This is getting silly now... if a presenter forgets to wear a poppy, so they forget... hardly going to kill anyone is it?
I plead to the BBC to stop this silly poppy policy nonsense. A poppy is something people choose to wear, whether they are a TV presenter, bank manager or hairdresser - it's not something they should be forced to wear.
True, but then the Daily Mail will run a poll saying something like: "Is the BBC racist towards the British?" And predicatbly start attacking them again
...honestly, you "media purists" fantasise about Soviet-style media where the only thing that gets published is what you peceive to be "quality."
1. There are other, equally-valid, peceptions of what "quality" is.
2. You don't have to read the Daily Mail if you don't want to.
3. Read what I said about personal choice being fine for when BBC newsreaders are off-air, but that when they're on air they are representing the BBC not their own personal tastes.
And, that the BBC should represent Britain, whether it's a domestic programme or an internationally-broadcast one.
...honestly, you "media purists" fantasise about Soviet-style media where the only thing that gets published is what you peceive to be "quality."
1. There are other, equally-valid, peceptions of what "quality" is.
2. You don't have to read the Daily Mail if you don't want to.
3. Read what I said about personal choice being fine for when BBC newsreaders are off-air, but that when they're on air they are representing the BBC not their own personal tastes.
And, that the BBC should represent Britain, whether it's a domestic programme or an internationally-broadcast one.
Otherwise what do we pay the license fee for?
The BBC should reflect Britain on its domestic broadcasts - whether it should be that parochial as a global broadcaster is far more questionable. Why should the BBC represent Britain specifically as an international news broadcaster - surely it should be neutral of nationality? Certainly the licence fee argument is bogus - as neither BBC World nor BBC World Service Radio are funded by the TV licence - one is commercial, the other government funded...
(And do you pay a licence - not license - fee Phileas?)
What is it with this anti-American English crusade?
Yes I pay a licence fee (when I'm living in the UK).
And my point is just that I think equating "wearing a poppy" with "taking a stand and not being neutral" is absurd.
The poppy is just a gesture of respect and remembrance...sort of like how the BBC wouldn't opt to play re-runs of the "Eurovision Song Contest" or "Lapdance Island" were a member of the Royal Family to die.
In as much as TV personalities (presenters, newsreaders, etc.) shouldn't be told what to do in a dictum, I don't see why they can't be expected to be at least a little bit conformist...
... after all, if Germany had won World War II, or the Soviets had won the Cold War, would they be able to exercise the freedom to wear a poppy right now?
(And I don't mean this in an ironic way, I mean the freedom to wear a poppy when off-air, as a private citizen, not as a public figure.)
I don't want to seem pedantic, but the difference between licence and license is not just a US/UK thing - it's a difference in spelling between the noun and verb form, respectively. It's the same with practise and practice. An easy way to work out which spelling you need is by thinking of 'advice' vs 'advise' - it's the same difference in spelling, but there's a phonological difference, too.
The Americans only use the 'license' spelling, though,
Back on topic, I think that the wearing of poopies would be much more meaningful if the option to wear them was left down to personal choice, and I think that the Jonathan Ross 'virtual poppy' is really inappropriate. Does anyone have caps to see how it looked?
Eh? Why didn't you just read the post before yours, or try reading the thread?!!!
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH Sor-ry this is the first time in ages ive bin on and havent had time to read everything. there are hundreds of other things to read so i apolagise- ok?