"Weekend Nazis", a BBC docu on WWII recreatonists....

[FireKnife]

Baaazzzzing to that.

 

Is it me or are the BBC the only, non-advertiement funded channel in the world.

 

I mean what other country would pay £80 odd a year to watch TV, they would tell them to bugger off.

 

And then they make ###### like this, no wonder people don't pay for the TV license anymore, BBC is just really bad.

 

'FireKnife'

[Pablo]

The current colour license fee is £139.50. Basic cable is £9 a month, top whack is £19.50 a month (£108 or £234 a year). Can't be arsed to check Sky packages, but you get my drift.

[FireKnife]

True, but at least with cable and other options you get more channels and more options.

 

The TV license only really covers BBC and it's subsidiaries.

 

Cable, even at a basic level can offer more than just a handul of channels from what i have seen.

 

'FireKnife'

[Pablo]

Oh it does, just pointing out that a lot of folks around the world probably pay more than £80 odd a year to watch TV (though they may get more content, the quality isn't always there), and that £80 odd a year won't buy you a colour license anyway

[Dom Hyde]

And then they make ###### like this, no wonder people don't pay for the TV license anymore, BBC is just really bad.

 

Hey, don't whack my dear old Auntie! This film is exactly the same sort of sensationalist trash that ITV and Channel 4 have been churning out for years - remember ITV Central's Cook Report? "Hello, I'm Roger Cook and I'd just like to talk to you about... Why are you running away from me? My viewers have a right to know...." etc.

 

Honestly, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

But anyway, it's always wise to watch these programs as if you were an editor, and always ask what did they film just before the sequence that is aired, and what was said just afterwards. It's all in the context.

 

Interviewer: "Would you mind talking to us about reenactment?"

Obersturmbannfuhrer: "Sure, why not?"

Interviewer: "Well, because I'm going to accuse you of being a Nazi sympathiser and apologist, and not give you a fair chance to state your case"

Obersturmbannfuhrer: "In that case: No comment"

 

I've got no time for Irving and his ilk though, and IMO he should have been asked to leave as soon as his 'uninvited' presence was discovered.

[-Angel-]

Hes been banned from further attendance by the organisers, if I recall correctly.

[BaggyPants]

Is it me or are the BBC the only, non-advertiement funded channel in the world.

 

 

Errr, think again. The BBC run all those UK Gold, UK History, UK Food, etc. channels, which all have advertising on them. What's more, they re showing repeat shows, so there are no production costs

 

[BaggyPants]

Not in public they aren't.

 

By that I think you mean on public land, which wouldn't apply to Beltring as it is held on private property

 

[BaggyPants]

The BBC are funded by the government and have no advertisements.

 

See my reply above to FireKnife

 

The BBC are coining it in from advertising revenue on the UKTV channels:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKTV

 

No advertising, my *albartroth*

[Involved6]

The BBC are funded by the government and have no advertisements.

 

REEEALLY? I did not know that. Never been across the pond, assumed it was the same anywhere. My only (very limited) exposure to anything about the BBC was the show Extras, and that made it look like a privately-funded station (I'm just trying to fend off sounding like a "stupid American" here).

 

I know American programming has more or less become filler, just some 43-minute thing to fill the space between their 17 minutes of ads per hour. It's why I don't watch TV anymore, truth be told

 

But Government-owned? That is even more scary... Governmentally-sanctioned-and-funded sensationalism. I'd be pretty ###### if I was a citizen and my own tax money was being used to slander me, albeit underhandedly.

[Jagdraben]

In America, we have PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. It receives a large amount of money from the government (federal, state, and local) but receives most of its operating budget from donations from corporations, trusts, and "Viewers Like You".

[DesertFoxRomel]

I have friends who were included in that documentary. Two have successfully had several complaints upheld against the BBC for its coverage of the wedding and another had a complaint of breach of privacy upheld. The most amusing part is where another friend sat on a vehicle in Waffen SS kit states that he is jewish. The BBC left it looking like he was lying, when in fact he and his brother are both jewish and are also both members of the Second Battle Group reenactment group, who portray the 1st SS Division Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler. Hardly points to SBG being particulary nazi or racist, does it?

That made my day. Sigged

 

Seriously though, why must they do that? If there are no Nazis allowed in reenacting *because clearly if you are reenacting a Nazi unit, you are definitely without a doubt a neo-Nazi Jew hater who does not deserve to live* who are the Allies, the good guys, going to fight?

 

I really hate yellow journalism. Those crooked reporters blow things out of proportion and make things look bad when they are really not.

[Chimpy]

A book is a book ...

 

I'd argue that there is no difference in ownership as the knowledge contained within is owned by the public. I always understood that to be the deeper (and ironic) meaning behind the book that Bradbury wrote.

 

D

 

Which is why we have libraries that contain this publically owned knowledge.

 

Certainly there is an argument for public ownership of rare books.

[Delfi]

Which is why we have libraries that contain this publically owned knowledge.

 

Certainly there is an argument for public ownership of rare books.

 

What if just one of those books is a rarity that is lost forever? I'm sure this must have happened plenty of times.

 

Regardless of content this is a huge loss.

 

Just the thought of burning books dopesn't sit well here.

 

D

 

 

[Kraut]

What if just one of those books is a rarity that is lost forever? I'm sure this must have happened plenty of times.

 

Regardless of content this is a huge loss.

 

Just the thought of burning books dopesn't sit well here.

 

D

Even Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto is still around in library's. I think they serve as a good example of what not to do, rather than just ban them. Banning of anything is so detrimental to the concept of freedom.

[doc_newstead]

Why restrict it to the weekends? oshi-

[Delfi]

Even Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto is still around in library's. I think they serve as a good example of what not to do, rather than just ban them. Banning of anything is so detrimental to the concept of freedom.

 

Yes ... my point exactly. These are books that still exist (and in some volume) ... what you can't prove (or recover) is what has been lost over time.

[Elias]

Baaazzzzing to that.

 

Is it me or are the BBC the only, non-advertiement funded channel in the world.

 

I mean what other country would pay £80 odd a year to watch TV, they would tell them to bugger off.

 

And then they make ###### like this, no wonder people don't pay for the TV license anymore, BBC is just really bad.

 

'FireKnife'

 

They certainly arn't: TV Licensing - Wikipedia France, Poland, Israel, Japan, Switzerland to name but a few.

 

I remember there being a big hoo haa about this a while back. There was a follow up article in one of the broadsheets, I think it was The Times, where most of the claims were rebutted and the journalism in the film was said to be unbelievably heavily biased.

 

Seems it was the Guardian, not as condemning as I thought, but Ofcom wern't happy bunnies...BBC faces Ofcom criticism

 

J

[darthrebelpenguin]

Wouldn't make a helluva lot more sense to get one of us Jews to voice our opinions on it? I can guarantee, most of us would be 100% okay with it. I swear, it's getting to the point where non-Jews are more touchy about the Holocaust and Whites are more offended by the "N" Word......

[snowman]

But Government-owned? That is even more scary... Governmentally-sanctioned-and-funded sensationalism. I'd be pretty ###### if I was a citizen and my own tax money was being used to slander me, albeit underhandedly

 

It's not really Government owned - You've really got the wrong idea about the BBC - There's a licence for receiving TV programmes and MOST of it goes to the BBC, but they spend most of their time p-ing off the government in power at the time.

 

Honestly, without the BBC there'd be no-one to naysay the Government at all... except the newspapers who are mainly owned by right-wing bigots, which brings me nicely back on topic - Not all Nazis wear SS outfits and clearly not everyone who wears an SS outfit is a Nazi

 

Cheers.

[Dom Hyde]

It's not really Government owned - You've really got the wrong idea about the BBC - There's a licence for receiving TV programmes and MOST of it goes to the BBC, but they spend most of their time p-ing off the government in power at the time.

 

Honestly, without the BBC there'd be no-one to naysay the Government at all... except the newspapers who are mainly owned by right-wing bigots, which brings me nicely back on topic - Not all Nazis wear SS outfits and clearly not everyone who wears an SS outfit is a Nazi

 

Cheers.

 

I often find my US friends have trouble with the whole concept of state funded institutions, and especially the Beeb, as if the government somehow sat on the board of directors and dictated programming and content. On the other hand, our domestic rag red tops just about spontaneously ignite with self-righteousness when they get onto the subject of the liberal permissiveness that supposedly pervades BBC2 and BBC Four after the watershed: "WE PAY A STEALTH TAX TO HAVE THIS FILTH PEDDLED THROUGH OUR TVs! TUNE IN TO BBC2 AT 9.30PM TODAY TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES!!!"

 

It must be a hypocritical feedback amplification loop, or something

[Dentonboy]

Having been a regular Beltring attendee - as someone who has come in either a DUKW, Humber Pig, Dodge ambulance, Reo etc, for the last 20 years or so, I have seen the show develop and grow.

 

The Nazi element has become prominent over the last 4 years or so, with some very suspect stalls entirely devoted to selling Nazi-related items, such as flags etc. Not German WWII, but Nazi.

 

There have been a lot of SS wearing attendees, which is tastless IMHO. Yes, include the Axis in the show, but not the SS or Nazis. Especially tasteless when it is in the retail area. In the same breath, a lot of airsofters attend, and ignore the rules by having firearms on display in the public areas. Both wearing SS uniform and having firearms on display out of the static displays is against show policy.

 

As for people's private opinions on race, politics etc, it would be stupid to suggest that of the hundreds of thousands that attend or visit, that none would have far right leanings.

 

The BBC documentary was highly flawed, highly biased and liberally edited. But the point remains. There are elements at Beltring each year which are highly unwelcome, and if this programme as helped highlight this, and they are removed, then, good.

[HaVoC]

In the same breath, a lot of airsofters attend, and ignore the rules by having firearms on display in the public areas. Both wearing SS uniform and having firearms on display out of the static displays is against show policy.

Just to defend my own position here, my group have attended for the last 4 or 5 years, the last 2 of which we were registered as our own separate Living History group rather than tagging along with another one. We're going again this year.

 

We carry weapons, with no battery or loaded mags (i.e. they are completely incapable of firing) all over the site, including the retailer area, because we are 'roaming Living History display'. We make no threatening gestures, keep our weapons in a safe direction, keep fingers off triggers, and everything else you should be expected to do.

 

Every year before we go, I contact Rex Cadman directly, and every year so far, he has given us EXPLICIT PERMISSION to carry our guns on all parts of the site. We've even made up little cards with 'Authorisation to carry replica weapons' on them, should we be challenged (and we have been, quite rightly so).

 

My point is, don't tar us all with the same brush. People carrying them around without permission shouldn't be allowed, sure, and that should be cracked down on. But don't jump to conclusions, because some of us are specifically given the right to do it, and we'd rather not be on the receiving end of any abuse for it.

 

PS - On the subject of wearing SS uniforms, I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's done with taste. Don't make stupid remarks, don't offend people. Wear the uniform but don't try to live the life. You know what I mean. Hey, maybe I just have a thick skin...

[Dentonboy]

Fair point well made. If Rex has given the go ahead, you can't get cleared higher up than that. But you must admit, there are a damn sight more doing it without permission, and flaunting a very prominent rule.

[HaVoC]

Oh yeah. There were STILL issues I saw last year involving kids pointing loaded springers and cheap AEGs at each other in various populated areas (most of them weren't even two-tone, which was weird), and that's probably the biggest problem. The only way I can see of cracking down on that is a rule of "If you are carrying a weapon on site without permission, you will be removed from the site - no exceptions."

 

Of course, they need to enforce these rules, too...and that's hard. But all they need to do is have a sign at the entrance which reads "PARENTS: If your kids get guns out on site, you will be asked to leave" and about 80% of the problem would disappear, which makes getting at the other 20% easier.

 

As for actual airsofters attending with unsecured/unauthorised weapons, I only really noticed one bunch doing it last year (and then I only assume they were unauthorised). It's a problem, but probably a minor one in comparison to the springer/AEG selling problem.