsors. But who it is answerable to needs to be reviewed because some of the blatant agendas going on are not what the license is paid to cover.

 

There is no logical reason why the BBC can't function as a subscription service like sky. If you don't watch it then how can anyone be forced to pay for it? It's maddness, completely bonkers and not to mention (again) akin to the practices of loan sharks and door steppers!

 

This would allow those who enjoy and value the Biased Broadcasting Corporation to continue to watch it, and those who don't, won't!