This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
As part of a savage attack on freedom of speech and the artistic and cultural heritage of the country the BBC has been forced to remove as many as 11,000 recipes from its website. In its key headline story the Grauniad reports that "Although the recipes will still exist online they will be hard to find. One BBC source said: “The website will be closed and viewers will have to make a concerted effort to access the archive.”"
"This is clearly the thin end of the wedge. Before we know it there will only be five different versions of Masterchef and Homes under the Hammer will be reduced to three days a week. More to the point, how is anybody going to know how to make spaghetti bolognese again?
Shocking, truly shocking. Tory scum....
Save our BBC!
(And I got to spell "eviscerate" correctly!)
5
10
In reply to Postmanpat:
(And I got to spell "eviscerate" correctly!)
But not to check for thread duplication.
(And I got to spell "eviscerate" correctly!)
But not to check for thread duplication.
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
Regardless of the political wranglings, I find it annoying that all those recipes are going - the food section of the BBC site is a really useful resource.
Regardless of the political wranglings, I find it annoying that all those recipes are going - the food section of the BBC site is a really useful resource.
6
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
What the hell is the point of that?
> "Although the recipes will still exist online they will be hard to find..."
What the hell is the point of that?
1
1
1
9
1
In reply to XXXX:
That's good. I like the recipe finder on the 'food' section though, and the fact that all the TV show recipes from way back are on there.
That's good. I like the recipe finder on the 'food' section though, and the fact that all the TV show recipes from way back are on there.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Are you making up quotes again?
> "This is clearly the thin end of the wedge. ...
Are you making up quotes again?
3
1
4
1
Never quite sure how useful these petitions are, but there's one to save the recipe archive here: https://www.change.org/p/bbc-save-the-bbc-s-recipe-archive
2
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
You couldn't make it up! I toyed with the idea of suggesting we start a petition but thought it too silly
> Never quite sure how useful these petitions are, but there's one to save the recipe archive here: https://www.change.org/p/bbc-save-the-bbc-s-recipe-archive
You couldn't make it up! I toyed with the idea of suggesting we start a petition but thought it too silly
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Is it really strange that lots of people consider this a useful resource and want to hang on to it if possible?
Is it really strange that lots of people consider this a useful resource and want to hang on to it if possible?
3
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
No, I'm making a statement. But I've no doubt that Emma Cumberpatch or Vanessa Rylance will pop up soon to quote me
> Are you making up quotes again?
No, I'm making a statement. But I've no doubt that Emma Cumberpatch or Vanessa Rylance will pop up soon to quote me
1
2
In reply to Tall Clare:
It's a bunch or recipes. There's really no shortage of them on the interweb. I know, I use them. I acknowledge that I don't understand how you save money by removing something that is already there (maybe Mr.James knows?) but I'm sure that at least five ranks of BBC management and thirty two committees have come to a wise and informed decision.
> Is it really strange that lots of people consider this a useful resource and want to hang on to it if possible?
It's a bunch or recipes. There's really no shortage of them on the interweb. I know, I use them. I acknowledge that I don't understand how you save money by removing something that is already there (maybe Mr.James knows?) but I'm sure that at least five ranks of BBC management and thirty two committees have come to a wise and informed decision.
Post edited at 12:22
1
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Oh, okay, Why the quotation marks then?
You really do have it in for the Beeb, don't you?
> No, I'm making a statement.
Oh, okay, Why the quotation marks then?
> But I've no doubt that Emma Cumberpatch or Vanessa Rylance will pop up soon to quote me
You really do have it in for the Beeb, don't you?
4
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
I can't imagine it costs very much to host the website so am confused where the savings will come from?
I know where they could make some savings, stop sending Nicholas Witchell all over the world as royal correspondent. Get Wills and Kate to skype us reports back to Blighty.
I can't imagine it costs very much to host the website so am confused where the savings will come from?
I know where they could make some savings, stop sending Nicholas Witchell all over the world as royal correspondent. Get Wills and Kate to skype us reports back to Blighty.
4
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Image heavy plus fair number of videos. Depending on how heavy the usage is it will come in at a fair few quid to host it.
Unlikely to be a massive saving though and so be mostly political decision to keep Osborne and co happy.
> I can't imagine it costs very much to host the website so am confused where the savings will come from?
Image heavy plus fair number of videos. Depending on how heavy the usage is it will come in at a fair few quid to host it.
Unlikely to be a massive saving though and so be mostly political decision to keep Osborne and co happy.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Since you ask, I was going to attribute the quote to one of the above and forgot to delete the first quotation marks.
Not really. I have it in much more for self important self serving leftie luvvies.
> Oh, okay, Why the quotation marks then?
>Since you ask, I was going to attribute the quote to one of the above and forgot to delete the first quotation marks.
> You really do have it in for the Beeb, don't you?
Not really. I have it in much more for self important self serving leftie luvvies.
1
2
I work at the BBC
This is the site which will be affected
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/
This site will not be affected
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/
The site closure is due to the folly of running two competing food sites.
Post edited at 12:29
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
But what has this recipes story got to do with 'luvvies'?
> Not really. I have it in much more for self important self serving leftie luvvies.
But what has this recipes story got to do with 'luvvies'?
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
If a leftie is a luvvie is a rightie a hatie?
> Not really. I have it in much more for self important self serving leftie luvvies.
If a leftie is a luvvie is a rightie a hatie?
4
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Oh, the irony of the situation is that the leftie uvvies were up in arms at the supposed forthcoming evisceration of the BBC and all that has happening is increased focus on luvvie productions and the removal of a few recipes from the website. It's the Tory scum darling x
> But what has this recipes story got to do with 'luvvies'?
Oh, the irony of the situation is that the leftie uvvies were up in arms at the supposed forthcoming evisceration of the BBC and all that has happening is increased focus on luvvie productions and the removal of a few recipes from the website. It's the Tory scum darling x
1
1
In reply to broken spectre:
No, precisely the opposite. Witness the language used. Luvvies luv themselves
> If a leftie is a luvvie is a rightie a hatie?
No, precisely the opposite. Witness the language used. Luvvies luv themselves
Post edited at 12:45
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Weird reply. I think I would prefer simply to concentrate on the facts of the matter, rather than imagining things.
You seem like a bitter man.
Weird reply. I think I would prefer simply to concentrate on the facts of the matter, rather than imagining things.
You seem like a bitter man.
3
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Lol. Maybe I always wanted to play Hamlet
Imagining what?
> Weird reply. I think I would prefer simply to concentrate on the facts of the matter, rather than imagining things.
> You seem like a bitter man.
Lol. Maybe I always wanted to play Hamlet
Imagining what?
Post edited at 12:47
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Or alternatively, the strong opposition to the perceived intentions of John Whittingdale and the support of a number of back-bench Tory MPs persuaded the PM that there was considerable popular nationwide support for the BBC and there was little electoral gain to be had by taking a scalpel to the BBC.
Are people not allowed to protest when they oppose proposals which they consider to be against their best interests and the best interests of the company they work for?
Simply decrying it all as a bunch a self-serving leftie luvvies really does miss the mark by a long way and doesn't do you much credit. You're usually a bit better than this.
> Oh, the irony of the situation is that the leftie uvvies were up in arms at the supposed forthcoming evisceration of the BBC and all that has happening is increased focus on luvvie productions and the removal of a few recipes from the website. It's the Tory scum darling x
Or alternatively, the strong opposition to the perceived intentions of John Whittingdale and the support of a number of back-bench Tory MPs persuaded the PM that there was considerable popular nationwide support for the BBC and there was little electoral gain to be had by taking a scalpel to the BBC.
Are people not allowed to protest when they oppose proposals which they consider to be against their best interests and the best interests of the company they work for?
Simply decrying it all as a bunch a self-serving leftie luvvies really does miss the mark by a long way and doesn't do you much credit. You're usually a bit better than this.
7
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Imagining how anybody other than yourself will react to, for example, the removal of these recipes. On this particular topic, I think it's all going on inside your head.
> Imagining what?
Imagining how anybody other than yourself will react to, for example, the removal of these recipes. On this particular topic, I think it's all going on inside your head.
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm disappointed to see them go as I use the resource quite a bit. I fail to see the point as the financial gains are minimal but I guess they have to be seen to do something.
I'm disappointed to see them go as I use the resource quite a bit. I fail to see the point as the financial gains are minimal but I guess they have to be seen to do something.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
As tony explained (better than I could/shall), thankfully the reforms have been reigned in after the reaction to the previously trailed, more onerous, changes.
That they've responded to this and u-turned on academies at least proves that they sometimes listen. Now, if only the Health Secretary's hearing was as good.....
As tony explained (better than I could/shall), thankfully the reforms have been reigned in after the reaction to the previously trailed, more onerous, changes.
That they've responded to this and u-turned on academies at least proves that they sometimes listen. Now, if only the Health Secretary's hearing was as good.....
1
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Well, we've already got a petition to "save the recipes"!
Clue: I'm not entirely serious about Emma and Mark's reaction to the spiteful removal of the recipes.
> Imagining how anybody other than yourself will react to, for example, the removal of these recipes. On this particular topic, I think it's all going on inside your head.
Well, we've already got a petition to "save the recipes"!
Clue: I'm not entirely serious about Emma and Mark's reaction to the spiteful removal of the recipes.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Has that petition got anything to do with 'luvvies'?
I can only go by what you write. (Clue: if it's a *joke*, make sure it's funny.)
> Well, we've already got a petition to "save the recipes"!
Has that petition got anything to do with 'luvvies'?
> Clue: I'm not entirely serious about Emma and Mark's reaction to the spiteful removal of the recipes.
I can only go by what you write. (Clue: if it's a *joke*, make sure it's funny.)
3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Possibly cutting out the licencing of recipes from Celebrity chefs, "Jamie's Macaroni Cheese" etc.
> I can't imagine it costs very much to host the website so am confused where the savings will come from?
Possibly cutting out the licencing of recipes from Celebrity chefs, "Jamie's Macaroni Cheese" etc.
In reply to Postmanpat:
What a splendidly half-assed solution - leave the archive but make everything hard to find....
http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/17/bbc-is-removing-11000-online-recipes-and-peop...
Conspiracy theorists might like this one https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/who-benefits-from-the-tory-decisi...
What a splendidly half-assed solution - leave the archive but make everything hard to find....
http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/17/bbc-is-removing-11000-online-recipes-and-peop...
Conspiracy theorists might like this one https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/who-benefits-from-the-tory-decisi...
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Who are the 'Luvvies'? Do you have any evidence for their existence as a coherent group with a common agenda? Do you think they wield any power or have the ability to alter policy? Do you have any evidence that they have done so?
This has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory to me....
> Oh, the irony of the situation is that the leftie uvvies were up in arms at the supposed forthcoming evisceration of the BBC and all that has happening is increased focus on luvvie productions and the removal of a few recipes from the website. It's the Tory scum darling x
Who are the 'Luvvies'? Do you have any evidence for their existence as a coherent group with a common agenda? Do you think they wield any power or have the ability to alter policy? Do you have any evidence that they have done so?
This has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory to me....
2
1
In reply to tony:
Whatever his private views, the evidence that Whittingdale wanted to "eviscerate" the BBC or do anything remotely like it is paper thin. Repeated references to his comparison of the license fee to the poll tax ignore the fact that the full sentence was actually true. He has consistently argued that the BBC should focus on quality programming and contain its ambitions elsewhere (eg.recipes).
I don't doubt that Rylance, Kosminsky et al have sincere and valid and reasons for wanting to protect and promote their particular art, but nor do I doubt that they were indulging in politicised and misleading hyperbole in doing so. You will remember, of course, the "luvvies' letter" coordinated by the Beeb to support the Beeb.
Next up: Emma Thompson on fracking.
> Or alternatively, the strong opposition to the perceived intentions of John Whittingdale and the support of a number of back-bench Tory MPs persuaded the PM that there was considerable popular nationwide support for the BBC and there was little electoral gain to be had by taking a scalpel to the BBC.
>
Rylance for one is highly politicised. Whatever his private views, the evidence that Whittingdale wanted to "eviscerate" the BBC or do anything remotely like it is paper thin. Repeated references to his comparison of the license fee to the poll tax ignore the fact that the full sentence was actually true. He has consistently argued that the BBC should focus on quality programming and contain its ambitions elsewhere (eg.recipes).
I don't doubt that Rylance, Kosminsky et al have sincere and valid and reasons for wanting to protect and promote their particular art, but nor do I doubt that they were indulging in politicised and misleading hyperbole in doing so. You will remember, of course, the "luvvies' letter" coordinated by the Beeb to support the Beeb.
Next up: Emma Thompson on fracking.
2
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
There is a line between "joke" and "not entirely serious". Kind of , mildly ironical.
> I can only go by what you write. (Clue: if it's a *joke*, make sure it's funny.)
There is a line between "joke" and "not entirely serious". Kind of , mildly ironical.
Post edited at 13:27
1
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
It appears to be a conspiracy theory that you are creating! Typical leftie
> Who are the 'Luvvies'? Do you have any evidence for their existence as a coherent group with a common agenda? Do you think they wield any power or have the ability to alter policy? Do you have any evidence that they have done so?
> This has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory to me....
It appears to be a conspiracy theory that you are creating! Typical leftie
Post edited at 13:26
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Nicely evaded. Bravo!
> Who are the 'Luvvies'? Do you have any evidence for their existence as a coherent group with a common agenda? Do you think they wield any power or have the ability to alter policy? Do you have any evidence that they have done so?
> It appears to be a conspiracy theory that you are creating! Typical leftie.
Nicely evaded. Bravo!
2
1
In reply to BnB:
But won't they have already paid for them? The info said they'd still be there, just made harder to find.....
But won't they have already paid for them? The info said they'd still be there, just made harder to find.....
In reply to Postmanpat:
Assuming the luvvie lefties only had access to the same media the rest of us do, I'd say they were right to be concerned at the time. Also, the loony-pinko-lefty-luvvies weren't solely concerned about their slice of the pie, so it's not really ironic. Unless you're Alanis Morissette, of course.
> Oh, the irony of the situation is that the leftie uvvies were up in arms at the supposed forthcoming evisceration of the BBC and all that has happening is increased focus on luvvie productions and the removal of a few recipes from the website. It's the Tory scum darling x
Assuming the luvvie lefties only had access to the same media the rest of us do, I'd say they were right to be concerned at the time. Also, the loony-pinko-lefty-luvvies weren't solely concerned about their slice of the pie, so it's not really ironic. Unless you're Alanis Morissette, of course.
1
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Yup , the loony-pinko-lefties were also concerned about abusing and removing the fragrant Laura kuenssberg because she's not left wing enough. Gottaluv these liberals.
> Assuming the luvvie lefties only had access to the same media the rest of us do, I'd say they were right to be concerned at the time. Also, the loony-pinko-lefty-luvvies weren't solely concerned about their slice of the pie, so it's not really ironic.
>Yup , the loony-pinko-lefties were also concerned about abusing and removing the fragrant Laura kuenssberg because she's not left wing enough. Gottaluv these liberals.
Post edited at 13:56
1
1
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
An actor, daring to express an opinion! Heaven forfend!
> Rylance for one is highly politicised.
An actor, daring to express an opinion! Heaven forfend!
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
interesting. Any evidence for the overlap of people in the two cases?
> Yup , the loony-pinko-lefties were also concerned about abusing and removing the fragrant Laura kuenssberg because she's not left wing enough.
interesting. Any evidence for the overlap of people in the two cases?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
As you'll need a TV licence to watch the iPlayer from 1 Jan 2017 it appears that the BBC is having to make huge savings to fund all the legal actions they'll have to take on pursuing people on mobile devices. It aint cheap hiding behind a pot plant waiting for an unsuspecting TV licence fee evader to walk past while watching Eastenders on iPlayer via a mobile phone you know!
As you'll need a TV licence to watch the iPlayer from 1 Jan 2017 it appears that the BBC is having to make huge savings to fund all the legal actions they'll have to take on pursuing people on mobile devices. It aint cheap hiding behind a pot plant waiting for an unsuspecting TV licence fee evader to walk past while watching Eastenders on iPlayer via a mobile phone you know!
In reply to Lusk:
Yes, they cost £145.50 a year.
> Presumably one will have to buy an access code or something.
Yes, they cost £145.50 a year.
1
1
1
In reply to galpinos:
Of course. But the recipes on the website aren't an income stream, so once the decision is made to drop them, there's no reason not to do just that (provided you're happy to accelerate customers' protests).
> But won't they have already paid for them? The info said they'd still be there, just made harder to find.....
Of course. But the recipes on the website aren't an income stream, so once the decision is made to drop them, there's no reason not to do just that (provided you're happy to accelerate customers' protests).
1
1
In reply to BnB:
Why would the BBC want to do that? (petition now over 125k).
> (provided you're happy to accelerate customers' protests).
Why would the BBC want to do that? (petition now over 125k).
In reply to KevinD:
Spot the missing word
> interesting. Any evidence for the overlap of people in the two cases?
Spot the missing word
1
In reply to tony:
About as valid as Wayne Rooney's opinion on monetary policy
> An actor, daring to express an opinion! Heaven forfend!
About as valid as Wayne Rooney's opinion on monetary policy
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
So why are you so upset about it?
> About as valid as Wayne Rooney's opinion on monetary policy
So why are you so upset about it?
1
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
>(And I got to spell "eviscerate" correctly!)
Only coz I showed you how. My long years of pedantry have finally borne fruit...
>(And I got to spell "eviscerate" correctly!)
Only coz I showed you how. My long years of pedantry have finally borne fruit...
In reply to L'Eeyore:
It was a tongue in cheek observation
> Why would the BBC want to do that? (petition now over 125k).
It was a tongue in cheek observation
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...