Yeah, that’s true, but in the UK XL Bullies specifically have been doing all the maulings recently that have generated serious press coverage; also they themselves have just been added as the sixth (?) banned canine breed in the UK.

The irony of that comment has really tickled me. Thanks internet stranger. Best of luck to you for the future. Good bye. 👋

To quote your own source again: “…government-approved regulatory and competition authority…” If you think that is synonymous with being a part of the UK government then that is on you and no amount of help will change that. On a side note - are you interested in replacing Ofcom with an industry approved regulator instead?

The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting… looks like it says government-approved to me. That’s different to being a part of the government.

You definitely need to work on your reading comprehension… but try the bit further down your quoted article where it says that Ofcom is a “statutory corporation”. And then read the article on that phrase. Still convinced Transport For London is a government agency? Hell, with your (incorrect) argument that would make the actual BBC a government agency as it itself is a statutory corporation. So why would the government need Ofcom? Hmmmm

I’m not questioning that they’re regulated and never have - you absolute ham sandwich. I’m correcting you in your mistaken belief that the regulator is the government. Ofcom is not the government - regardless of what you want to believe. It doesn’t matter how loud you shout - you’re wrong when you say the BBC is regulated by the government. It is regulated by Ofcom. Please do some research.

Wow. Believe whatever you want - don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. You are so colossally misunderstanding what the phrase “government approved regulator” means. Thanks for the laugh.

Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.

Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.

No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.

“I’ve downvoted myself for being an idiot.” I think the world would benefit with more people like you in it.

Just had to check I wasn’t miraculously back on Apollo trawling the Snoo site. Thanks for the laugh…

Good. I’m glad. I had my suspicions that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed by an insider. I always struggled to believe that an entire nation of so many millions of people would have a one size fits all pro/anti stance on any one topic; it’d be absurd.

Are you familiar with sarcasm / irony / satire? I’m quoting and subsequently mangling a slogan from 1985. (c. Forty years ago) Surely you haven’t taken that comment at face value?

Pepsi - the choice of a new generation… of woke, pronoun-shifting libtards. As an aside I like your spelling. It’s reminded me to listen to Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted again.

Yeah - in non US places gun ownership only means one thing: you own a gun. It says nothing about your politics. And yes, US democrats being referred to as “left” is ridiculous. The Democrat party wouldn’t even be a centrist party in most (western) democracies.

Alabama? More like Talibana, a’ight? Being ruled by religious extremists - in the 21st (ce) century - blows my mind. Are people still that backwards? Apparently, yes. Nothing wrong with a bit of private faith in the sky man if it helps you in life… but to be a fundamentalist is unforgivable.

Yes. That’s exactly what’s happening here. Big shout out to drugs for winning the war…

Well, the article was written eight months prior to product release; so its value and relevancy takes a nose dive immediately. The very first phrase : “Tech companies want us isolated and constantly staring at screens because it drives profit.” shows an embarrassing misunderstanding of AR - perhaps the reviewer got confused with VR? They are two very different things and should not be confused. Those were enough red flags that the “journalist” had an agenda to follow and kind of played themselves there.

If it was a written prior to the products release by someone who had never used it, then yes. Yes, it probably does.