Shame on the BBC!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: UK
Originally Posted by Cornish-stormrider
I didn't accuse anyone of being homosexual. Thier sexual orientation matters not to me. Their enforcement of of this absurd con of money out of me for absolutley nothing is highly offensive. TV should be market driven, if you want it you pay for it....
I find the idea of cross-dressing BBC employees amusing, though. I always thought Moira Stewart would be better off in a suit, but the idea of Jeremy Paxman in a miniskirt and boob tube makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a toothpick.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Cornish,
“TV should be market driven, if you want it you pay for it.”
It is.
You want a TV you have to pay for the privilege.
What the government then choose to do with the money you give them is up to them.
You do not like that then you are free to avail yourself of the democratic process.
Then again it is far easier to rant than to stand.
I pay taxes and do you think I agree with everything the useless tossers in charge spend it on?
I pay National Insurance but have both Private Healthcare and a Private Pension
What many people do not realise is that only 75% of the BBC’s income is from the Licence Fee. Furthermore, there is no mention when discussing the Licence Fee, on the fact that Channel 4 is having all the costs of its digital switchover met from the Licence Fee.
The BBC has to survive for the good of the UK as a whole.
Cheers
“TV should be market driven, if you want it you pay for it.”
It is.
You want a TV you have to pay for the privilege.
What the government then choose to do with the money you give them is up to them.
You do not like that then you are free to avail yourself of the democratic process.
Then again it is far easier to rant than to stand.
I pay taxes and do you think I agree with everything the useless tossers in charge spend it on?
I pay National Insurance but have both Private Healthcare and a Private Pension
What many people do not realise is that only 75% of the BBC’s income is from the Licence Fee. Furthermore, there is no mention when discussing the Licence Fee, on the fact that Channel 4 is having all the costs of its digital switchover met from the Licence Fee.
The BBC has to survive for the good of the UK as a whole.
Cheers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Chugalug,
To put it very simply, because it is the last place, in the UK, that has any semblance of freedom of the press.
Furthermore, they make shows that need to be made but would not make it past the money men and advertisers on the commercial stations.
Before you respond please remember that this is purely a matter of opinion on all sides since there is no empirical measure that any of us can use for the sake of comparison.
Cheers
BHR
To put it very simply, because it is the last place, in the UK, that has any semblance of freedom of the press.
Furthermore, they make shows that need to be made but would not make it past the money men and advertisers on the commercial stations.
Before you respond please remember that this is purely a matter of opinion on all sides since there is no empirical measure that any of us can use for the sake of comparison.
Cheers
BHR
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 659
From: West Sussex
BHR, thank you for your explanation as to why "the BBC has to survive for the good of the UK". As you so rightly say it is all a matter of opinion. With great respect, I'm afraid I find your reasons falling short of your stirring statement.
Freedom of the Press is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. You may well discount all the other broadcasters, newspapers and other media because, I presume, they are in the main commercial enterprises answerable to their owners, barons or shareholders alike. They are also answerable to their subscribers (readers, watchers, listeners), who are either lemmings being directed by these monsters, or people who respond positively to their chosen station or paper or exercise their right to choose and go elsewhere. You may disagree with their opinions, but would you defend their right to them, to the death?
The BBC on the contrary is "owned" by us all, and thus in reality by no-one. So no shareholders or barons? I would opine (there it is again!) that the vacuum has been filled from within the organisation by those who have created an agenda which is well left of the incumbent government, let alone the opposition. And the consumers of its output have uniquely no choice. Pay-up whether you listen or watch or not, or be fined or go to prison!
And now, a word for our moderators! What has all this to do with military aviation? Simply that all BBC coverage is subject to that agenda. The BBC has little interest or understanding of the military, seeing it in terms of any other enterprise in the UK, and a somewhat disreputable one at that. I was once accused of being a paid mercenary (by a teacher, I must admit, but reflecting the ethos of the Hampstead Thinkers). So coverage is not of our troops, but "British troops". Ironic when you think of their own title. Coverage of the Nimrod disaster was preceeded by speculation that it was probably a Hercules or Chinook that had crashed, causing needless anguish to families in the UK (and even worse, false hope to those about to be devastated). I had personal experience of the Beeb's ways when we lost a Herc at Fairford. Within two hours the Beeb had pushed out the news on the evening bulletin, despite urgent pleas to hold it over to the later one (as agreed by the commercial channel!) while the next of kin were informed. They were informed all right!
As to "shows" if you mean the costume dramas, yes very good. I have always tried to support heaving bosoms! But the cost in this case is far, far too great. Only my opinion of course!
Freedom of the Press is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. You may well discount all the other broadcasters, newspapers and other media because, I presume, they are in the main commercial enterprises answerable to their owners, barons or shareholders alike. They are also answerable to their subscribers (readers, watchers, listeners), who are either lemmings being directed by these monsters, or people who respond positively to their chosen station or paper or exercise their right to choose and go elsewhere. You may disagree with their opinions, but would you defend their right to them, to the death?
The BBC on the contrary is "owned" by us all, and thus in reality by no-one. So no shareholders or barons? I would opine (there it is again!) that the vacuum has been filled from within the organisation by those who have created an agenda which is well left of the incumbent government, let alone the opposition. And the consumers of its output have uniquely no choice. Pay-up whether you listen or watch or not, or be fined or go to prison!
And now, a word for our moderators! What has all this to do with military aviation? Simply that all BBC coverage is subject to that agenda. The BBC has little interest or understanding of the military, seeing it in terms of any other enterprise in the UK, and a somewhat disreputable one at that. I was once accused of being a paid mercenary (by a teacher, I must admit, but reflecting the ethos of the Hampstead Thinkers). So coverage is not of our troops, but "British troops". Ironic when you think of their own title. Coverage of the Nimrod disaster was preceeded by speculation that it was probably a Hercules or Chinook that had crashed, causing needless anguish to families in the UK (and even worse, false hope to those about to be devastated). I had personal experience of the Beeb's ways when we lost a Herc at Fairford. Within two hours the Beeb had pushed out the news on the evening bulletin, despite urgent pleas to hold it over to the later one (as agreed by the commercial channel!) while the next of kin were informed. They were informed all right!
As to "shows" if you mean the costume dramas, yes very good. I have always tried to support heaving bosoms! But the cost in this case is far, far too great. Only my opinion of course!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 131
Likes: 1
From: Ice Station Kilo
BHR
Just where does the other 25% come from? If you try to tell me through the sale of DVD's ect. then surely the licence payer has already paid for the production of said shows.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
What many people do not realise is that only 75% of the BBC’s income is from the Licence Fee.
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 5
From: Chabanais, France
BHR Said:
" since there is no empirical measure that any of us can use for the sake of comparison."
Not so BHR, not so at all in fact, many of us are old enough to be able to compare the BBC of to-day with the BBC of old and do so quite objectively - without being too eloquent, what we see to-day is a whole load of left leaning crap compared to a centre position of yesteryear, simple as that.
Not so BHR, not so at all in fact, many of us are old enough to be able to compare the BBC of to-day with the BBC of old and do so quite objectively - without being too eloquent, what we see to-day is a whole load of left leaning crap compared to a centre position of yesteryear, simple as that.
