FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > the BBC
the BBC
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
if you want American style lowest common denomenator reality show packed tv then say yes if you want descent tv with descent programmes five national radio stations a very good web site and content numerous local radio stations the world service welsh and scotish language channels all for 61p a day then vote no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Doesn't matter if the BBC funded itself. You pay a TV license for receiving any live TV, not only the BBC. Although only the BBC takes from this licensing fee funds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No , I hate advertising. Much prefer watching TV without adverts and listening to the radio.
Compare BBC breakfast programme to The ITV prigramme -there's no contest BBC much better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if you want American style lowest common denomenator reality show packed tv then say yes if you want descent tv with descent programmes five national radio stations a very good web site and content numerous local radio stations the world service welsh and scotish language channels all for 61p a day then vote no"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
will our licence fee become cheaper now there is no Top Gear?
Think no damage to expensive cars, no high maintenance presenters to fund,, no exotic locations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *quirrelMan
over a year ago
East Manchester |
Everyone keeps making the same connections about the BBC it's not just the TV, it's local and national radio stations, the orchestra, cbbc, the children in need charity, the film department and the dramas are world wide successes, about 20% of what's they currently produce would survive if they were to drop their independence and sell time for advertisers.
Is this question made in the light of Jeremy Clarkson being dropped, because this question has been asked on other forums connected with the Clarkson case.
Advertising costs run to millions and the cost is passed on to the public in higher prices, Tesco spends £4 million a year on advertising, Asda spends even more, and we pay them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Should it but cut loose and survive by advertising and not public funding?
"
Honestly? It's low on the list of things I care about.
I don't watch BBC much. I tend to watch a few series at a time, mostly on Sky channels, and not much else. All those channels have adverts but I usually record them anyway so I can whiz forward through the commercial breaks. Or go and make a coffee or have a pee. It really doesn't affect me much either way.
I need a licence, so I have one. In the grand scheme of things I have much higher priorities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if you want American style lowest common denomenator reality show packed tv then say yes if you want descent tv with descent programmes five national radio stations a very good web site and content numerous local radio stations the world service welsh and scotish language channels all for 61p a day then vote no"
I take it you did not see the billion dollar chicken on BBC then or Britons got the builders in. Or the other reality cheep shows they put on then. Cashing in another good one all about poor selling of there stuff. Have a look at the shit that is now on the BBC. As for radio one hell it's been shit for years. Chris evens saved radio two. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No, it is a brilliant media organisation which is the envy of people around the world. "
On what part of the world are you talking about. Is that the same one. That. Our schools are best yet our kids are falling behind in the in list or the same list as the NHS. Also falling behind. In years gone bye. But it's now the 21 century We even only have 19 ships in the navy now so much for rule the waves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"if you want American style lowest common denomenator reality show packed tv then say yes if you want descent tv with descent programmes five national radio stations a very good web site and content numerous local radio stations the world service welsh and scotish language channels all for 61p a day then vote no"
How about Eastenders, The World At War, The War & Us, The War of Wars, War Worse, The War, - A BBC Obsession, War Of The Worlds, Family At War, War, a BBC institution, War Babies, The Making Of The World At War & "don't mention the war," - which category does that fall under?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"will our licence fee become cheaper now there is no Top Gear?
Think no damage to expensive cars, no high maintenance presenters to fund,, no exotic locations "
But you're still paying for 100's of useless consultants that serve no real purpose, just like the NHS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *omaMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Doesn't matter if the BBC funded itself. You pay a TV license for receiving any live TV, not only the BBC. Although only the BBC takes from this licensing fee funds."
The licence was created to fund the bbc .that was all well and good until Itv came along followed by many more broadcasters.
As it now stands the licence fund actually contravenes European competition law by demanding a Subscription (the licence fee) to view a competitors output.
It's outrageous to demand this fee. If I chose to watch ONLY none bbc broadcasts then why should I pay their way?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Don't forget the output they have produced over the last 90 odd years have been crucial for setting the standard of production. You go to any country they know who the BBC are, they're as much responsible of making English the international business language as anyone. Also the media who say they should be closed down, regularly praise their output and happily rerun their shows. How many Sky programmes do BBC or (the used to be good)ITV buy?
Careful what you wish for, we've were told let the market decide, sold everything off, that's led to no manufacturing base, huge university fees, NHS run into the ground, public services run by quangos and profiteers and by the way the countries debt is over double what it was when we went cap in hand to the IMF in 1976, a loan which was never taken out the media seem to conveniently forget, we also have the largest external debt per capita in the world for good measure.
And what is there to sell off now, oh yeah the BBC.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't forget the output they have produced over the last 90 odd years have been crucial for setting the standard of production. You go to any country they know who the BBC are, they're as much responsible of making English the international business language as anyone. Also the media who say they should be closed down, regularly praise their output and happily rerun their shows. How many Sky programmes do BBC or (the used to be good)ITV buy?
Careful what you wish for, we've were told let the market decide, sold everything off, that's led to no manufacturing base, huge university fees, NHS run into the ground, public services run by quangos and profiteers and by the way the countries debt is over double what it was when we went cap in hand to the IMF in 1976, a loan which was never taken out the media seem to conveniently forget, we also have the largest external debt per capita in the world for good measure.
And what is there to sell off now, oh yeah the BBC.
"
it ain't perfect but it's the best in the world and it's ours |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't forget the output they have produced over the last 90 odd years have been crucial for setting the standard of production. You go to any country they know who the BBC are, they're as much responsible of making English the international business language as anyone. Also the media who say they should be closed down, regularly praise their output and happily rerun their shows. How many Sky programmes do BBC or (the used to be good)ITV buy?
Careful what you wish for, we've were told let the market decide, sold everything off, that's led to no manufacturing base, huge university fees, NHS run into the ground, public services run by quangos and profiteers and by the way the countries debt is over double what it was when we went cap in hand to the IMF in 1976, a loan which was never taken out the media seem to conveniently forget, we also have the largest external debt per capita in the world for good measure.
And what is there to sell off now, oh yeah the BBC.
"
"we also have the largest external debt per capita in the world for good measure" is a bit misleading. It's as large as it is because the UK is a financial centre. It contains all sorts of corporate debt.
Other measures are available |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Leave the BBC as it is. They will always produce at least one programme per year that will have everyone talking and then they can sell it to the rest of the world.
In the line of duty for example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not being beholden to advertising paymasters means they can push the boundaries more. In the same way that HBO and Netflix are starting to do now.
The goodies were never the same after they moved to itv |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
What about making it subscription only or pay per view?
I rarely watch the BBC, and never listen to any of their radio, so I for one do not get any value from the TV licence tax.
As for people talking about the great TV they produce... its the amount of shite like Strictly, Bake Off and dumbed down crap like that, which stops me tuning in.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What about making it subscription only or pay per view?
I rarely watch the BBC, and never listen to any of their radio, so I for one do not get any value from the TV licence tax.
As for people talking about the great TV they produce... its the amount of shite like Strictly, Bake Off and dumbed down crap like that, which stops me tuning in.
But strictly and bake off have been sold world wide. I know they're crap but other people like them. The BBC programme's are not bound by adverts and rating chasing,they will cater for everyone's taste. The first episode of the second broadchurch season had an advert just under 10 minutes in. By the end of the episode me and a housemate had lost interest because itv had fucked up because the script was crap and nobody was controlling Tennant and Coleman from over acting. The second Line of duty was even better than the first because it had Quality over quantity of advertising space.
Subscription tv and radio will still chase ratings and commercial appeal. sky sports for example have an interest in the top four teams only. This is not worth your subscription fee if you don't support those four teams.
Capital radio will only play new music once it is in the top 20. So this mean's a non commercial radio station will take the risk and play the new music so the public hear it. Do you want to listen to the same songs on the hour every hour?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Don't forget the output they have produced over the last 90 odd years have been crucial for setting the standard of production. You go to any country they know who the BBC are, they're as much responsible of making English the international business language as anyone. Also the media who say they should be closed down, regularly praise their output and happily rerun their shows. How many Sky programmes do BBC or (the used to be good)ITV buy?
Careful what you wish for, we've were told let the market decide, sold everything off, that's led to no manufacturing base, huge university fees, NHS run into the ground, public services run by quangos and profiteers and by the way the countries debt is over double what it was when we went cap in hand to the IMF in 1976, a loan which was never taken out the media seem to conveniently forget, we also have the largest external debt per capita in the world for good measure.
And what is there to sell off now, oh yeah the BBC.
"
.
I couldn't have said it better myself |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think it's excellent value for money.
No adverts,quality programming and the envy of the rest of the world.
Definitely the bench mark for broadcasting.
Radio 1 I find is the only exception but that'll be because of my age.
Can't fault it overall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million. "
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. "
I am with you on that. I guess us paying for it and not watching it, subsidises it for those who want it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Doesn't matter if the BBC funded itself. You pay a TV license for receiving any live TV, not only the BBC. Although only the BBC takes from this licensing fee funds.
The licence was created to fund the bbc .that was all well and good until Itv came along followed by many more broadcasters.
As it now stands the licence fund actually contravenes European competition law by demanding a Subscription (the licence fee) to view a competitors output.
It's outrageous to demand this fee. If I chose to watch ONLY none bbc broadcasts then why should I pay their way?
"
because if you hadn't paid the licence fee in the past you would of had no infrastructure to broadcast your programmes on who do you think installed planned and maintained the network of transmitters ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. "
.
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use.
I am with you on that. I guess us paying for it and not watching it, subsidises it for those who want it.
"
Can someone please subsidise my trips to the pub then. I know not everyone likes the pub or even goes to the pub. But just think what the pub has done for this nation. It's theme has been exported all over the world and many countries imitate the great british pub.
If I'm paying for others to watch the BBC when I don't , they should pay for me to go to the pub when they don't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use.
I am with you on that. I guess us paying for it and not watching it, subsidises it for those who want it.
Can someone please subsidise my trips to the pub then. I know not everyone likes the pub or even goes to the pub. But just think what the pub has done for this nation. It's theme has been exported all over the world and many countries imitate the great british pub.
If I'm paying for others to watch the BBC when I don't , they should pay for me to go to the pub when they don't. "
Ill have a pint of real ale please  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better"
I don't get this argument at all. It's only an entertainment medium. It's not an essential. If you want to watch it go ahead and pay for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use.
I am with you on that. I guess us paying for it and not watching it, subsidises it for those who want it.
Can someone please subsidise my trips to the pub then. I know not everyone likes the pub or even goes to the pub. But just think what the pub has done for this nation. It's theme has been exported all over the world and many countries imitate the great british pub.
If I'm paying for others to watch the BBC when I don't , they should pay for me to go to the pub when they don't. "
.
They do!
How do you think the beer gets delivered or the pavements get there or drains in the road or the water in the pub or the piss flow away down a drain.
You and the landlord didn't do any of that, the whole did it, and the guy who's tee total paid for it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better"
Health, education and welfare are a little more important than Strictly and Bake Off though. One is a necessity paid through taxation. The other is a gravy train foisted on us and paid for by a TV Licence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
I don't get this argument at all. It's only an entertainment medium. It's not an essential. If you want to watch it go ahead and pay for it. "
.
Going to the pub isn't essential either but we all pay for the services the pub used whether you drink in there or not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
Health, education and welfare are a little more important than Strictly and Bake Off though. One is a necessity paid through taxation. The other is a gravy train foisted on us and paid for by a TV Licence. "
.
It's not their fault you choose to watch the shit programmes.
You could watch the multitude of documentaries or science programmes, sky at night or the news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
I don't get this argument at all. It's only an entertainment medium. It's not an essential. If you want to watch it go ahead and pay for it. .
Going to the pub isn't essential either but we all pay for the services the pub used whether you drink in there or not"
The roads , drainage and other things you mentioned would still be there even if the pub wasn't.
The BBC force a fee upon people who have no interest in their service whatsoever. Everyone has an interest in roads and drainage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
I don't get this argument at all. It's only an entertainment medium. It's not an essential. If you want to watch it go ahead and pay for it. .
Going to the pub isn't essential either but we all pay for the services the pub used whether you drink in there or not
The roads , drainage and other things you mentioned would still be there even if the pub wasn't.
The BBC force a fee upon people who have no interest in their service whatsoever. Everyone has an interest in roads and drainage. "
.
No they wouldn't the whole paid for something to improve the whole, now the person that doesn't walk doesn't use electric doesn't go to the pub could rightfully say. Fuck it, I'm not paying for that did I don't use it, but he's still benefiting from it indirectly.
And I would argue that the bbc benefits everyone indirectly regardless of whether you personally watch it.
Charles Darwin wrote a very big book about evolution, chapter and chapter was about how humans thrive when working as a whole.
He wrote one page about the survival of the fittest, it depends upon your mentality which bit you cling too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
I don't get this argument at all. It's only an entertainment medium. It's not an essential. If you want to watch it go ahead and pay for it. .
Going to the pub isn't essential either but we all pay for the services the pub used whether you drink in there or not
The roads , drainage and other things you mentioned would still be there even if the pub wasn't.
The BBC force a fee upon people who have no interest in their service whatsoever. Everyone has an interest in roads and drainage. .
No they wouldn't the whole paid for something to improve the whole, now the person that doesn't walk doesn't use electric doesn't go to the pub could rightfully say. Fuck it, I'm not paying for that did I don't use it, but he's still benefiting from it indirectly.
And I would argue that the bbc benefits everyone indirectly regardless of whether you personally watch it.
Charles Darwin wrote a very big book about evolution, chapter and chapter was about how humans thrive when working as a whole.
He wrote one page about the survival of the fittest, it depends upon your mentality which bit you cling too!"
Let the BBC go pay per view then and if it's fit enough it will survive.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
Health, education and welfare are a little more important than Strictly and Bake Off though. One is a necessity paid through taxation. The other is a gravy train foisted on us and paid for by a TV Licence. .
It's not their fault you choose to watch the shit programmes.
You could watch the multitude of documentaries or science programmes, sky at night or the news"
My point is, I barely watch any of them.... or listen to any of their radio stations.... as I think most of their output is either shite or not relevant to me.
The way they spend licence payers money is a joke. No company would survive with they way they flippantly spend money.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You have plenty of pay per view options if you want them. If you have place no value on high quality news, cultural programming, educational programming, childrens programming etc that is a shame. I doubt I watch or listen to 5% of what the BBC outputs, but I strongly believe that the BBC benefits this country massively. By not relying on commercial revenues it can produce content at the edges which otherwise would never get made and Britain would be a poorer place if that were to happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The BBC is world class. I for one am happy with it. Fantastic, independent ( as much as it can be!) and just compare it to other international services! "
Independent? Ha ha. Probably the most left wing, hand wringing, biased bunch ever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You have plenty of pay per view options if you want them. If you have place no value on high quality news, cultural programming, educational programming, childrens programming etc that is a shame. I doubt I watch or listen to 5% of what the BBC outputs, but I strongly believe that the BBC benefits this country massively. By not relying on commercial revenues it can produce content at the edges which otherwise would never get made and Britain would be a poorer place if that were to happen."
So no country without a BBC style corporation can develop culturally? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You have plenty of pay per view options if you want them. If you have place no value on high quality news, cultural programming, educational programming, childrens programming etc that is a shame. I doubt I watch or listen to 5% of what the BBC outputs, but I strongly believe that the BBC benefits this country massively. By not relying on commercial revenues it can produce content at the edges which otherwise would never get made and Britain would be a poorer place if that were to happen."
But at the end of the day it's only TV or radio. I couldn't give a monkeys if it was there or not. I certainly don't see why I should pay fir it to be there. The idiot box benefits me un no way whatsoever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The BBC in some way caters for everyone, from CBeebies through to Radio 4. We won't all enjoy all of its content, but I would challenge anyone to say it doesn't impact their lives in some way, from news, to covering a royal wedding, to listening to the radio in a car or to listening to a football commentary. By being funded by us the people it can provide a broad range of programming, from the Great British Bake Off that might get an audience of 10 million, to a one of political drama that might only get 1 million.
The BBC has no impact on my life whatsoever. I rarely watch it and never have their radio stations on. I think it should go pay per view. I think it's outrageous that I'm forced to pay for an entertainment medium that I never use. .
That argument could be used for anything!.
Like I've never been ill why should I pay for the nhs or I have no kids why should I pay for schools or I don't have a car why should my taxs pay for roads!.
The fact is you may not watch it but somebody else may benefit from it who then benefits you.
You really don't know the indirect benefits that make the whole much better
I don't get this argument at all. It's only an entertainment medium. It's not an essential. If you want to watch it go ahead and pay for it. .
Going to the pub isn't essential either but we all pay for the services the pub used whether you drink in there or not
The roads , drainage and other things you mentioned would still be there even if the pub wasn't.
The BBC force a fee upon people who have no interest in their service whatsoever. Everyone has an interest in roads and drainage. .
No they wouldn't the whole paid for something to improve the whole, now the person that doesn't walk doesn't use electric doesn't go to the pub could rightfully say. Fuck it, I'm not paying for that did I don't use it, but he's still benefiting from it indirectly.
And I would argue that the bbc benefits everyone indirectly regardless of whether you personally watch it.
Charles Darwin wrote a very big book about evolution, chapter and chapter was about how humans thrive when working as a whole.
He wrote one page about the survival of the fittest, it depends upon your mentality which bit you cling too!
Let the BBC go pay per view then and if it's fit enough it will survive.
"
.
Somethings aren't about surviving though, there about benefiting the whole of society, would independent television pay for millions of pounds worth of transmitters to give rural Wales a signal or the highlands of Scotland, would they put on signing for deaf people, open university for those wishing to be educated or free communication and entertainment for the elderly. No these are money losses that benefit society like same cost letter delivery was designed to be fair to society regardless of your circumstances!.
Does 38 pence a day really hurt you so much!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You have plenty of pay per view options if you want them. If you have place no value on high quality news, cultural programming, educational programming, childrens programming etc that is a shame. I doubt I watch or listen to 5% of what the BBC outputs, but I strongly believe that the BBC benefits this country massively. By not relying on commercial revenues it can produce content at the edges which otherwise would never get made and Britain would be a poorer place if that were to happen.
But at the end of the day it's only TV or radio. I couldn't give a monkeys if it was there or not. I certainly don't see why I should pay fir it to be there. The idiot box benefits me un no way whatsoever. "
.
If you haven't got a TV or watch tv you really don't need to pay the licence anyhow.... Even the bbc say that.
What's your real problem with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You have plenty of pay per view options if you want them. If you have place no value on high quality news, cultural programming, educational programming, childrens programming etc that is a shame. I doubt I watch or listen to 5% of what the BBC outputs, but I strongly believe that the BBC benefits this country massively. By not relying on commercial revenues it can produce content at the edges which otherwise would never get made and Britain would be a poorer place if that were to happen.
But at the end of the day it's only TV or radio. I couldn't give a monkeys if it was there or not. I certainly don't see why I should pay fir it to be there. The idiot box benefits me un no way whatsoever. .
If you haven't got a TV or watch tv you really don't need to pay the licence anyhow.... Even the bbc say that.
What's your real problem with it."
Being forced to pay fur something I don't use is my problem. 38p or tuppence it makes no difference. All the things you mention like programmes for the deaf are all well and good but it is just moving pictures coming out of a box.
The Nhs and not ever being ill is irelevant. Tv is not an essential. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You have plenty of pay per view options if you want them. If you have place no value on high quality news, cultural programming, educational programming, childrens programming etc that is a shame. I doubt I watch or listen to 5% of what the BBC outputs, but I strongly believe that the BBC benefits this country massively. By not relying on commercial revenues it can produce content at the edges which otherwise would never get made and Britain would be a poorer place if that were to happen.
So no country without a BBC style corporation can develop culturally? "
Of course not, but with a state broadcaster that has an obligation to cater for things which don't have mass appeal, I believe that it does bring culture to the populus which otherwise it wouldn't get. For example you probably have to pay £100+ for a ticket to the opera, but you get the whole Proms series for free on the BBC and the fact that these concerts exist in their current format is down to the BBC. Regional programming exists because the BBC supports it. Cutting edge and alternative comedy gets broadcast because of the BBC. There are plenty of things that get public funding that you might not choose to enjoy, parks, national heritage sites etc. It would be sad for us not to have such things because a small percentage of people choose not to use them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
