BBC has received £2m in EU funding in run up to referendum.

[TrumpIsPresident]

What legal rights are you refering to?

Huh? Did you read what you quoted? Article 50 man lol, post #26, cmonnnnn Mayhem.

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

[Mayhem]

Huh? Did you read what you quoted? Article 50 man lol, post #26, cmonnnnn Mayhem.

What are you talking about? You wrote something about the failed idea that the EU has become, repeated some post and then started to talk about legal rights have no meaning to go on and show how member states can choose to leave the EU?

Come on man, you should have found the time to read up on what the EU is and what they can do compared to what their member states can do. Since you were talking about legal rights i figured you at least know the legal rights.

[TrumpIsPresident]

What are you talking about? You wrote something about the failed idea that the EU has become, repeated some post and then started to talk about legal rights have no meaning to go on and show how member states can choose to leave the EU?

Come on man, you should have found the time to read up on what the EU is and what they can do compared to what their member states can do. Since you were talking about legal rights i figured you at least know the legal rights.

Ok just google "article 50" and it will all become clear.

[Jastall]

2 miilion pounds over three years?

That's barely a big enough bribe to cover a state radio, let alone the freaking BBC who probably spends more than that in a week.

You guys really need to make up better conspiracy theories. This is just sad at this point.

[Mayhem]

Ok just google "article 50" and it will all become clear.

No, your gibberish suddenly doesn´t become any clearer, what is your fucking point?!

[Kalis]

So what? UKIP also received EU funds.

UKIP are a political party, the BBC is an apolitical news agency and broadcaster, the two are not comparable.

The BBC should not be receiving money from anyone other than the British public, let alone a political organisation, as the BBC cannot be seen to have any conflict of interest.

[Xarkan]

...the BBC cannot be seen to have any conflict of interest.

Well these transactions are hardly secret, the bbc coverage before and after receiving these donations would be a matter of public record (heh) so it should be easy to prove if they in fact allowed this to affect them?

[Dadwen]

to be fair I'm sure they are just trying to supplement their lost Top Gear earning....

[Deleted]

I don't know what your fascination with Jewish people is but leave me out of it.

And, my god, looking at how you refer to them in some of your posts I'm seriously wondering how you're not banned right now.

These forums are full of anti-semitic sentiments, just look at the UN sanction thread a page below.

[Kalis]

Well these transactions are hardly secret, the bbc coverage before and after receiving these donations would be a matter of public record (heh) so it should be easy to prove if they in fact allowed this to affect them?

Unless they suddenly became overtly biased or started playing Everything is Awewome whenever an EU news item came on, which they didn't, it would be virtually impossible to prove if it affected them in any way, it is not like there is a irrefutable bias-scale you can compare it to. It could easily come down to things like not asking a question they otherwise would have, not covering a news item they decided was negative, etc.

They already have to deal with biases that are inherent in all employees and should never have put themselves in a position to have to worry about perceived conflicts of interest from a political body, it is not like they even needed the money.

UKIP also gets EU funding... UKIP secret EU puppets confirmed.

It was a moronic comparison the first time someone made it, it hasn't become any less moronic with repetition.

[Kalis]

There is a special word for those who consider the truth moronic.

There is a completely normal word for those who can't see the difference between a political party and an apolitical broadcaster.

[Xanjori]

So they recieved funding for R&D to develop technology, which has nothing at all to do with their news sector or journalists, and we're wondering if this led to "fake news"? I've got a bridge to sell a few of the people in this thread.

[Kalis]

Yeah one is worse than the other isn't it?

Yes, but as I don't consider the truth moronic, but you can't tell the difference between a political party and an apolitical broadcaster, then only one of them is relevant and it wouldn't be to me.

[Xanjori]

Was this bridge a key location in a cocaine smuggling ring run by Democrats and revealed to us by WikiLeaks?

Yes, it was built between a pizza parlour and a salon in Chicago.

[Mayhem]

It was a moronic comparison the first time someone made it, it hasn't become any less moronic with repetition.

Well the comparison is, EU funding goes to everything eligible and doesn´t have an agenda behind it. I´m sure the BBC aren´t the only ones that recieved funding, so trying to link this to brexit is a bit far fetched unless one can show that the BBC were the only ones that recieved funding i don´t think this is even worth discussing.

[Kalis]

Well the comparison is, EU funding goes to everything eligible and doesn´t have an agenda behind it. I´m sure the BBC aren´t the only ones that recieved funding, so trying to link this to brexit is a bit far fetched unless one can show that the BBC were the only ones that recieved funding i don´t think this is even worth discussing.

The BBC shouldn't be requesting/accepting any funding from foreign or domestic political organisations at all. It is completely irrelevant whether anybody else accepts funding.

I don't give a flying fuck how UKIP fund themselves as long as it is legal, they aren't supposed to be unbiased, nor would anyone reasonably expect a political party to be so, however a broadcaster that is legally obliged to be unbiased is naturally held to a different standard. The comparison was moronic as it compared two organisations which have completely different remits.

The BBC is not a standard broadcaster, it is funded by the British people through a television licence fee, and thus is expected to maintain both high standards and the appearance of high standards.

[Kalis]

You deny on one hand that it's deceitful for an anti-EU party to be funded by the EU, and on the other hand you made up this rule that a neutral television broadcaster shouldn't be eligible for funding while others are.

It wasn't deceitful as far as I am aware, UKIP have been pretty open about being funded by the EU for as long as I can remember. I still don't give a fuck about UKIP though, as they are still a political party and have no obligation to be unbiased.

The BBC however have to be unbiased as it is in their charter. Whether they are eligible for EU funding is irrelevant, they shouldn't be requesting or accepting it, just as they shouldn't accept funding from any other political organisation even if they qualify.

I don't think the last argument is completely unreasonable, but seems like making a big deal out of nothing.

You're not British, I am and I pay for a licence fee on one of my properties I rent out. I have a right to be pissed off, as they are answerable to the British public and that includes me.

The EU is more heavily regulated than any political body in the world to maintain an unbiased stance, whether that is good enough or not is obviously a different debate, but as it stands when the EU is found funding all major media outlets equally (because funding culture and media is part of what the UK government agreed with or requested) then it's pretty hard to make the claim they seek to pursue any particular agenda.

The BBC doesn't need additional funding, they are far from poor.

The funding has to come from somewhere.

It comes from our TV licence fees and their commercial arm.

Would you've made the same complaint if it was the UK government funding the BBC?

The UK Government isn't supposed to fund the BBC, that is what we have a licence fee for. I would be curious as to your reaction if the US were giving the BBC funding that they qualified for, as I expect it would be very different.

I don't want any political organisation to be funding the BBC at all, not the EU, not a foreign government, not the Tory Party, none of them.

[Deleted]

That said why it was not 'neutral' during the campaign

[Deleted]

Isnt the BBC the UK's prime SJW channel anyway?

[Deleted]

Well, let me make this very clear then for people like Prince Oberyn Martell.

The BBC is paid for by the Taxes of the government, if they're getting money from the EU, then why the fuck do we need to pay TV tax then?