Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.

Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV.

Not the way to go if quality is required.

If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.

In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.

Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.

 

[aaronjb]

In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.

The rot set in a long time ago, then, by your book

First episode date: 19 February 1985

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.

The rot set in a long time ago, then, by your book

First episode date: 19 February 1985

Yes. The BBC should have given the soaps a wide berth. For those who wanted wooden acting made worse by piss poor scripts Coronation Street had already been televised since 1960.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Any kind of top quality sells, and sells for a higher price than shite quality - so, let auntie go into the market place and sell her top quality products at top of the market prices. Cant see the problem tbh.
An enforced tax to be able to watch your own TV is something from the USSR of the 1960,s.
The digital age will bring it to an end anyway. Its inevitable, so they may as well get on with changing things now. 

[Rods2]

If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.

Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV.

Not the way to go if quality is required.

If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.

In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.

Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.

BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?

The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news.

Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.

[STEMO]

If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.

Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV.

Not the way to go if quality is required.

If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.

In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.

Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.

BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?

The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news.

Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.

No. A fair chunk of the population are pensioners, who love their tv. Another fair chunk are people on low pay or unemployed, they wont have the equipment, or the money to pay for sky. I, for one, like my telly the way it is, and am quite happy to pay c.£3 a week for it.
Football hasn't died a death yet, and people pay sky a lot more for that than for all of the content on the BBC.

[STEMO]

Anyway, what's all the fuss about? Women shouldn't get as much money as the far superior male. If women think this is wrong, they should be made to have a fight with the men, that would show them whose boss. 

[Rods2]

If its as great and wonderful as everyone says it is, and it must act according to market forces, the answer is simple.
Denationalise it and float it on the stock market. Then it could pay its presenters however much it wants to out of the squillions of pounds it would generate as the worlds greatest broadcaster.
Personally I think the whole thing is a combination of a leftie love in, a huge gravy train, and a sinister brainwashing machine.
I reserve a special loathing for the multi millionaire socialist, tax dodger Lineker.
The whole thing is a national disgrace.

Pretty much my view, except I refuse to pay a bunch of Marxists for a daily indoctrination, so I don't have TV.

Not the way to go if quality is required.

If advertising revenue is required to fund the BBC then wall to wall soaps and celebrity island trash will be the order of the day.

In my view the BBC should not be put in a position where it needs to compete. This is a race to the bottom. The BBC has already dumbed-down far too much with rubbish like Eastenders.

Once upon a time the BBC was a beacon of excellence. Sadly not any more and throwing it to the wolves would only make things worse.

BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?

The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news.

Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.

No. A fair chunk of the population are pensioners, who love their tv. Another fair chunk are people on low pay or unemployed, they wont have the equipment, or the money to pay for sky. I, for one, like my telly the way it is, and am quite happy to pay c.£3 a week for it.
Football hasn't died a death yet, and people pay sky a lot more for that than for all of the content on the BBC.

Easy decision for you to make, I hear, you don't get many Werther's Original for £3 these days.

[LC0112G]

BBC already has a heavy advertising schedule between programs for advertising their own monopoly of programs. What is the difference between that and 3rd party advertising?

The Internet based digital TV revolution is going to make terrestrial broadcasting obsolete in the next 5 years. The flexibility this allows for consumption will allow many different types of revenue collection. I can't see how the TV license will be relevant or enforceable with thousands of global outlets offering video on demand, including near real-time (big enough delay, so TV tax, doesn't apply) news.

Of all the current broadcasters, currently, in the UK I can only see Sky surviving. There will be a smattering of European ones, where there are several major media companies, global ones like Sony and then US domination through Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft and Netflix. The major outlets will act as aggregators for a multitude of program makers.

Sorry, just not going to happen. Viewing figures show people are hooked on Corrie, Eastenders, Emmerdale and other similar terrestrial programs. You get all that (and more) for your £147 per year. The cheapest Sky package is how much? £22 per month, £264 per year, plus you also need a TV license as well. If you must watch Premiership football, then you can pay Murdoch for that priveledge, but count me out.

My view is that the BBC seems to be able to upset all sections of the population almost equally, and therefore they are mostly doing a pretty good job.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

We dont get Corrie and Emmerdale for our £147 per year. They are on ITV which doesn't receive any of the licence fee, although I believe Channel 4 does. Surely the fair, just and logical way to proceed is that those who are happy to pay for it, do so and receive BBC programmes.
Those who don't want to pay it, don't have to, but cant receive BBC programmes. Its quite simple really.

[LC0112G]

We dont get Corrie and Emmerdale for our £147 per year. They are on ITV which doesn't receive any of the licence fee, although I believe Channel 4 does. Surely the fair, just and logical way to proceed is that those who are happy to pay for it, do so and receive BBC programmes.
Those who don't want to pay it, don't have to, but cant receive BBC programmes. Its quite simple really.

I didn't say the TV licence pays for those soaps - I said that paying the License fee allows you to watch them. You do have to pay £147 p/a in order to watch these (and all other Free to air) programs. Except the OAP's that get the license for free obviously.

If BBC viewing figures were lower than other channels I would agree that the Licence fee is excessive for what it entitles you to. But they're not, and compared to Sky it looks like a bargain.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

O know how the system works. I'm just saying its very obviously wrong, and nothing thats been said on here has changed my opinion in the slightest.
The licence fee as it stands is a tax on watching your own tv, and is used to fund the BBC. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is a fair and just system of funding the BBC. I avoid the BBC like the plague and deeply resent having to effectively subsidise other people who for some unfathomable reason want to watch it.

[Sir Tigger KC]

The delicious irony here is that if one of Britain's major blue chip companies was found to be paying women significantly less for doing the same or a similar job than her male colleague, then the BBC would be in the vanguard of leftie liberal outrage at such injustice! 

Huw Edwards - £550,000-599,999

Fiona Bruce - £350,000-399,999

Sophie Raworth - £150,000-£199,999

Hypocritical leftie bastards! 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I have yet to meet a leftie who wasn't a hypocrite. 

[2boxerdogs]

If any of us on here were offered a job with the beeb on half a million quid a year who would honestly refuse it ?