Around The World In Eighty Days

Watching one and a half episodes of this latest destruction of a classic has firmly convinced me that the licence fee should be scrapped. The LGBBCTQXYZ or whatever the hell it is these days has yet again taken a staple of literature and besmiched it with its woketardery. All the modern box ticker stereotypes look like they are in there.
The hackneyed "Strong Female Lead" and the victim Afro-Caribbean moral compass (yawn) are in there and no doubt if any one watches any further than I did I'm sure all the non-hetero/differently abled/etc etc cliches will all be in there as well.
No more free money for this clunking behemoth that is now so up itself and waist deep in its lefty agenda. An organisation that is so openly politically biased receiving public money to be given a media platform is anathema to democracy.

a reply to: Granitebones
Sometimes I just switch off my thinking brain and just enjoy something for the whole pleasure of just watching.
I'm enjoying it so far. Good bit of 'switch brain off' for me.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Granitebones

The problem is half our MP's fall into that BLT crowd or I would say cut it to half what it is, put it more closely under a multi party oversight and get rid of the useless politically appointed dead wood that currently run the Beeb.

Sadly though that oversight is pretty much guaranteed to be compromised.

But other than that I would argue that scrapping the licence and privatising it is just what old man Rupert Murdoch one of the biggest financial backers of the Tory Party (whom lets be fair are just a glorified international lobby group for there backers interests) want's, if for no other reason than to peeve that twat off I refuse to let it be privatised, however they went too far upping the licence just so we could have more filth on the telly and more rubbish instead of how it used to be back when the BBC was rightly known as the worlds best public broadcasting service.

And forcing old dears to pay the licence fee in there twilight years was even more below the belt.

Still what do you think can be done while we have a twirp like Johnson in charge and a cabinet of clown's and the opposition are just as bad.

That's fair enough. Did you ever read the book?
a reply to: angelchemuel

Fair point, but unless I'm very much mistaken Murdoch is staunch supporter of Labour.
a reply to: LABTECH767

a reply to: Granitebones

Maybe he is two timing it but No he is very much a major backer of the Tory's though maybe he did switch since that scoundrel Blair was just a tory in Sheep's clothing (no offence to genuine conservatives there as they are not all bad but the Tory's have them by the short and curlys - I do draw a distinction between the two even if that is more a matter of opinion than fact but to make an example despite his grey man reputation and his misguided sell off of British Rail John Major was a decent bloke and a Conservative rather than a Tory if you catch my drift).
www.theguardian.com...
bylinetimes.com...

Murdoch as you can see is known for his right wing politics so he would only align himself with a centre left party if they were pushing his agenda.

Hard faced 'ould git' should stay down under in my opinion and keep his nose and money out of our politics but currently the Tory's major backers are almost all non British though we have some very wealth peers that also back them (there money is mostly in offshore accounts though so same difference).

While Labour has often been corrupt the Tory's are terminally corrupt, but the sheeple don't see it or realize it or of they do are so shallow and think in such short term's that they keep voting them in.
theconversation.com...

So NO very much a MAJOR backer of the Tory/Conservative Party.


I say we need to radically overhaul how we allow our party's to be funded as this compromises British politics severely, allow smaller party's to be funded but once they gain support of a sizable percentage of the electorate let them be funded from a public pot and NO MORE OUTSIDE MONEY, we need to clean the house of commons, stop money changing hands under the table and get British politics back to representing British interests simple as that.

a reply to: Granitebones

Some may think I'm ignorant or have a closed mind, but I refuse to watch such woke nonsense.

The sad thing is many of these actors are being tainted with this woke paintbrush; I'm sure many of the black/female/gay actors are very good in their own right but there will always be the suspicion that they only got these roles because of their race/creed etc and to meet current woke requirements and NOT because of their their abilities.

All this wokism has detracted from quite a few programmes recently.....its hard to find anything worth watching.

Its got so bad I've found myself counting how many BAME - can we still use that particular acronym - are in TV advertisements or the race/gender/sexuality of presenters and constantly reminding myself that 85% of the UK identifies as White British and that 95% consider themselves heterosexual.
You would never believe that watching UK TV.

Apologies if I've gone off on a bit of tangent.

a reply to: Granitebones

Yes, waaaay back in my teens.
Rainbows
Jane

I just did a quick check and it seems Murdich publications generally are in support of the Johnson government. His political influence has waned in line with decrease of newspaper circulation. As far as I can see he hasnt backed Starmer.
I go back to my original point that a blatantly politically biased media organisation should not get public money.
a reply to: LABTECH767

Like you I dont blame the actors they have to earn their living just like anyone else. I dont really know if the right word exists for what the BBC has become. Woke doesn't really cut it for me. There is something far more insidious, devious and depraved going on at the top level.
a reply to: Freeborn

a reply to: angelchemuel

You know something Jane, when I was younger I was a stickler for everything being absolutely correct and it ruined many programmes/films etc for me.
I learnt over the years just to sit back and enjoy the bloody show.

But I can't accept historical inaccuracies and the blatant re-writing of history.
I can't accept woke revisionism and the invasive nature of the cancel culture.
I can't tolerate using todays morals and standards when judging/writing about the actions of yesterday.

I like earthy grittiness and the harsh realities of life....I hate the disclaimers that precede re-runs of classics like Auf Wiedersehen and Lawrence of Arabia.

Morgan Freeman as Azeem in Costner's Robin Hood wasn't a problem to me.
I thought Giri/Haji was one if the best programmes shown on BBC in years and thought Will Sharpe's character - a gay man of Japanese origin - totally stole the show.

I draw the line when Anne Boleyn is portrayed as Black just to appease the London based woke middle class champagne socialist types.
Imagine the uproar if some unknown white actor was chosen to portray someone like Martin Luther King?

As much as I'd like to switch off Jane, I'm afraid I can't anymore.

Again, apologies for straying slightly off topic.

a reply to: Granitebones

I fully understand the reasoning behind the TV License fee and in the past always sort of agreed with it.
The BBC produced some excellent programmes and was reasonably impartial.

At present the BBC is just another manifestation the deeper, and as you say more insidious, malaise that is seeping into the very pores of our society.
The label 'woke' doesn't do it justice....its something much more than that.
Unfortunately I don't think I quite have the ability to express just what it is....I just know it has to be resisted at all costs.

How?
I have no idea.

a reply to: Freeborn
Funnily enough whilst I was reading and agreeing with you the Anne Boleyn played by a woman of colour...well I just didn't even look at it. So I do have my line.
But I hardly watch TV and was determined to try and 'switch off' from work a little over the last two weeks. That hasn't gone to plan, but I have enjoyed myself watching 'something' in between re-writes and upgrades of my teaching handouts.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Granitebones

Ugh..

i was wondering that is it worth a watch.. does not sound like it..

Already had to stop watching the new star trek discovery because i hated the transghost whatever character, and dont even get me started on doctor who.

a reply to: Freeborn

i mean all this 'woke' stuff its almost as bad as a Scotsman or Aussie playing the dashingly dapper English James Bond, or same said scotsman playing a Rusian Submarine captain, no one seemed to mind those performances

I really pay no mind to what colour or gender or sexual preference an actor is as they are...acting

each to their own, thats the beauty of choice, people can choose not to watch/pay if they dont agree

its nice to still have that freedom

a reply to: Granitebones

I remember the bad old days when the BBC was nicknamed 'Aunty', and Monty Python (I think) doing a sketch about coming out as 'Normal'.

It seems the Licence Fee is inverse to Creativity.

But at least there are the Commercial Channels.

This year we gathered round our various devices and played 'Token Poker': betting whether the next advert would include more or less stereotypes than the previous one or not, the pot rolling over if it was a draw.

Its a brag I know, but I won a round with a Sofa advert that had a black man, a white woman, a mixed race child and to crown it a bejeweled prosthetic thrown in for good measure!

It was a risky bet on my part as the previous three ads all had the same demographic mix, and I was betting the creatives were mainly lawyers.

a reply to: UpThenDown

But that was sort of one of the points I was making; have these actors/performers/presenters got these roles purely on their suitability or was it because of the perceived need to fill 'diversity' quota's etc.

Every single male sport has to have black/female presenters/commentators/summarisers etc. Some are good, a handful very good.....many are terrible and are clearly only there because of their race/gender etc.

There were recently complaints from the gay community because a straight actor played a gay role.
They said these roles should only be filled by gay people because they are the only one's who can give a genuine insight into being gay.
Ok....so should the same be said about straight roles?

Would you, or large parts of the black communities around the world be pleased if say Brad Pitt was cast as Martin Luther King?
Sean Bean as Gandhi?

a reply to: Freeborn

I would not give 2 hoots if brad or Sean played those parts and in the same respect as you have issue with with someone black playing Anne boylyn I guess there would be some people bemoaning Sean and Brad if they took on such a role, myself I would not be bothered

Edit

Do it for Yorkshire !!! Would be epic in ghandi

I haven't seen it but I imagine it sucks.

It's why I can't stand Dr Who in the revived era.

Woketardery on acid.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Perhaps you personally wouldn't mind....but I suspect the outrage in the respective communities would be quite vocal.

The point is; most of these actors/presenters etc are only getting these roles in order to fill diversity quotas and not on ability....or at least that's the way it appears at present.