|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 21, 2021 11:07:50 GMT
Oh well, that seems to have had the equivalent effect of passing wind on a Chinese subway.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Nov 21, 2021 13:32:53 GMT
Oh well, that seems to have had the equivalent effect of passing wind on a Chinese subway. No no, please go on; it's fascinating. What would you say the the ultimate potential is for Doctor Who as a means of societal control as utilised by the intelligence services? Also, would you concur with my view that Warriors of the Deep is an establishment propaganda piece conceived to curb passive resistance? |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 21, 2021 14:13:29 GMT
Oh well, that seems to have had the equivalent effect of passing wind on a Chinese subway. No no, please go on; it's fascinating. What would you say the the ultimate potential is for Doctor Who as a means of societal control as utilised by the intelligence services? Also, would you concur with my view that Warriors of the Deep is an establishment propaganda piece conceived to curb passive resistance? Maybe, to return to the original thread title, Eccleston's blacklisting could have also been a result of MI5 coercion, implemented due to his resistance to BBC directives? Extending to the classic series, there's also the possibility of Warriors' Gate curtailing resistance against hegemonic influences. The core ethos of the story come the final episode is to "do nothing", after all. |
|
|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 21, 2021 14:16:26 GMT
Oh well, that seems to have had the equivalent effect of passing wind on a Chinese subway. No no, please go on; it's fascinating. What would you say the the ultimate potential is for Doctor Who as a means of societal control as utilised by the intelligence services? Also, would you concur with my view that Warriors of the Deep is an establishment propaganda piece conceived to curb passive resistance? Well personally I don't know but others have highlighted the fact that it does is by dint of the fact that the authorities a) apparently hate art with is challenging b) allow for the production of "art" which is not challenging in any way c) ensure such a situation applies to all public services, might be true. Bread and Circuses and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 21, 2021 14:23:01 GMT
No no, please go on; it's fascinating. What would you say the the ultimate potential is for Doctor Who as a means of societal control as utilised by the intelligence services? Also, would you concur with my view that Warriors of the Deep is an establishment propaganda piece conceived to curb passive resistance? Maybe, to return to the original thread title, Eccleston's blacklisting could have also been a result of MI5 coercion, implemented due to his resistance to BBC directives? Extending to the classic series, there's also the possibility of Warriors' Gate curtailing resistance against hegemonic influences. The core ethos of the story come the final episode is to "do nothing", after all. I could split off the question which I posed but it seems to upset people. I think its on page 1 in case anyone is interested. I personally, although I might be wrong, think that in this particular case, it would have necessary or would have been likely to occur given that you already had some people who, if one trusts the accounts, were somewhat cliquey and who would blacklisted people on that basis. Like Charles in Bernard and the genie. But it did occur with people like Alistair Milne and indeed there was and will still be a vetting department at the BBC which works in conjunction with the security service and which will perhaps work in conjunction with other organisations As regards the later statement, there is a Chinese saying which I can't quite remember "do not fight the evil, it will burn itself out" although one must be open-minded to the possibility that what you state is maybe correct. |
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Nov 21, 2021 15:22:28 GMT
there was and will still be a vetting department at the BBC which works in conjunction with the security service and which will perhaps work in conjunction with other organisations. Hmmm. So this "Vetting Department". Would you say that they could perhaps have had a hand in the introduction of elements of bestiality into Russell T. Davies scripts? i.e. Cat people, fly people, inter-species breeding etc. so as to encourage the audience to see themselves as essentially sub-human and, consequently, unworthy of basic rights? That is, as well as their primary function of weeding out potential subversives like Christopher Eccleston. "Getting their jab in first", so to speak...? |
|
|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 21, 2021 15:35:50 GMT
there was and will still be a vetting department at the BBC which works in conjunction with the security service and which will perhaps work in conjunction with other organisations. Hmmm. So this "Vetting Department". Would you say that they could perhaps have had a hand in the introduction of elements of bestiality into Russell T. Davies scripts? i.e. Cat people, fly people, inter-species breeding etc. so as to encourage the audience to see themselves as essentially sub-human and, consequently, unworthy of basic rights? That is, as well as their primary function of weeding out potential subversives like Christopher Eccleston. "Getting their jab in first", so to speak...? Well I don't know about that but in terms of stopping er um people who might rock the boat, as it were from being employed, they admitted that they used to www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/04/24/the-bbc-admits-it-spent-decades-conspiring-with-mi5-to-stop-a-left-wing-uk-government/ The statement "used to" is important in that it would seem inevitable that it still occurs because 1) They could very well say that they don't do vetting but then that's what they said in the 1970s. 2) Such an admission can that there was vetting be seen as an attempt to appear honest and to give the impression that it is not ongoing. 2) The output of the BBC is far less challenging than was the case in the 1970s and 1990s. By challenging I mean anti-establishment. |
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Nov 21, 2021 16:02:25 GMT
Oh well, that seems to have had the equivalent effect of passing wind on a Chinese subway. Are the Chinese especially flatulent then? |
|
|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 21, 2021 16:20:41 GMT
Oh well, that seems to have had the equivalent effect of passing wind on a Chinese subway. Are the Chinese especially flatulent then? No lol. It's just that on an underground they happen to be very many of them in places in Beijing or Shanghai. Certainly in comparison to the London Underground in the 1980s when the comment was made. And to be fair, its a rather impolite thing for a westerner to do. |
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Nov 24, 2021 9:33:04 GMT
Hmmm. So this "Vetting Department". Would you say that they could perhaps have had a hand in the introduction of elements of bestiality into Russell T. Davies scripts? i.e. Cat people, fly people, inter-species breeding etc. so as to encourage the audience to see themselves as essentially sub-human and, consequently, unworthy of basic rights? That is, as well as their primary function of weeding out potential subversives like Christopher Eccleston. "Getting their jab in first", so to speak...? Well I don't know about that but in terms of stopping er um people who might rock the boat, as it were from being employed, they admitted that they used to www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/04/24/the-bbc-admits-it-spent-decades-conspiring-with-mi5-to-stop-a-left-wing-uk-government/ The statement "used to" is important in that it would seem inevitable that it still occurs because 1) They could very well say that they don't do vetting but then that's what they said in the 1970s. 2) Such an admission can that there was vetting be seen as an attempt to appear honest and to give the impression that it is not ongoing. 2) The output of the BBC is far less challenging than was the case in the 1970s and 1990s. By challenging I mean anti-establishment. Right. So that being the case, would you concur that it's possible that the Vetting Department could be at least partly responsible for the scourge of dumbed down television programmes we are now suffering? i.e. Animal Hospital, The Dog Whsperer, Dr. K's Exotic Animal E.R. and that sort of rubbish, so clearly intended to quell any dissident thoughts and behaviour on the part of the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 24, 2021 10:10:01 GMT
Well I don't know about that but in terms of stopping er um people who might rock the boat, as it were from being employed, they admitted that they used to www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/04/24/the-bbc-admits-it-spent-decades-conspiring-with-mi5-to-stop-a-left-wing-uk-government/ The statement "used to" is important in that it would seem inevitable that it still occurs because 1) They could very well say that they don't do vetting but then that's what they said in the 1970s. 2) Such an admission can that there was vetting be seen as an attempt to appear honest and to give the impression that it is not ongoing. 2) The output of the BBC is far less challenging than was the case in the 1970s and 1990s. By challenging I mean anti-establishment. Right. So that being the case, would you concur that it's possible that the Vetting Department could be at least partly responsible for the scourge of dumbed down television programmes we are now suffering? i.e. Animal Hospital, The Dog Whsperer, Dr. K's Exotic Animal E.R. and that sort of rubbish, so clearly intended to quell any dissident thoughts and behaviour on the part of the audience. Oh absolutely. One doesn't want anything challenging on television or on radio. One can do as you say. It's a bit like parliament in that sense. I have to say that in the early 1990s, when I was abroad, I would have done anything to watch BBC programs and one Christmas my family rented a VCR which enabled us to watch BBC1 for the first time in nearly 2 years. It really was heaven. Now I am abroad, there's not catch. I don't even read or listen to BBC news. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Nov 24, 2021 20:27:13 GMT
Now they conspire with the commies.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredjones on Nov 24, 2021 20:54:30 GMT
Now they conspire with the commies. Communists have better taste though than the BBC  Mind you so does everyone. As regards parliament well put it this way, if you are a party and receive money from Russian interests including people who form part of or are close to the Russian state, would you investigate that sort of thing should it occur in either parliament or other areas? |
|
