I think Policy Exchange is basically on the right track, with a few minor modifications.

Could the Tories really make it worse than it is now?

Erm, have you seen Fox News?

Kipling said, “What should they know of England who only England know?” It’s the same with the Beeb. Live in Italy or South Korea or the Czech Republic or Japan and then try telling me the same.

@1. Of course you think these rightwing proposals on the right track.

You’re a rank Tory with the same ginormous chip on your shoulder about the BBC as other Tories!

For goodness sake, the BBC has ballooned beyond recognition or justification, on the back of the telly poll tax.

It’s budget could be cut by 20,30,40% without damage to its public service remit.

Do the young have “reverence” for the BBC?

The BBC is hugely popular among the British public and anyone seeking to diminish it is doing so for financial reasons (or, in the case of the Conservative party, for the political goodwill of a select group of media barons).

Some things are worth more than the money they cost.

The BBC is one.

PS I am prepared to bet that the BBC won’t be cut by one single pound

Interesting definition of the word “free” there.

@4: “Michael has obviously not watched the appalling raunchy stuff on Japanese telly at 1 and 2 in the morning”

Why doesn’t all that stuff above, about the prescription for the BBC to have reach and relevance for youth and sports lovers, apply equally to the raunchy stuff which goes out on Japanese TV? If there wasn’t an audience in Japan, it wouldn’t get broadcast. Besides, Japan has a long historic tradition of pornographic visual art as with Shunga:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga

I refused to renew my TV licence a year ago because I’d hardly watched TV for the previous year and refuse to contribute to the ridiculous £18m contract with Jonathan Ross and the absurdly inflated salaries paid to BBC staff. Heaven help us when the the most watched TV programme this Xmas was Eastenders – it didn’t used to be like that.

Frankly, I got fed up searching the TV schedules to find something worth watching and the good BBC2 TV docs – like those by Adam Curtis – usually get posted on Google video anyway, while the drama series get marketed on DVD. I’ve not watched any TV for a year now and don’t miss it at all.

The BBC is hugely popular among the British public

Yep, that’s the myth.

We all like Yorkshire puddings, warm beer and the NHS. Bruce Forsyth is funny and Roger Moore is sexy. Good old Auntie Beeb!!!!!

Undoubtedly certain programmes are popular and well made but the good ones would still exist if the BBC were slimmed down and asked to compete for revenue on a level playing field with all the other media providers. The only logical reason for compulsory taxation to pay for media is to allow someone somewhere to make or buy a programme that they perceive is for our benefit (but that we would not choose to watch if we had to purchase it directly).

But can we not trust our own judgement?

The development of digital broadcasting and the kind of multi channel entertainment we now enjoy has made the BBC seem like a very large white elephant and the sooner we can get it out of the room and stop having our pockets picked to pay for it’s keep the better.

The solution to Murdoch’s dominance is simple. A properly briefed and motivated Competition Authority.

Close the thing down. put it out of it’s misery. It’s infested with political correctness. It’s arrogant. It gets it’s grubby little hands on £ 3.5 BILLION a year regardless.

I think it’s quite amusing that poor people pay a fortune for the BBC and err..lefties support one of the most regressive taxes out there. Haven’t paid my license for 3 years – don’t ever intend to pay it again. Privatise it, maintain it, increase it – don’t watch it, don’t pay for it, don’t care.

Well, I like Yorkshire puddings, warm beer and the NHS. I don’t know anyone in real life who doesn’t like the NHS/Yorkshire puddings, and few who don’t like warm beer.

The trouble with this argument that the BBC isn’t innovative enough/doesn’t screen enough quality programming is that the BBC is far more innovative than any of its commercial competitors and provides higher quality programmes. Of course it provides some guff too.

What’s more, if there are cuts, we all know it’s the quality stuff and the niche stuff which’ll get cut. I bet they cut back on BBC4′s excellent documentaries or music reviews on the bbc website (which again, outstrips any of its commercial competitors) before they cut back on Casualty or Eastenders.

A market-driven system is a one-way ticket to bland mediocrity where everything is the same on every channel.

Amen to everything tim f says.

If the Tories get in and cut the BBC to ribbons, the only consolation will be that it will be hugely unpopular and a terrible electoral miscalculation on their part.

@ 15 Exactly!

@ 4. Oh, I have, I have. More often, though, I was out in Shibuya at that time.

The Thick of It, The Noughties: A History of Now, World Service News, Wallander, the BBC website. Show me anything of comparable quality made by Sky. Go on, dare you. Of course the BBC has a wealth of shite – you try broadcasting 24 hours of quality a day. Even HBO doesn’t manage that.

The BBC is one of the very few areas in which the UK still punches above its weight internationally. In Evan Wright’s Generation Kill the American troops at the forefront of the invasion of Iraq heard it all first on the World Service, as impartial a guarantee of quality as you’re ever likely to get. Course, they were probably all looking leftie biased stuff and not at all interested in fair and balanced Fox.

@ 14 Regressive tax? You in with me for scrapping the Civil List too, then?

Where in the report is there any sense or suggestion that the BBC should be “cut to ribbons”?

If the Tories really wanted to do the right thing with the BBC: They would, on the very first day of power, throw all of its staff out into the street and sell everything left on ebay to the highest bidder.

I will never pay the TV licence and I am actually prepared to go to prison for my beliefs. The BBC stands for everything I despise and I couldn’t trust it to tell me what day of the week it was.

Die Auntie Die, says I.

@17 – Hello?!

Isn’t that exactly the kind of output the report is suggesting that the BBC should concentrate on, ex the website?

(The World Service is paid out of the FCO budget I believe.)

cjcjc,

I think that Septicisle is playing politics here. The report is not by the Conservative party, but Septicisle tries to link it to David Cameroon, and also to Rupert Murdoch (yes, two policy exchange members work for him, but they don’t have to agree with him – that’s kind of the point of being a columnist; or are you saying David Aaronovitch also agrees with everything Mr Murdoch says?), with some very wierd links – Charles Moore worked on the Daily Telegraph, not a News International publication last I checked.

This is the same sort of thing as the NHS argument, where someone tries to set up the straw man that their oponents want to destroy a ‘much-loved’ institution (without establishing any evidence for this), picking quotes on of context and trying to associate minority views with a whole movement, in this case the Conservative party. It is quite tiresome, and once more shows the lack of ambition or thought that seems to be dooming the so-called progressive movement at the moment. If you must post on the BBC either define why it is ideal at the moment or indicate how you would improve it – that would be positive. Here the problem is that we have a writer attacking a report from a think tank (and not a report that any party has seemingly picked up), without offering a defence against the report’s recommendations. So far not too bad – we can assume that Septicisle likes the BBC as is; but then to link in David Cameroon and Rupert Murdoch (presumably as the Bogeyman) seems a bit too tenuous, a bit too obviously attempting to score points. Attacking the Conservatives blindly is one thing, attacking them through a report only linked by association, and without even proposing an alternative policy, is another entirely.

Michael,

Wallander is only good until you watch the Swedish version. Which to be fair is screened on BBC 4.

But as cjcjc says, that is public service broadcasting (as indeed is some unwatchably high brow stuff). Eastenders however would be made by Sky – I bet they’d snap up the rights if offered.

#22

Of course, the BBC makes money by selling popular programmes to other networks. I wonder how much the licence fee would be if they didn’t make them any more?

tim,

I have no problem with selling popular programmes. But how much of that is in fact the sort of public service broadcasting for which BBC is known? I doubt Eastenders is big in many other countries for example.

Key point here. None of us has an agreed concept of what the BBC should do; Policy Exchange decided to suggest one. As think tanks do. If you disagree, set out another – I shall meanwhile try to justify maintaining Match of the Day on BBC when clearly there is no public service broadcasting requirement to do so.

Of course we all the know the very best telly is made by those free-market devils, HBO.

Is said over at the author’s blog and I’ll say it here, these plans for the BBC are an absolute and total disaster, never mind the privatisation of Channel 4 and all the other guff; terrible, terrible policy that hopefully will never see the light of day by hook or by crook.

I have a feeling my comrades in the Equity union will be doing our meagre best to fight any thing in this myopic document.

ITV provided a public service rationale for keeping MoTD on BBC when they put Andy Townsend in a van and asked him to do tactical analysis. Stopping that happening again is worth the licence fee on its own.

Hear hear to tim f@27.

#25

Agreed. But HBO use a subscription model that couldn’t be replicated in the UK (not least because it only works with a large population). And most of US television & radio is awful. Actually PBR does some decent stuff, but is woefully underfunded.

tim,

I agree with you totally about Andy Townsend in vans. But try justifying it to a non-football fan.

It has to be said the best argument for a big BBC is ITV, but that is hardly getting the debate anywhere. So I’m off to watch another programme following policemen around doing their normal job…

@24 – I think they’ve done quite well out of Strictly come dancing.

Is adverts a dirty word?

Daniel – perhaps you could write a show about how the evil Tories are planning to starve the massed ranks (and they are massed) of BBC marketing directors.
How very dare they.

If anyone could carry that off, you could.

Is anyone going to talk about the importance of the BBC to British cultural life? It’s broad reach, it’s educational remit? The fact that it’s news website is one of the most popular in the world? It’s world-renowned drama and documentaries? £11.63 per month? That’s the best value £11.63 I spend in the whole month.

More to the point, why should the BBC be beholden to a 20th century conception of public service broadcasting? I say make it bigger and stronger. It’s certainly not perfect – let’s face it, it’s impossible to please everyone all the time – but it enriches our nation far more than any other broadcaster in any other country.

cjcjcjcjcjc

You know as much about being creative as I do about Formula 1. Now bugger off you awful troll. Best to listen to Louis above, more balanced and measured then you could ever hope to be.

Louis,

At last someone making a case for the status quo/enlarging. Thankyou – don’t necessarily agree (I doubt Eastenders is ‘world-renowned’, or Waterloo Road, which I do watch, comes to that), but it is nice after 30 comments for someone to set out a coherent point of view rather than simply blinding attacking/defending.

Daniel,

Why does knowledge of creativity have anything to do with this debate? Seems odd grounds to dismiss someone on, when the BBC is surely for the viewers’ convenience not the artists’.

Daniel,

Erm, judging by the webite you linked to, on the Haiti topic, creativity isn’t exactly your strongest point either.

Watchman, your attitude here stinks, really, you hide your affectations really badly today.

My comment was relation to cjcjcjcjc trolling, my judgment was based on the creativity he has shown commenting, do keep up. And while you’re at it, how about your pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to be IAIN DALE and arbitrate.

And the BBC cannot be much without the huge raft of artists that contribute to it and make it what it is.

Good grief.

cjcjc: “Where in the report is there any sense or suggestion that the BBC should be “cut to ribbons”?”

What else exactly is the recommendations here that the BBC should focus on “quality” rather than reach by no longer bidding for sports rights, stop catering for 16-35s, essentially draw back from entertainment all together and also no longer bid for the rights to overseas shows? It’s reducing the corporation to a rump which can later be even further emasculated when the support for what it does drops even further.

Watchman: I’m not playing politics at all. Policy Exchange has been described in the past as David Cameron’s favourite think-tank, and the links between it and Cameron’s Notting Hill set are absolutely legion, probably best explained in this Graun article by Andy Beckett (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/26/thinktanks.conservatives). I’m not suggesting at all that the report has Murdoch’s grubby hands on it; just that he has the most to gain from the proposals within it, and the mention of Charles Moore was to point out how the organisation is hardly stuffed to the gills with principled opposition to the BBC, just petulant individuals who refuse to pay because of just one person within it. As for a much-loved institution, the report itself admits that 76% of respondents to a poll felt the BBC was something to be proud of, while 62% said it was trustworthy, results far and away ahead of almost any other comparable organisation.

It doesn’t help that Sunny has cut out some of the more important sections of my original (http://www.septicisle.info/2010/01/how-to-destroy-bbc-without-mentioning.html), such as how I think BBC3 could be shut down and Radio 1 privatised without any loss in reach, and how the Sachsgate affair has already meant that risk-taking at the BBC has been stifled, but on the whole I think the BBC is a force for good which we shouldn’t be so quick to decide to cut to the bone. That it’s heavily rumoured that Murdoch’s support for Cameron is centred around a deal on tackling the BBC and his other media woes such as Ofcom is also instrumental: now Cameron has a fully-fledged think-tank report on how exactly to do it.

rp:

I take the opinion of an anonymous coward using the name rumpypumpy very, very lightly indeed. No need to share it with me again, I make a living being creative, you might not like that or agree but that doesn’t stop me doing so.

Anonymous commenter 2:

well done for being a troll.

Daniel,

I thought you might be running out of this:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f399/myfask/258Troll_spray.jpg

And I think you never had this.

Daniel,

Ok, you win I’ve been hiding so it is time to pull back the curtain. My first name is Norman and my surname really is Rumpy-Pumpy, hyphenated just like yours!.

And I’m more creative than Ibsen, Leonardo Da Vinci, Phil Spector, Jonathan Ive and Peter Sellers all rolled into one.

Whatever troll.

Daniel,

Whilst we exchanging characterizations this made me think of you:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ncxPu29ML.jpg

Whatever troll.

You need some HTML lessons.

Daniel,

HTML?
My, your creativitity knows no bounds.

If you can leand me a bit of help setting up a website it would be appreciated.

Septicisle,

Thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree with you on BBC 3 (although not Radio 1 – the new music sections are valuable public broadcasting, even if daytime could be flogged quite happily). Can’t follow the link – getting a 404, but nice to see more reasonable thinking there.

Daniel,

The BBC needs artists. Which is why it pays them. But please don’t confuse that with the fact that the artists should run the BBC. I am not convinced that would produce the sort of high quality television that is needed.

Typical conservative reaction to a much loved entity that won’t simply bend over and do its bidding.

Like a spoiled brat, they simply want to destroy it.

It’s enough to make one shiver.

r:

More creativity than you coward. Bye now!

W:

Never said artists should run the BBC, although the attitude that artists are not capable is not accurate, I feel Tonga Tim definition of bigotry coming on…

@ 20 ‘ex the website’. Hello?! You mean the single best thing ever produced by a British broadcaster? I suppose your one of those people who’d have us believe that our train services are the envy of Europe, gas and electricity are reasonably priced and the BBC is a more dangerous hive of bias than The MailTelegraphTimesSunExpress.

You start by cutting off the limbs. The rest soon follows.

Watchman: Yeah, I’ve screwed up with the parenthesis. Remove the ) from the end of the links and they’ll work fine.

The BBC should stop trying to appeal to a 16-35 audience because they are the demographic that watches the least television (as in appointment television). They are either out binnge-drinking, twittering/facebooking, or catching chylamidia from each other, they only TV they do watch is mostly of the downloaded variety.

The bigger problem for the BBC is that a tax on owning a televison looks absurdly anachronistic in the digital age and cannot credibly be argued for, especially when it’s possible to acess the BBCs output from anywhere in the world.

Twat Munro….

“The BBC should stop trying to appeal to a 16-35 audience because they are the demographic that watches the least television (as in appointment television). ”

You can’t say anything original can you? You just repeat tory talking points.

The best argument in support of the BBC is ITV. They used to make programmes like Cracker and Prime Suspect. Now Jimmy McGovern writes The Street for the BBC and Linda la Plante writes crap like Above Suspicion.

Long gone are the times when BBC TV could produced quality drama like Robert Graves’s I Claudius or the likes of: Cathy Come Home.

Scheduled TV programmes are getting worse because so much revenue is going into staff salaries “to stay competitive” that there’s not enough left in the pot to make good programmes like BBC and ITV used to. Go figure it.

What about the World Service? Yes, it’s funded by the FCO rather than the license fee, but I’d like to know if the right-wing trolls would abolish that too.

Because the good work it has done in broadcasting unbiased information to countries which actually are oppressed & without freedom of expression is fairly undeniable. Replacing this with a British Fox “News” just so right-wing cunts can fulfil their revenge fantasies is not something I would care to do.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill:

Good God man, you are at again. Do you even comment for debate or is it always for these darn abrasive arguments you so clearly enjoy?

Troll and coward are the only words you seem to know, son. You wreaking another thread for those of us who like real debate.

Be a good boy and cut the cable to you keyboard.

@25 cjcjc: “Of course we all the know the very best telly is made by those free-market devils, HBO.”

(Not sure whether that comment was intended to be ironic.) HBO is a very American institution delivering American content. In theory, I should like at least some of it (I own a library of 500+ American pulp novels) but it fails to touch me. And looking at their website, the list of “HBO Original Series” includes US remakes of BBC productions. Not so Original then.

Nobody has mentioned it explicitly, but one reason to treat the BBC as a special case is cultural identity. The BBC creates programmes that are culturally British (and to a degree, Irish and Commonwealth). Not just the arty farty programmes about Elgar, Turner and Blake, but popular drama. The aforementioned HBO list of remakes does not include ideas from Alan Bennett or Dennis Potter. No Gormenghast, Shakesepeare and Dickens. Even the BBC’s presentation of the soccer results on Saturday afternoon is very British (I strongly recommend looking up the video of Mark E Smith of The Fall, providers of the programme’s theme tune, announcing the scores).

Incidentally, I don’t think that any other broadcaster would employ Adam Curtis whose work appeals to some people who resent paying for a TV licence. And, yes, I acknowledge that HBO co-produces programmes with the BBC, but that is a minority of HBO’s output.

ITV used to deliver quality British content. This year, they can’t even find the money for a new series of Kingdom, a drama featuring and produced by one of England’s treasures, Stephen Fry. I don’t even know anyone who watches Coronation Street, which is uncomfortable for a Lancastrian. Similar criticism can be applied to Channel 4′s content.

When judging whether BBC content is worthwhile, we have to ask if a commercial company would make the programme. Songs of Praise compels me to run across the room to locate the TV remote control, but it serves its audience. By contrast, Top Gear annoys me owing to the technical ignorance of the presenters but I still watch it muttering under my breath; Top Gear is a programme with popular appeal that is sold to other broadcasters for $$; so as a petrol head, I win both ways; some temporary horsepower and testosterone generated frivolity that generates income that may fund something less popular. (No doubt, somebody is desperate to say that Top Gear belongs on commercial television; the rebuttal is that commercial television did not have the imagination or courage to produce it.)

@25 cjcjc: “Of course we all the know the very best telly is made by those free-market devils, HBO.”

HBO unlike all the other American networks does not rely on advertising, It is a subsciption service. Of course it takes advertisng, but it won’t be told what to do by advertisers. Which means they have been able to push the limit of what is shown on American TV.

In effect, what the BBC has been doing for the last 40 years. The BBC is unable to push the limits today because the Daily Mail and Murdoch media will howl like the bunch of Rabid Right wing wolfs that they are.

The BBC lost their way after Thatchers reforms which were done to destroy the BBC in the long term. No doubt Call me Dave with his Murdoch backing will finish it off.

59 “Troll and coward are the only words you seem to know, son. You wreaking another thread for those of us who like real debate.”

I see no debate from you troll.

Voluntary subscriptions are a market mechanism too. A regressive license fee is not.

HBO is only now allowing Americans to see and here the kind of things the BBC was doing 25 years ago. American capitalism is about 25 years behind in the risk taking that the BBC was doing in the 1970s.

The BBC has been a huge success, just like the NHS, and the tories hate it because A, it has worked, B, the public like it, and C, tories like a system where lots of people are priced out. Deep down tories are inadequate little gits and they are not happy unless they are depriving someone from having what they have.

Also, if you put all media in the hands of corporations you end up with a very biased pro right wing media as is demonstrated by the British Newspaper market or the American tv. Which of course is the real reason the Right wants the destruction of the BBC.

C’mon. BBCTV is just plain rubbish nowadays so I’ve given up watching TV until BBC scheduling gets better.

I used to be a fan of BBCTV but it’s not a patch on what it used to be – because so much is being paid out nowadays in staff salaries “to stay competitive” that there’s not enough left from licence fee revenues to produce attractive programming.

We’ve got to the bottom of the barrel when Eastenders is the best TV for the festive season. Without drastic reforms, I think the BBC is nearing the end of its road.

@ 62

“I see no debate from you troll.

That’s right I am reading it and its being wrecked by this do do.

But I see we have another contender. What a lovely couple you make.

I wondered when someone would be daft enough to bring up HBO as ascribe its success to the free market, because that’s not really true.

One of the key reasons why HBO has been so successful, both commercially and critically, is because of state interference. It occupies a distinct niche in the US market which exists largely because FCC regulation prevents the big national networks fromrunning the kind of edgier, adult-orientated, material on which HBO has made its name.

Yes, they make some damn good programmes but that’s not down to them facing significant competition from other broadcasters but because they occupy a niche in the market in which there is little or no real competition and, therefore, no pressure to chase ratings by ensuring that their output will play in Peoria.

Long gone are the times when BBC TV could produced quality drama like Robert Graves’s I Claudius or the likes of: Cathy Come Home.

Sorry?

Get the first series of Cranford and watch Eileen Atkins’ performance. Now tell me we don’t produce quality drama.

If you think about it, one of the more bizarre thing about our attitudes to the BBC, and to television generally, is the extent to which we hopelessly downplay the significance of our own culture.

When the BBC produces a new adaptation of Dickens, Thomas Hardy, etc, it gets labelled as ‘costume drama’. Now, try finding a ‘costume drama’ section in your nearest bookshop – you won’t. At the very least you’ll find those authors under literature. More often than not they’ll be categorised as ‘classics’.

What there hasn’t been, for a while, is a stand out piece of contemporary drama on BBC1, but BBC2 still provides its fair share of excellent material, not least last years TV film ‘Five Minutes of Heaven’, which really should have gone out on BBC1 across the whole of the UK and not just in Northern Ireland.

We’ve got to the bottom of the barrel when Eastenders is the best TV for the festive season.

You appear to be confusing popularity with quality – some of the best TV we had over Christmas included the new adaptations of Henry James’ ‘The Turn of the Screw’ and Wyndham’s ‘Day of the Triffids’ (both BBC) while ITV managed to chip with another couple of immaculately produced Poirot’s, which are always eminently watchable for David Suchet’s meticulous performance, if nothing else.

Rupert Murdoch is nearly 80 years old.

By the time any of these changes take effect, he’ll be in a zimmer frame.

Only today’s utterly schizoid Left could claim that asking the BBC to concentrate on making a smaller number of really high-quality programmes rather than making me-too dross for the ratings would in any way weaken or destroy it as a cultural institution.

Mango Rubicon:

At least I’ve got you to use a name now, step in the right direction, although still not accountable, glad I pricked your conscience or tested your male ego.

Pity you then have to just attack me, I was doing fine, contributing at 26 and 28 (unlike you, who has just left comments here attacking me and nothing about the thread at hand) and then, unfortunately, cjcjcjcjcj and the other coward had a pop at me and I don’t take kindly to that.

It’d be best if you didn’t try to play some kind of personal arbiter role with me, I don’t care for it and if you want the thread to remain on topic, best if you don’t drag it down to personal attacks.

So, anything to say about the post itself ‘John Walters’?

OK Daniel.

I’ve got a spare ten minutes.

Daniel @28

Hear hear to tim f@27.

That is not contributing to the debate. That is cheerleading.

cjcjc @ 32

perhaps you could write a show about how the evil Tories are planning to starve the massed ranks (and they are massed) of BBC marketing directors.>/i>

You know as much about being creative as I do about Formula 1. Now bugger off you awful troll

Paranoid, aggressive, abusive and not really helpful.

Do you see?

pagar:

Fuck me, what is it with people playing arbiter around here? Esp. you pagar, that’s real rich. Do I reall yhave to justify myself to you? Clearly I do. Who made you God? Also, this kind of by you perpetuates this shit, unless of course I hold my nose and don’t wade in your shit. Well not yet…

You duck the fact that my first comment on here was related to the post, my second, what you call cheerleading, is what people do when they really agree with someone else, it is not a crime.

Then, as I said, cjcjcjcjcjcj sarcastically attacked me…BOO FUCKING HOO but I have a right of reply, he made it personal and yeah, I’m free to ignore the troll but guess what, I didn’t.

You can justify his dull sarcasm all you want, you weren’t the target of it and when you were you soon got an understanding of how it feels and changed your tune, for a short while at least.

So shall we leave it at that and get this back on track or do you want to keep this going?

I couldn’t agree more TGOR.

@ 70

Rupert Murdoch is 80 years old.

Yes, but dynastic monopolies usually last more than one generation.
James Murdoch will make you watch Ross Kemp everyday until you die.

The Girls of Riyadh,

Precisely, and that is where it goes ever time Daniel Hoffmann-Gill enters a thread unfortunately.

His first comment is almost always to call someone a troll and / or a coward and the rest are just abuse with varying degrees of maliciousness and profanity.

I asked him politely to consider his behaviour and got the same response!

I hate the term ‘troll’ but I can think of no more apt usage then for the behaviour of Daniel Hoffmann-Gill.

TGOR has been outed in the thread about rape jokes as a sock puppet multiple identity using troll by the blog posts author who can see the multiple identities used from the same IP address.

So you are siding with a troll and once again not moving this thread on, just attacking me, as I pointed out my first comments were on topic until I was attacked.

So, anything on topic to offer?

Daniel,

I’ve just returned from watching Hull City frustrate Spurs.
Modric is returning to fitness and playing with abundant creativity (albeit with slightly more than your good self), Keane played like a sock pupet and Defoe was too cowardly to capitalize on his oportunities. Hull, with the exception of their keeper, who was superb, acted like trolls trying to spoil the game at each and any given opportunity.

I expect it will be on the BBC tonight on one of their most poopular programmes, the broadcating of which I am sure David Cameron supports.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill:

Where is that then? I missed it.

Either ways, you agreed with that poster and do did I, so what’s the difference dude?

You must surely see that every time you appear on a thread with your bag of preconfigured tricks i.e ‘you are a troll’ ‘you are a coward’ and so on that these threads are always derailed and turned into a farce?

That’s all I am saying, son.

rp:

I like Harry Redknapp a lot.

John Walters nee Rubicon

“Where is that then? I missed it.”

Right here: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/16/joking-about-rape-isnt-funny/#comment-97774

And now I know they are an uber-troll, their opinion holds less gravitas, don’t you agree?

And you must surely know that you are only here to attack me and offer nothing to this thread as I have done, which is a waste of everyone’s time, best if you stop it now.

And I ain’t your son, tit.