advertisement


Hey, we could stop the licence fee then sell off the BBC piecemeal to our mates...

The BBC will come round to the johnsoncummings in order to survive.

I found it interesting when I was in the States that BBC World Channel had adverts on it. Not many, but enough to placate the taxpayers alliance back in the UK don't ya think?
 
Roger Adams said:
Steve. I genuinely don't I'm afraid.

I get my news on line from the Guardian, CNN, FOX etc. I get my entertainment via You Tube and my music system, and my education via relentlessly following trails and reading papers courtesy of Google. Google does the weather as does my mobile provider.

There's absolutely nothing I use the BBC for I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

You get your "news" from Fox?? FFS!
 
Now I've got onto TV advertising. Something else I've noticed is here in the UK commercial channels, including the Sky /Virgin ones that you pay quite a bit more than the licence fee for, have a high level of advertising and many of which are unpleasant.

In the States I found channels that had a lot less advertising and stuff that was not so unpleasant. Those channels (there was one similar to Sky Arts) were highly watchable and relied only on a couple of advertisers using infrequent ad breaks.

It's a joke how Sky manages to charge £400 a year for boring 30 year old comedy programs and the like whilst bombarding us with lame donkeys and Tampax ads to add insult to injury.
 
BBC World is unwatchable. I find I just VPN on iPlayer when I'm abroad, and don't even switch on the hotel TV. What worries me is that they want to put more focus on the World service, presumably because it will help making those wonderful trade deals, and let the Yemenis/Rohingya/Kurds/etc (delete where applicable) why they're getting bombed.
 
Can't help but chuckle at the irony of the "Great British Public" electing someone who has more in common with Mao than any other recent political figure. Mao was an isolationist, nationalist idealogue and a sexual philanderer of epic proportions. Has anyone checked whether Johnson's teeth are turning green?
 
I think we need to be able to distinguish between between supporting public service broadcasting and offering unconditional support to an institution that has many demonstrable failings and a history of not countenancing any kind of criticism - except from the right.

There's a sort of generalised Stockholm syndrome at work here. The BBC has never, since its inception, stopped sucking up to the right, despite the regular beatings it takes from them. Meanwhile the left never cease to defend an institution that has been used against it at every significant point in its history.

F__ that, I say. The BBC needs to face up to the consequences of its own actions, and the left have to let it learn, even if the lesson is fatal. We should withdraw our support. The BBC has to be placed under pressure from the left as well as the right or things are only going to go one way.
 
BBC licence fee to be scrapped?
Government says the licence fee’s days numbered
According to reports, the government has sent out the clearest message yet that the BBC will lose the licence fee and have to find funding from other sources.
One of these alternative revenue streams could be a subscription service suggests the No. 10 spokesperson in a move that will bring it more in line with broadcasters like Sky.

Quoting the senior source, the Sunday Times reports that the BBC could be forced to reduce the number of channels it operates and scale back its website. Additionally, it would have to sell off most of its radio stations.

“They’ve got hundreds of radio stations, they’ve got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs a massive pruning back,” the Times report quotes.
 
An interesting aside. When Clarkson and co finally overstepped the mark and gave the BBC the excuse they'd been looking for to dump them. It was assumed by all and sundry including many in the traditional media that, Top Gear would merely move to Sky. Which was hilarious as, the management at Sky, in terms of PC outlook, are way way more picky about that sort of behaviour than the BBC. The BBC and ITV are way more "forgiving" of people's personal proclivities and habits than the likes of Sky. Alistair Stewart is a classic example of that, from the infamous "wearing a certain tie as signal to certain woman", to being described by a seasoned roadie as " A more epic public drunk than anyone they had ever worked with in 40 years in the music biz".
 
gassor said:
Isn't it a case of killing the goose that lays the glistering eggs if they break-up their propaganda machine?
Click to expand...
Or they’ll bring it to heel with threats of dismemberment. Times have changed, Johnson’s lot can let their junk hang out in public- Cabinet replacements for Jeremy Hunt will no longer have to hide behind trees on the way in to slurp with the Murdochs or the other cabinet member who was shacked up with the S&M hooker and FB Friend of the Murdochs.
 
Minio said:
Now I've got onto TV advertising. Something else I've noticed is here in the UK commercial channels, including the Sky /Virgin ones that you pay quite a bit more than the licence fee for, have a high level of advertising and many of which are unpleasant.

In the States I found channels that had a lot less advertising and stuff that was not so unpleasant. Those channels (there was one similar to Sky Arts) were highly watchable and relied only on a couple of advertisers using infrequent ad breaks.

It's a joke how Sky manages to charge £400 a year for boring 30 year old comedy programs and the like whilst bombarding us with lame donkeys and Tampax ads to add insult to injury.
Click to expand...

WTF is an unpleasant ad?
Something that disturbs your Okker sensibilities?
 
Bob McC said:
WTF is an unpleasant ad?
Something that disturbs your Okker sensibilities?
Click to expand...
Yup. Basically that. Too many examples to list but, those confused dot com ads do my head in so I turn off the sound.

I love the Virgin seal of Approval though, and that Dua Lipa one.

Proper Okker stuff!
 
I'll say it again, it should be paid for through general taxation. The BBC MUST continue as it is as a national broadcaster with a mandate "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain"
I am however opposed to the licence fee, as many people will watch only a very few BBC programmes in this age of (way more than) "13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from". Put 5p on a litre of petrol if need be... or vastly better still pay for it from a mansion tax!
 
I`d agree that the BBC should be funded directly from general taxation if the government of the day (of any colour) could be trusted to continue funding at an appropriate rate.

At the very least the treasury should return to fully funding the Overseas Service since this is essentially advertising the UK and is of benefit to the whole country irrespective of whether you listen / view or not.

Likewise, if the government wants to give pensioners a free licence, which I don`t disagree with, it shouldn`t expect the BBC to lose income over a political vote grabber.
 
It's a shame the Tories think dismantling things is the way to improve them. The BBC is still the best at what it does and without it we wouldn't have Blackadder 2, 3 and 4, Panorama, Have I Got News for You, Only Fools and Horses, The Royal Family, Match of the Day, Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, CBeebies, etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top