Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good I stopped watching listening to it yrs ago yet still have to pay for it's existence " You can opt out of paying for the licence now, there's an online form and you have to "promise" not to watch any live broadcasts. According to the BBC, over 1.7 million people now do this, and I'm one of them. I doubt very much that their news services are unbiased and I refuse to pay for an organisation that has harboured and/or enabled so many paedophiles and sex offenders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"once the BBC started charging over 75s & threatening them with prison. they lost public confidence & its just a matter of time before they lose public funding altogether. " Yes I disagree with the threat of loss of liberty expecially for the elderly. I guess the majority do not have Internet and have no need for the iplayer service, which is payed for from a percentage of the licence fee, but it is all rolled up into one flat fee. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good I stopped watching listening to it yrs ago yet still have to pay for it's existence You can opt out of paying for the licence now, there's an online form and you have to "promise" not to watch any live broadcasts. According to the BBC, over 1.7 million people now do this, and I'm one of them. I doubt very much that their news services are unbiased and I refuse to pay for an organisation that has harboured and/or enabled so many paedophiles and sex offenders." yes I understand that but do have sky bt so still have to pay for something I don't use | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"once the BBC started charging over 75s & threatening them with prison. they lost public confidence & its just a matter of time before they lose public funding altogether. " Psst.. They didn't, and can't.. They made an albeit unpopular potential proposal based upon a reduction in funding by a Tory government who don't like criticism, ditto the threats to sell of channel 4.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. " Independently of shareholder influence? Does that include the independent press? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not paid for a license for bout 3yrs now streaming and youtube in this household,took about five mins to let them know i dont watch terestrial tv anymore,was warned the may check to see if i am using it still but have never heard anything from them though suppose its easy to see from outside there is no longer an ariel up" There is more to it than having an aerial up. To be completely sure you are not watching live TV, you do need to check out the ofcom website for companies which have been issued with TV licences and avoid all of those companies livestreams on youtube, just the same as you would avoid a livestream of the BBC on youtube. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. Independently of shareholder influence? Does that include the independent press? " What would you call independent ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. " I think most people just want to enjoy life without the constant depression and misery most left-wingers seem to be permanently encumbered by.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. I think most people just want to enjoy life without the constant depression and misery most left-wingers seem to be permanently encumbered by. "So radio stations 1 to 6 are left wing? The world service and cbbies are left wing? Have you ever listened to the bbc radio?? Watching the poor get poorer under right wing policies is pretty depressing The torus for 34 of the last 40+ years have said they are working to make you better off and offer better public services. When is that going to start? So far you’re worse off and nothing but worse services but sadly many still believe the bullshit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. " The BBC is excellent for the arts and their radio service is top notch. I plays a very important role in helping unknown or underground artists set their foot in the door. However BBC news is a mess and needs a massive overhaul. Their politics coverage has simply turned into a mouthpiece for the tory government (see Laura K). Their recent articles on Trans people has been terrible - see the article which features contributions from a lesbian pornstar who called for trans women to be lynched. To date they still haven't taken the article down nor have they apologised. BBC was known around the world for its top notch programming. Unfortunately recent tory influence has affected this. Classic example of tories running something into the ground, then using that very same reason to reduce funding (see NHS). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. I think most people just want to enjoy life without the constant depression and misery most left-wingers seem to be permanently encumbered by. "This just reads "I don't like hearing inconvenient truths and would prefer to pretend all is good and dandy". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. The BBC is excellent for the arts and their radio service is top notch. I plays a very important role in helping unknown or underground artists set their foot in the door. However BBC news is a mess and needs a massive overhaul. Their politics coverage has simply turned into a mouthpiece for the tory government (see Laura K). Their recent articles on Trans people has been terrible - see the article which features contributions from a lesbian pornstar who called for trans women to be lynched. To date they still haven't taken the article down nor have they apologised. BBC was known around the world for its top notch programming. Unfortunately recent tory influence has affected this. Classic example of tories running something into the ground, then using that very same reason to reduce funding (see NHS)." I agree especially re Laura and yet Tory supporters buying the line being fed that it’s left wing., it blatantly isn’t. It’s just too big for the Tory mandarins to influence so they want to destroy it, It’s the last bastion of independence and does amazing things for art education and minorities along with portraying our messages around the world. The Tory party hate not being able to dictate the agenda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. Independently of shareholder influence? Does that include the independent press? What would you call independent ? " Well, we could start with the wife of the prime minister? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. Independently of shareholder influence? Does that include the independent press? What would you call independent ? Well, we could start with the wife of the prime minister?" Now I know you’re being silly  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. Independently of shareholder influence? Does that include the independent press? What would you call independent ? Well, we could start with the wife of the prime minister? Now I know you’re being silly "Okay, call me silly if you like. Maybe her father isn't Matthew Symonds and maybe he didn't co-found exactly which newspaper? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"once the BBC started charging over 75s & threatening them with prison. they lost public confidence & its just a matter of time before they lose public funding altogether. " No-one can go to prison for failing to pay a TV licence. For a family with kids, CBBC alone is worth the licence fee, let alone top quality drama productions and radio. Unfortunately, people get hung up on BBC News and make all their assumptions based on their own allegiances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"once the BBC started charging over 75s & threatening them with prison. they lost public confidence & its just a matter of time before they lose public funding altogether. " The renegotiation of the license required them to do so. Who imposed that? Oh yes, this government in one of Cummings' last acts... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. I think most people just want to enjoy life without the constant depression and misery most left-wingers seem to be permanently encumbered by. "Bread and circuses? Is it really only "left-wingers" who see a problem and try to fix it? Why would anyone vote for the Conservative party then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. " Of course. This has been signalled for a long time. Ironically, BBC program making trains the majority of those in private industry and much of it is created in the private sector, but driven with different priorities. Documentaries and news and investigative journalism doesn't make as much money as soaps and talent shows... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. Independently of shareholder influence? Does that include the independent press? What would you call independent ? Well, we could start with the wife of the prime minister? Now I know you’re being silly
Okay, call me silly if you like.
Maybe her father isn't Matthew Symonds and maybe he didn't co-found exactly which newspaper?"My apologies I missed your point on who she is related to. Unfortunately the Independant is now owned by rich pro Saudi backers. Evgeny Lebedev (41%) Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel (30%) Justin Byam Shaw (26%) Minor shareholders (3%) For the moment they are saying no editorial interference. Until one or two anti Saudi remarks and then watch the editorial staff slowly fall or toe the line. Sadly this is a prime example of our press being owned and controlled by rich people. The BBC is owned by the people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Howver they end up funding it, personally I don't think £13 per month is a bad deal for: HD, Line of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Poldark, Vigil, Happy Valley, Bodyguard, Killing Eve, Inside No 9, Luther, Attenborough documentaries, imports, UK film premieres, 24 hour news, regional news, no ads, live sports coverage, panel shows, talkshows, quiz shows, childrens content, live politics, iPlayer... Plus all the the stuff they have done in the past (e.g Only Fools, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Two Ronnies etc for a small sample) Netflix, Amazon and all the other US based streaming services on the way will never give that level of attention to British based original content. And they'll still cost £10 per month. Each. Be careful what you wish for. " Exactly. You only have to look across the Atlantic to see where we will end up. The news channels report the news based on their owners opinion and political bias. The news analysis is not fair and you’d be amazed how many Americans listen and watch the BBC for honest news and opinion. Over 56% of Americans trust the BBC. Higher than any other US news network, with over 50m a week regularly watching. Do you trust Fox News who back Trump still? Most US news is bias enforcing to its watchers so they are fed what they want to hear not the truth. There is a rising demand in the US for a non partisan BBC style news network. The reason UK TV including ITV is exported around the world and considered to be the best is because the production standards of the BBC are second to none. Other country’s envy us having the BBC and we are going to let these lying scumbags bring it down because they don’t like it’s freedom to report the truth. Credit to the American FP website for the numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. I think most people just want to enjoy life without the constant depression and misery most left-wingers seem to be permanently encumbered by. "Yes heard that many times but when you actually analyse it… it’s the opposite. The people… the creators of culture and art, ideas and science. Not politicians. Problem is some people are so dull they actually believe politicians and their newspaper backers. The people actually do get on with it. I’ve not noticed that with politicians, especially the Tories getting on with it! They just want to trigger you, program your thinking , create division, diversion so that some are so confused they resort to primitive binary action. Fight or flight. Life is nothing like that of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All that shilling for the tories on BBC news didn't help I see." It's time for the BBC news outlets to realise that and man up. We rarely watch BBC news here because it's basically Blukip PR central. I think they've shot themselves in at least one foot with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. I think most people just want to enjoy life without the constant depression and misery most left-wingers seem to be permanently encumbered by.
Bread and circuses?
Is it really only "left-wingers" who see a problem and try to fix it?
Why would anyone vote for the Conservative party then?"Stupidity if they're not minted or a pull-up-the-ladder mentality if they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. " I am confused surely the BBC is the puppet of current government? I have seen that written here so many times. But actually the process of changing the BBC from an organisation that argues to send to prison pensioners for non-payment of a licence really does need a major overhaul. £4.722 billion each year of FREE money from you the British public means that we can have our say: And currently the 'say' is 'go pay'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. I am confused surely the BBC is the puppet of current government? I have seen that written here so many times. But actually the process of changing the BBC from an organisation that argues to send to prison pensioners for non-payment of a licence really does need a major overhaul. £4.722 billion each year of FREE money from you the British public means that we can have our say: And currently the 'say' is 'go pay'. "The current government required the BBC to demand pensioners for license fees. They were exempt. Nobody has gone to prison. The intent appears to have been to make the organisation unpopular amongst it's strongest supporters. BBC news is portrayed as both the mouthpiece of the government and too left wing and critical of the Tory party. This implies they're about right. The organisation as a whole may well be too large. However, the purpose of the license fee was always to keep the BBC independent of government. Perhaps a small levy on other suppliers as a part of their broadcasting licenses with the edition of the streaming services? That would maintain the important, but not commercial, services that are needed plus some high quality programming to raise the bar generally as the BBC often does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The current government required the BBC to demand pensioners for license fees. They were exempt. Nobody has gone to prison. " Updated: 14:54, 15 August 2021 "Failure to pay for a TV licence – required by law to watch live television on any channel – can lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000. If payment is not forthcoming, the courts can imprison offenders. Many pensioners are furious that the BBC has broken its previous promise to always provide a free TV licence for the elderly – most of whom earned this reward after a lifetime of payments. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for " good.. sick of paying for over rated rich ex footballers with millions in the bank to sit for and hour hosting match of the day and getting paid £190,000 a year lineker £160,000 shearer plus the rest of them it must be about 2million a year for them all  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for good.. sick of paying for over rated rich ex footballers with millions in the bank to sit for and hour hosting match of the day and getting paid £190,000 a year lineker £160,000 shearer plus the rest of them it must be about 2million a year for them all "Gary Lineker takes £1.36 million out of the BBC. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The current government required the BBC to demand pensioners for license fees. They were exempt. Nobody has gone to prison. Updated: 14:54, 15 August 2021 "Failure to pay for a TV licence – required by law to watch live television on any channel – can lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000. If payment is not forthcoming, the courts can imprison offenders. Many pensioners are furious that the BBC has broken its previous promise to always provide a free TV licence for the elderly – most of whom earned this reward after a lifetime of payments. " " The BBC cannot keep a promise that the government told them they had to break. There are zero people in prison for non-payment of their TV license. The government chose not to remove imprisonment as a possible (although never used) penalty in their last review. Not the BBC. The Government. Just for clarity, you actually require a TV license to watch any live broadcast, even online. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Survey shows 95% believe BBC licence fee should no longer be compulsory. A survey conducted by NationalWorld and other JPI Media titles reveals an overwhelming majority of the public are opposed to the compulsory TV licence fee. " I suspect if you asked anybody if something should be free whilst receiving the same service, most people would say yes  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I suspect if you asked anybody if something should be free whilst receiving the same service, most people would say yes "They aren't. They are however saying that it should be paid for by choice by agreed subscription (Netflix et-al) or advertising. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I suspect if you asked anybody if something should be free whilst receiving the same service, most people would say yes
They aren't.
They are however saying that it should be paid for by choice by agreed subscription (Netflix et-al) or advertising. "The question that was asked was: "Should the BBC licence fee should remain compulsory?" To which 95% answered no. You posted it yourself. There were other questions about other options. However, it was an open survey answered by whoever wanted to answer, so not especially meaningful. That is not to say that the BBC license fee has strong support or is appropriate in the TV market as it now exists. Hence my suggestion to add a tariff to other suppliers to fund the BBC. Advertising would rather miss the point of it being non-commercial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Going private isn’t always the best move. " Having the freedom to choose whether or not to subscribe to it should be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People know that the service has to be paid for somehow - they also know how it could be paid by subscription service or advertising. One is implicit in the other. Split all the hairs you like - but that is the fact. " Regarding advertising I understand there’s not enough to go round. The internet means the independent stations struggle for revenue already. I have No figures on this If it does go commercial then the good mass market bits will be sold off and the free to air radio along with the small market, public service and investigative journalism will fall by the wayside. Any strong democracy should have an independent news organisation. Or do we want the American way or maybe the Chinese way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over £1.3 billion of income came through BBC Studios, one of its commercial arms, which, among other things, generates money by selling BBC content to international distributors. BBC Studios also owns the UKTV channels, including Gold and Dave, through which it earns advertising revenue. Non-commercial. Yup. I can see that clearly. "Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? " If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Over £1.3 billion of income came through BBC Studios, one of its commercial arms, which, among other things, generates money by selling BBC content to international distributors. BBC Studios also owns the UKTV channels, including Gold and Dave, through which it earns advertising revenue. Non-commercial. Yup. I can see that clearly. "You can see that needing to make programs that generate advertising and have to be sold is different to making programs that can be sold, don't you? Let's not talk about me splitting hairs if you are going to do this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. I could not agree more! People are lazy and will not think about the consequences. Look what happens when they have absolute power! " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-Commercial isn't written on a biblical tablet (not that most pay much attention to that anyway). So it really isn't an argument for continuing it." Non-commercial is, actually, written on a figurative tablet for the BBC in its charter. Perhaps it is more the interpretation that a public service should not be making decisions based on profit. Perhaps you believe that the market makes only good decisions. I tend to disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You can see that needing to make programs that generate advertising and have to be sold is different to making programs that can be sold, don't you? " A commercial sale is a commercial sale regardless. The BBC is non-commercial - except actually it's truly not. So how about - from all of those commercial sales (the programmes made with your money and my money) a dividend is paid back to us? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-Commercial isn't written on a biblical tablet (not that most pay much attention to that anyway). So it really isn't an argument for continuing it. Non-commercial is, actually, written on a figurative tablet for the BBC in its charter. Perhaps it is more the interpretation that a public service should not be making decisions based on profit. Perhaps you believe that the market makes only good decisions. I tend to disagree. " Then it's time to change that figurative language and direction (thought I'd already said that but hey ho). Doesn't bother me at all that you don't agree. Such is democracy - but most do agree. The BBC will not continue as a Public Service Entity long beyond 2027. It will go Advertising or Subscription or a mixture of both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. " Well said, with a loss of public funds for this great institution we'll be left with wall to wall adverts, migraines induced by noise and primary colours and Ant & Dec becoming the Director General | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You can see that needing to make programs that generate advertising and have to be sold is different to making programs that can be sold, don't you? A commercial sale is a commercial sale regardless. The BBC is non-commercial - except actually it's truly not. So how about - from all of those commercial sales (the programmes made with your money and my money) a dividend is paid back to us? " They are used to cover the budget shortfall to make programs, for us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-Commercial isn't written on a biblical tablet (not that most pay much attention to that anyway). So it really isn't an argument for continuing it. Non-commercial is, actually, written on a figurative tablet for the BBC in its charter. Perhaps it is more the interpretation that a public service should not be making decisions based on profit. Perhaps you believe that the market makes only good decisions. I tend to disagree. Then it's time to change that figurative language and direction (thought I'd already said that but hey ho). Doesn't bother me at all that you don't agree. Such is democracy - but most do agree. The BBC will not continue as a Public Service Entity long beyond 2027. It will go Advertising or Subscription or a mixture of both. " Then it would make the same types of programs as everyone else. Its purpose is to do different things unconstrained purely by viewing figures and market forces. The point is to have something different. Does that make sense to you or is the only worthwhile thing something that makes money? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. Well said, with a loss of public funds for this great institution we'll be left with wall to wall adverts, migraines induced by noise and primary colours and Ant & Dec becoming the Director General "If this change is not due until 2027 and as some say it's all to do with the current government then it may not happen. Can't a future government or aspiring government just say they will reverse the policy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-Commercial isn't written on a biblical tablet (not that most pay much attention to that anyway). So it really isn't an argument for continuing it. Non-commercial is, actually, written on a figurative tablet for the BBC in its charter. Perhaps it is more the interpretation that a public service should not be making decisions based on profit. Perhaps you believe that the market makes only good decisions. I tend to disagree. Then it's time to change that figurative language and direction (thought I'd already said that but hey ho). Doesn't bother me at all that you don't agree. Such is democracy - but most do agree. The BBC will not continue as a Public Service Entity long beyond 2027. It will go Advertising or Subscription or a mixture of both. Then it would make the same types of programs as everyone else. Its purpose is to do different things unconstrained purely by viewing figures and market forces. The point is to have something different. Does that make sense to you or is the only worthwhile thing something that makes money?" Why would it make the same type of programmes as everybody else? No it's purpose isn't to do different things - the BBC look at viewing figures all the times and make decisions to continue or not. Every Media company in the World paid or not can make a choice to do different or not. Does that make sense to me? - Oh dear there is that condescending tone that you have become so connected with - doesn't work on me sorry, I don't feel small in your need to feel big. 
The BBC make a shed load of money. Currently, (2021) they sit on £2.71 Billion in assets.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-Commercial isn't written on a biblical tablet (not that most pay much attention to that anyway). So it really isn't an argument for continuing it. Non-commercial is, actually, written on a figurative tablet for the BBC in its charter. Perhaps it is more the interpretation that a public service should not be making decisions based on profit. Perhaps you believe that the market makes only good decisions. I tend to disagree. Then it's time to change that figurative language and direction (thought I'd already said that but hey ho). Doesn't bother me at all that you don't agree. Such is democracy - but most do agree. The BBC will not continue as a Public Service Entity long beyond 2027. It will go Advertising or Subscription or a mixture of both. Then it would make the same types of programs as everyone else. Its purpose is to do different things unconstrained purely by viewing figures and market forces. The point is to have something different. Does that make sense to you or is the only worthwhile thing something that makes money? Why would it make the same type of programmes as everybody else? No it's purpose isn't to do different things - the BBC look at viewing figures all the times and make decisions to continue or not. Every Media company in the World paid or not can make a choice to do different or not. Does that make sense to me? - Oh dear there is that condescending tone that you have become so connected with - doesn't work on me sorry, I don't feel small in your need to feel big.
The BBC make a shed load of money. Currently, (2021) they sit on £2.71 Billion in assets.
"If you feel codecended to then I cannot help that. It was a question. You could have just said that it didn't make sense because... rather than explaining your immunity to an imagined slight. The BBC does look at viewing figures but that is not their only measure of success or failure. For a commercial channel it is. What do you think that the purpose of the BBC and its funding model is? This certainly helps the distraction from a generally shambolic and corrupt government and BoJos lockdown parties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"London based run by the liberal elite. Funding model takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Outrageous salaries paid for by the poor. Organisation that is rotten to the core, break it up and sell it off. " Salford? Should no money that poor people have to pay go to high salaries in the companies that receive the money? So gas paid by poor people should not pay the CEO of Centrica? The Netflix subscription should not pay their CEO nor the liberal, London living program makers of Sky? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. Well said, with a loss of public funds for this great institution we'll be left with wall to wall adverts, migraines induced by noise and primary colours and Ant & Dec becoming the Director General
If this change is not due until 2027 and as some say it's all to do with the current government then it may not happen. Can't a future government or aspiring government just say they will reverse the policy "True, but with the additional freeze the service can be run down and output quality reduced so as to become less popular. Similar to the long running NHS game-plan. There is, of course, a layer of waste that can be improved in any public institution, but that applies equally to private companies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning." And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh I don't know . . . https://www.standard.co.uk/business/itv-q3-nine-months-advertising-revenue-studios-virgil-love-island-b965353.html "ITV is on track for the highest advertising revenues in its 66-year history, the national broadcaster said today. Shares leapt higher after ITV said advertising revenue was on track to rise by 24% by year end, which would take it above pre-pandemic levels and to an all-time high. Advertising sales are up 30% so far this year, ITV said, helping revenue at its media and entertainment business climb 28% to £1.6 billion. Revenue at ITV Studios, which produces shows for the broadcaster and other channels, saw revenue rise 32% to £1.2 billion. CEO Carolyn McCall said: “By any standards ITV has had an outstanding nine months. Revenue from each business over the nine months is up both on last year and on 2019.”" So the BBC will need advertising revenue to survive then . So reduce itv by 50.% and both don’t have enough. Remember both the bbc and itv already generate advertising income online and sales abroad. Where is at least doubling the advertising revenues coming from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. " Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. Well said, with a loss of public funds for this great institution we'll be left with wall to wall adverts, migraines induced by noise and primary colours and Ant & Dec becoming the Director General
If this change is not due until 2027 and as some say it's all to do with the current government then it may not happen. Can't a future government or aspiring government just say they will reverse the policy "When the bbc is destroyed it won’t be put together again in any serious way as the talent will be lost. But like Humpty Dumpty! Only a lot worse . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. " You are not naive CAT and you know full well an owner dictates the political leaning of a media company. If I own a news outlet I tell it who to support. Murdoch’s name of king maker wasn’t an accident. The Mail supporting Boris and secretly tax evasion is down to Rothermere. There were also reports the bbc through Laura kunnesberg were soft towards and supporters of Boris . . The fact that both sides complain is a great result. Do you ever hear the Tory party complain to the Mail or the telegraph ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. You are not naive CAT and you know full well an owner dictates the political leaning of a media company. If I own a news outlet I tell it who to support. Murdoch’s name of king maker wasn’t an accident. The Mail supporting Boris and secretly tax evasion is down to Rothermere. There were also reports the bbc through Laura kunnesberg were soft towards and supporters of Boris . . The fact that both sides complain is a great result. Do you ever hear the Tory party complain to the Mail or the telegraph ? " But I did actually write that the BBC makes its choice about how and which way it leans politically. I also wrote it earlier up the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. You are not naive CAT and you know full well an owner dictates the political leaning of a media company. If I own a news outlet I tell it who to support. Murdoch’s name of king maker wasn’t an accident. The Mail supporting Boris and secretly tax evasion is down to Rothermere. There were also reports the bbc through Laura kunnesberg were soft towards and supporters of Boris . . The fact that both sides complain is a great result. Do you ever hear the Tory party complain to the Mail or the telegraph ? But I did actually write that the BBC makes its choice about how and which way it leans politically. I also wrote it earlier up the thread." What allows them to do that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. You are not naive CAT and you know full well an owner dictates the political leaning of a media company. If I own a news outlet I tell it who to support. Murdoch’s name of king maker wasn’t an accident. The Mail supporting Boris and secretly tax evasion is down to Rothermere. There were also reports the bbc through Laura kunnesberg were soft towards and supporters of Boris . . The fact that both sides complain is a great result. Do you ever hear the Tory party complain to the Mail or the telegraph ? But I did actually write that the BBC makes its choice about how and which way it leans politically. I also wrote it earlier up the thread." Its remit on reporting is to not have a bias so not relying on an individual for funding stops the bias such as Murdoch operates at sky and formally the sun . If it criticises both sides which it does then it’s working. I wrote to the bbc as they missed all my queuing trucks hidden away by the government games to make trucks wait inland rather than have queues at Dover at the height of Brexit. So here I am complaining about an organisation which is a world beater and a great bastion of independence. It’s not always going to get it right but most of the time it does and it does in a fair equal way. I for one think by losing such an amazing organisation will be a huge backwards step for quality and diversity in this country but also s massive knock to our democracy. Reporting free from influence or favour is something most countries of the world dream about and this government is racing to have it broken up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. You are not naive CAT and you know full well an owner dictates the political leaning of a media company. If I own a news outlet I tell it who to support. Murdoch’s name of king maker wasn’t an accident. The Mail supporting Boris and secretly tax evasion is down to Rothermere. There were also reports the bbc through Laura kunnesberg were soft towards and supporters of Boris . . The fact that both sides complain is a great result. Do you ever hear the Tory party complain to the Mail or the telegraph ? But I did actually write that the BBC makes its choice about how and which way it leans politically. I also wrote it earlier up the thread. Its remit on reporting is to not have a bias so not relying on an individual for funding stops the bias such as Murdoch operates at sky and formally the sun . If it criticises both sides which it does then it’s working. I wrote to the bbc as they missed all my queuing trucks hidden away by the government games to make trucks wait inland rather than have queues at Dover at the height of Brexit. So here I am complaining about an organisation which is a world beater and a great bastion of independence. It’s not always going to get it right but most of the time it does and it does in a fair equal way. I for one think by losing such an amazing organisation will be a huge backwards step for quality and diversity in this country but also s massive knock to our democracy. Reporting free from influence or favour is something most countries of the world dream about and this government is racing to have it broken up. " What exactly makes you think the bbc is free from influence and favour and losing it would be a step back from diversity? when was the last time you saw an all white or all black family on an ad on itv for an example? The bbc have no moral high ground there, its an outdated institute that gets the general public to pay for all its overpaid lovies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The BBC had a written remit to , Inform, Educate and Entertain. Which other global media outlet has those core values to abide by without political or financial influence? " But does it? Actually. I already told you of the many contreversies where the BBc has been accussed of political leaning . . . but Controversy and criticism Main articles: Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies Throughout its existence, the BBC has faced numerous accusations regarding many topics: the Iraq war, politics, ethics and religion, as well as funding and staffing. The BBC has long faced accusations from conservatives of liberal and left-wing bias. Conversely, writing for The Guardian, the left-wing columnist Owen Jones stated "the truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers. Remember the Mumbai Gunmen v terrorists statements? Paul Mason, a former Economics Editor of the BBC's Newsnight programme, criticised the BBC as "unionist" in relation to its coverage of the Scottish independence referendum campaign. The BBC has also been characterised as a pro-monarchist institution. of course these are all in the houses of individual opinion. But then isn't all political thinking? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. Well said, with a loss of public funds for this great institution we'll be left with wall to wall adverts, migraines induced by noise and primary colours and Ant & Dec becoming the Director General
If this change is not due until 2027 and as some say it's all to do with the current government then it may not happen. Can't a future government or aspiring government just say they will reverse the policy
When the bbc is destroyed it won’t be put together again in any serious way as the talent will be lost. But like Humpty Dumpty! Only a lot worse . "There should be a General election before that so maybe an idea for opposition parties to pledge that they will not go ahead with any changes and restore it to its former glory | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think those Chanel’s affect its independence or do you think they strengthen it? If the BBC was choice subscription or adverts I 'feel' that it would be more independent of political influence - but that's not an easy answer anyway. Look at the Tabloids for an example and how it depends on the politics of the owner/editor as to which is the colour of its political leaning. And there you have it . At the moment it’s independent through its funding method with extra income on top. If it was purely commercial with share holders their leanings would dictate the political agenda as with other media. Some actually argue however that the BBC has rankled the Conservatives, and it's because of that the government have begun these actions against them. But anyways - all media is in some way political leaning. Remember the reports that the BBC were left, and then they were liberal and they were anti-brexit? Whether we pay for them or not doesn't make them lean one way or the other. The BBC choose to do that themselves. You are not naive CAT and you know full well an owner dictates the political leaning of a media company. If I own a news outlet I tell it who to support. Murdoch’s name of king maker wasn’t an accident. The Mail supporting Boris and secretly tax evasion is down to Rothermere. There were also reports the bbc through Laura kunnesberg were soft towards and supporters of Boris . . The fact that both sides complain is a great result. Do you ever hear the Tory party complain to the Mail or the telegraph ? But I did actually write that the BBC makes its choice about how and which way it leans politically. I also wrote it earlier up the thread. Its remit on reporting is to not have a bias so not relying on an individual for funding stops the bias such as Murdoch operates at sky and formally the sun . If it criticises both sides which it does then it’s working. I wrote to the bbc as they missed all my queuing trucks hidden away by the government games to make trucks wait inland rather than have queues at Dover at the height of Brexit. So here I am complaining about an organisation which is a world beater and a great bastion of independence. It’s not always going to get it right but most of the time it does and it does in a fair equal way. I for one think by losing such an amazing organisation will be a huge backwards step for quality and diversity in this country but also s massive knock to our democracy. Reporting free from influence or favour is something most countries of the world dream about and this government is racing to have it broken up. What exactly makes you think the bbc is free from influence and favour and losing it would be a step back from diversity? when was the last time you saw an all white or all black family on an ad on itv for an example? The bbc have no moral high ground there, its an outdated institute that gets the general public to pay for all its overpaid lovies." So it’s public non profit making services are just for the few lovies? The world service the local radio and tv is all for the lovies? Have you listened to Radio 4 lately . Just last week I listened to an hour long programme on different generation of women in the same family on how they face sexual and verbal abuse throughout their lives. It spoke of help lines and volunteers for women to call while they walk home alone to try and keep them safe. It was a fascinating insight Into the daily abuse of women and how men are brought up in the same old attitudes of dominating the space of women, Tell me which latest hits radio would bother to commission and produce such radio? If you say they would then why are 99% of our U.K. radio is purely music and or sport? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The difference BBC is if you watch any terrestrial tv BBC or not you still have to pay. Salford is a very small proportion of what BBC spends in UK vast majority is spent in London. Break it up and sell it off, in all surveys done about BBC vast majority don’t want to pay any licence fee. No problem the people that want BBC paying for it allow everyone else to opt out. " No one wants to pay tax either but when you tell them their neighbours house might burn down as they couldn’t afford a fire engine do they say not my problem? Society is not just about what it does for you it’s about what it does for all. I can afford private health so I don’t want to contribute to the NHS thanks. Is that a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Howver they end up funding it, personally I don't think £13 per month is a bad deal for: HD, Line of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Poldark, Vigil, Happy Valley, Bodyguard, Killing Eve, Inside No 9, Luther, Attenborough documentaries, imports, UK film premieres, 24 hour news, regional news, no ads, live sports coverage, panel shows, talkshows, quiz shows, childrens content, live politics, iPlayer... Plus all the the stuff they have done in the past (e.g Only Fools, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Two Ronnies etc for a small sample) Netflix, Amazon and all the other US based streaming services on the way will never give that level of attention to British based original content. And they'll still cost £10 per month. Each. Be careful what you wish for. " But non of those streaming services are left wing. So all is well according to the sages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The difference BBC is if you watch any terrestrial tv BBC or not you still have to pay. Salford is a very small proportion of what BBC spends in UK vast majority is spent in London. Break it up and sell it off, in all surveys done about BBC vast majority don’t want to pay any licence fee. No problem the people that want BBC paying for it allow everyone else to opt out. " That can be changed with a different form of funding. As I suggested. Lots of BBC programming is made regionally. It is a policy requirement, unlike private companies. It adds cost to programs but distributes the wealth more widely than other TV channels. Again, if you ask people if they want something for free they tend to say yes. Your position is quite clear, but just say you don't like it rather than giving reasons that do not really stand up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"London based run by the liberal elite. Funding model takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Outrageous salaries paid for by the poor. Organisation that is rotten to the core, break it up and sell it off. " Is this satire? Lol Could say much this applies to the tories | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The difference BBC is if you watch any terrestrial tv BBC or not you still have to pay. Salford is a very small proportion of what BBC spends in UK vast majority is spent in London. Break it up and sell it off, in all surveys done about BBC vast majority don’t want to pay any licence fee. No problem the people that want BBC paying for it allow everyone else to opt out. " Are you aware BBC has local services, employs local democracy reporters from local press? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. " I’d get rid of the BBC altogether. It’s nothing but left wing propaganda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. I’d get rid of the BBC altogether. It’s nothing but left wing propaganda. " Feel free to explain your view with some examples of why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the final independence of the BBC is going to be attacked. The size of the BBC is the only media in this country capable of reporting independently away from shareholder influence. The tories can’t control it so they are going to destroy its independence. So most of our media outlets will in future be controlled by wealthy financial backers of the Tories . Be careful what you wish for. I’d get rid of the BBC altogether. It’s nothing but left wing propaganda. " ......................... Try telling that to: Andrew Neill Jeremy Clarkson Jeremy Paxman Laura Kuensberg You'd get rid of The Human Planet, Fleabag, Saturday Kitchen and Strictly in preference to Love Island, I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, The Only Way is Essex and Naked Attraction?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Remember everyone saying how great it was to privatise water companies ., Are they the same people complaining about the 400k occasions when raw sewage was pumped into rivers in 2020? Those same water companies have paid over £60 Billion in dividends to shareholders since 1991. That money could have been spent on better safer infrastructure. Going private isn’t always the best move. We should have an independently funded media which is the BBC free from political interference. Complaining about Gary Lineker nonsense. Look at all the CEOs of those private companies you are still paying for but we’re once public. Look at vice chancellors of universities. Look at how many civil servants are on serious money. There are literally thousands of people earning over a hundred grand in the NHS who never pick up a bandage. It made me laugh when a journalist asked a chairman of a newly privatised business as to why the CEOs salary was quadrupled now it’s a private company. £120k - £600k ( water company) He replied we want the best and need to stop him being poached by other industries. The journalist curiously asked if he was at such a risk why wasn’t he poached in the last 10 years while on that £120k salary ? The Chairman had nothing and referred the journalist to the remuneration rules in the new company, Priceless . " This in spades. And not just the water companies. Railways, Gas. But easier to hate Gary lineker than it is to the hard yards and actually have aptitude to know what is actually going on. But, you know… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The streaming subscription alternatives that people pay for now, Netflix, Disney+ etc. Do they make money or are they loss-making? If they advertised would that be new money or taken from existing? Clearly there is some hate of the BBC, but the alternative being used does not seem to be commercially viable until it removes the opposition and raises prices..." According to MediaPeanut's data, Netflix had 214 million subscribers worldwide through Q3 and earned an estimated $28.63 billion in 2021. 2019 saw the British Sky Broadcasting Group's highest profits to date at 2.2 billion British pounds. For the six months ended June 30, Sky's revenue increased 18.9% to $10.2B, compared with $8.6B over the same period in 2020. HBO. As of the year ending December 2020, HBO had earned around 6.8 billion U.S. dollars from subscription revenue alone, up from 5.81 billion in the previous year. Hard to find Disney+ Streaming service profit as it all seems to be in the Disney group which currently stands at $67 Billion in revenue. Same with Apple TV Streaming service profit as it all seems to be in the Disney group which currently stands at $83.4 Billion in revenue. As Apple Tv and Disney+ are relatively new to streaming it will be a couple of years before the proper returns are seen. Just as it was with Netflix and SKY TV So clearly there is much to be made by the BBC. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing to stop the bbc using advertising to fund itself itv seems to manage " ITV doesn’t have to provide the same wealth of informative educational less mass market programming, online or radio. If the bbc just did the likes of strictly then all you’d get is more dumbing down as it would be the new Netflix. Do we need more Netflix? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The streaming subscription alternatives that people pay for now, Netflix, Disney+ etc. Do they make money or are they loss-making? If they advertised would that be new money or taken from existing? Clearly there is some hate of the BBC, but the alternative being used does not seem to be commercially viable until it removes the opposition and raises prices... According to MediaPeanut's data, Netflix had 214 million subscribers worldwide through Q3 and earned an estimated $28.63 billion in 2021. 2019 saw the British Sky Broadcasting Group's highest profits to date at 2.2 billion British pounds. For the six months ended June 30, Sky's revenue increased 18.9% to $10.2B, compared with $8.6B over the same period in 2020. HBO. As of the year ending December 2020, HBO had earned around 6.8 billion U.S. dollars from subscription revenue alone, up from 5.81 billion in the previous year. Hard to find Disney+ Streaming service profit as it all seems to be in the Disney group which currently stands at $67 Billion in revenue. Same with Apple TV Streaming service profit as it all seems to be in the Disney group which currently stands at $83.4 Billion in revenue. As Apple Tv and Disney+ are relatively new to streaming it will be a couple of years before the proper returns are seen. Just as it was with Netflix and SKY TV So clearly there is much to be made by the BBC." I agree and let them sell abroad to a the point where don’t need the licence fee to be so high, but keep the remit as their core for the U.K. services and Global news. They are allowed to do this right now and have been doing, so more power to them but tying them to the independence is crucial. It’s an amazing service and we’d be foolish to let it go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing to stop the bbc using advertising to fund itself itv seems to manage ITV doesn’t have to provide the same wealth of informative educational less mass market programming, online or radio. If the bbc just did the likes of strictly then all you’d get is more dumbing down as it would be the new Netflix. Do we need more Netflix? " The argument is 'being forced' to pay for it. So. Ask the question another way around - for all the people who say it's educates and informs and entertains - then let them pay for it - funny thing is I will bet most already have Sky or Netflix or both. If the BBC want to exist as a media organisation I have no problem with that whatsoever - and I certainly don't hate the BBC (that's just the usual repost when someone can't find another proper reason for their argument - they just simply label you with hate instead). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening." Do you watch anything on TV? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"when they spent 27 million of our money on gagging orders after the saville affair should have raised a red flag for many." Was this after Thatcher lobbied for a knighthood for him? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening." Those winter nights must just fly by at yours | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just out of interest, if the BBC goes to voluntary subscription only, how much would fans of the corporation be willing to pay on a monthly basis. £15? £20? £25? more?? How much is the cornucopia of televisual and radio delights as listed in above posts worth to you? " Seeing the prince nonce incriminate himself was probally worth the licence fee alone | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening. Those winter nights must just fly by at yours " Come on Lionel be nice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening. Those winter nights must just fly by at yours Come on Lionel be nice. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening. Those winter nights must just fly by at yours Come on Lionel be nice. " Who is lionel? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening. Those winter nights must just fly by at yours Come on Lionel be nice. Who is lionel?" Lionel Hutz, the hapless lawyer on the Simpsons. Arnie Pye, the "eye in the sky" helicopter reporter... also on the Simpsons! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening. Those winter nights must just fly by at yours Come on Lionel be nice. Who is lionel? Lionel Hutz, the hapless lawyer on the Simpsons. Arnie Pye, the "eye in the sky" helicopter reporter... also on the Simpsons! " I've never watched the simpsoms so I'll take your word for it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We haven't had a licence for a couple of years now. I get a letter every month from Capita (TVLA) threatening to visit, but they never do. We do not watch BBC on principle. The inflated salaries of the likes of Lineker and Dan Walker did it for us, and they are the loudest whingers about this decision. All these overpaid egos could volunteer to take no more than the Prime Minister, but somehow I don't see that happening. Those winter nights must just fly by at yours Come on Lionel be nice. Who is lionel?" should this be in pork pie thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Dories now back tracking on abolishing licence fee. She had a bashing from her fellow MPs as she had no plan in place on alternative options for funding. The level of ability in this cabinet is not even reaching the dizzy heights of mediocre. So is Dories now Liz Truss 2? They have taken Diane Abbots roll of “Gaffe Maker in Chief” and left her in their wake! " This is what you get with government by Tweet and done purely to distract attention from a leadership crisis. She frequently makes pronouncements well in advance of any thought and then has to roll back. She got a roasting from the Speaker too, for not addressing this to Parliament first. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"once the BBC started charging over 75s & threatening them with prison. they lost public confidence & its just a matter of time before they lose public funding altogether. " Actually, it was the tories who introduced free licenses for the over 75 then forced the BBC to scrap them. All so you could say things like that, but of course nobody ever bothers to check small facts like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is a new Led by Donkeys video. Search "Line of Duty Boris Johnson" Very well produced. I wonder if the odd member of the BBC helped out? "It’s almost as if Boris actually took part!
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just out of interest, if the BBC goes to voluntary subscription only, how much would fans of the corporation be willing to pay on a monthly basis. £15? £20? £25? more?? How much is the cornucopia of televisual and radio delights as listed in above posts worth to you? " I expect there’s be a tiered pricing system. Would happily pay £10 a month for BBC2 and BBC News. Don’t really watch the rest of the channels unless the Rugby internationals are on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Howver they end up funding it, personally I don't think £13 per month is a bad deal for: HD, Line of Duty, Peaky Blinders, Poldark, Vigil, Happy Valley, Bodyguard, Killing Eve, Inside No 9, Luther, Attenborough documentaries, imports, UK film premieres, 24 hour news, regional news, no ads, live sports coverage, panel shows, talkshows, quiz shows, childrens content, live politics, iPlayer... Plus all the the stuff they have done in the past (e.g Only Fools, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Two Ronnies etc for a small sample) Netflix, Amazon and all the other US based streaming services on the way will never give that level of attention to British based original content. And they'll still cost £10 per month. Each. Be careful what you wish for. " Per se, £13 per month for what you have quoted is not a bad deal. However, there are slightly better deals out there. Take, for instance, the interweb. £30 per month (yeah, I know, it's much more expensive than the BBC). For that, I get a landline telephone, (Yeah, I know, VOIP and all that are killing landline voice over copper wire telephone) broadband and access to webites, apps, etc. I even get youtube. Yeah, I know it's got adverts, but it's got Poldark! Also Two Ronnies, Fawlty Towers and even David Attenborough. However, I take your advice seriously and of course, why don't the BBC carry a fabswingers channel? I'm being very carful about what I wish for. If Channel 4 can carry adverts and be self funding whilst providing alternative viewing, then why can't the BBC? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"when they spent 27 million of our money on gagging orders after the saville affair should have raised a red flag for many." Good point. I agree totally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just out of interest, if the BBC goes to voluntary subscription only, how much would fans of the corporation be willing to pay on a monthly basis. £15? £20? £25? more?? How much is the cornucopia of televisual and radio delights as listed in above posts worth to you? I expect there’s be a tiered pricing system. Would happily pay £10 a month for BBC2 and BBC News. Don’t really watch the rest of the channels unless the Rugby internationals are on. " They dont even get all the rugby internationals these days either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
In the age of Netflix and other platforms. I don’t think I would bother paying a subscription for the bbc. I hardly watch tv anyway and when I do its not the bbc.
What I did not know was it’s educational services so it’s certainly a difficult choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...I take your advice seriously and of course, why don't the BBC carry a fabswingers channel? I'm being very carful about what I wish for. " Good grief, would anyone watch this crap on TV? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...I take your advice seriously and of course, why don't the BBC carry a fabswingers channel? I'm being very carful about what I wish for. Good grief, would anyone watch this crap on TV? "Probably not. I mean, why pay for a tv licence to browse a fab channel when it can be browsed for free on the interweb? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The BBC hasn't put a single show out that we find entertaining in decades. Plus when it comes to news they simply parrot the same news as everybody else, and they all have the same viewpoint." Curious as to what programmes you’ve watched in the last two decades ? Also the bbc sell their news globally so the same spouting quite often is generated initially by the BBC ‘s global network. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"when they spent 27 million of our money on gagging orders after the saville affair should have raised a red flag for many." Theres no one daft enough to bring that name up in public again now is there, lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. " I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public." So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . " Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics." I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. " no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative." I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. " there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services." Yes but who pays for the low volume viewing stuff that is educational or the world fee to air radio. It will disappear if funding is cut as popular will have to be the way forward and popular seems to be dumbing down. Do you want more Dave and five star along with influencer media? I don’t . I listened to radio four a lot and the world service is fascinating but the people out there won’t pay as they can’t. Soft power again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services. Yes but who pays for the low volume viewing stuff that is educational or the world fee to air radio. It will disappear if funding is cut as popular will have to be the way forward and popular seems to be dumbing down. Do you want more Dave and five star along with influencer media? I don’t . I listened to radio four a lot and the world service is fascinating but the people out there won’t pay as they can’t. Soft power again. " interesting, if this subject is of interest to you defund the bbc has alternatives. if bbc went behind a paywall viewing figures wouldn't matter. but to keep the public service broadcaster name a channel would need to be on air through the Ariel so to speak. as for radio I didn't think of that, would be a shame to go commercial as could bbc 1 if it was free to air I will have to wait for the outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services. Yes but who pays for the low volume viewing stuff that is educational or the world fee to air radio. It will disappear if funding is cut as popular will have to be the way forward and popular seems to be dumbing down. Do you want more Dave and five star along with influencer media? I don’t . I listened to radio four a lot and the world service is fascinating but the people out there won’t pay as they can’t. Soft power again. interesting, if this subject is of interest to you defund the bbc has alternatives. if bbc went behind a paywall viewing figures wouldn't matter. but to keep the public service broadcaster name a channel would need to be on air through the Ariel so to speak. as for radio I didn't think of that, would be a shame to go commercial as could bbc 1 if it was free to air I will have to wait for the outcome." Viewing figures would matter if the fees were calculated against revenue . What happened to world in action or such like . They were binned because they didn’t get the viewing figures the advertisers wanted. What would happen to all the BBC sounds who only get limited listeners? I’m thinking that the BBC should be able to sell its content globally and receive that money in the U.K. to support a wide variety of people as it does now. Until that is self sustaining then there should be a set fee paid by U.K. residents . It’s to our benefit to have it independent. Hopefully the figure per licence would get less not more. It should have a independent remunerations board and continue with its audit . It should be non profit ultimately so any extra revenue goes to re-invest. It should not have any shares to by or sell and always be owned by the people of the U.K. . I think it’s a bit like NHS it costs and doesn’t make a profit but hopefully it’s worth it. It’s also critical to keep the variety of arts alive and supported in this country . What a dull place it would be if it was just a choice of X factor or wheel of fortune followed by ten episodes of interceptors with love island to finish!! Ugh!! According to my brother who lives there a lot of Americans pay for the BBC because they don’t have the quality of programmes or the trust in their own networks. I have to balance this with there are some good programmes but they are drowned by the popular stuff . In just think the less educated and cultural this country gets the poorer it will get. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services. Yes but who pays for the low volume viewing stuff that is educational or the world fee to air radio. It will disappear if funding is cut as popular will have to be the way forward and popular seems to be dumbing down. Do you want more Dave and five star along with influencer media? I don’t . I listened to radio four a lot and the world service is fascinating but the people out there won’t pay as they can’t. Soft power again. interesting, if this subject is of interest to you defund the bbc has alternatives. if bbc went behind a paywall viewing figures wouldn't matter. but to keep the public service broadcaster name a channel would need to be on air through the Ariel so to speak. as for radio I didn't think of that, would be a shame to go commercial as could bbc 1 if it was free to air I will have to wait for the outcome. Viewing figures would matter if the fees were calculated against revenue . What happened to world in action or such like . They were binned because they didn’t get the viewing figures the advertisers wanted. What would happen to all the BBC sounds who only get limited listeners? I’m thinking that the BBC should be able to sell its content globally and receive that money in the U.K. to support a wide variety of people as it does now. Until that is self sustaining then there should be a set fee paid by U.K. residents . It’s to our benefit to have it independent. Hopefully the figure per licence would get less not more. It should have a independent remunerations board and continue with its audit . It should be non profit ultimately so any extra revenue goes to re-invest. It should not have any shares to by or sell and always be owned by the people of the U.K. . I think it’s a bit like NHS it costs and doesn’t make a profit but hopefully it’s worth it. It’s also critical to keep the variety of arts alive and supported in this country . What a dull place it would be if it was just a choice of X factor or wheel of fortune followed by ten episodes of interceptors with love island to finish!! Ugh!! According to my brother who lives there a lot of Americans pay for the BBC because they don’t have the quality of programmes or the trust in their own networks. I have to balance this with there are some good programmes but they are drowned by the popular stuff . In just think the less educated and cultural this country gets the poorer it will get. " World in Action was a Granda TV production for the ITV network it was lost to to deregulation, renew of tv production licenses. The BBC already sells its content worldwide and makes a profit, this profit cannot go on UK production so its a tad wrong, plus who do these profits go to? As you stated BBC Amercia is behind a paywall, it showed Killing Eve 6 months before it was on UK TV but UK license fee payers funded that programme, I know this due to being able to watch tv from around the world, I was a tad peeved. These are some of the arguments defund the bbc state, but I would pay for this service behind a paywall, it has no excuse for spending public money on profit overseas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services. Yes but who pays for the low volume viewing stuff that is educational or the world fee to air radio. It will disappear if funding is cut as popular will have to be the way forward and popular seems to be dumbing down. Do you want more Dave and five star along with influencer media? I don’t . I listened to radio four a lot and the world service is fascinating but the people out there won’t pay as they can’t. Soft power again. interesting, if this subject is of interest to you defund the bbc has alternatives. if bbc went behind a paywall viewing figures wouldn't matter. but to keep the public service broadcaster name a channel would need to be on air through the Ariel so to speak. as for radio I didn't think of that, would be a shame to go commercial as could bbc 1 if it was free to air I will have to wait for the outcome. Viewing figures would matter if the fees were calculated against revenue . What happened to world in action or such like . They were binned because they didn’t get the viewing figures the advertisers wanted. What would happen to all the BBC sounds who only get limited listeners? I’m thinking that the BBC should be able to sell its content globally and receive that money in the U.K. to support a wide variety of people as it does now. Until that is self sustaining then there should be a set fee paid by U.K. residents . It’s to our benefit to have it independent. Hopefully the figure per licence would get less not more. It should have a independent remunerations board and continue with its audit . It should be non profit ultimately so any extra revenue goes to re-invest. It should not have any shares to by or sell and always be owned by the people of the U.K. . I think it’s a bit like NHS it costs and doesn’t make a profit but hopefully it’s worth it. It’s also critical to keep the variety of arts alive and supported in this country . What a dull place it would be if it was just a choice of X factor or wheel of fortune followed by ten episodes of interceptors with love island to finish!! Ugh!! According to my brother who lives there a lot of Americans pay for the BBC because they don’t have the quality of programmes or the trust in their own networks. I have to balance this with there are some good programmes but they are drowned by the popular stuff . In just think the less educated and cultural this country gets the poorer it will get. World in Action was a Granda TV production for the ITV network it was lost to to deregulation, renew of tv production licenses. The BBC already sells its content worldwide and makes a profit, this profit cannot go on UK production so its a tad wrong, plus who do these profits go to? As you stated BBC Amercia is behind a paywall, it showed Killing Eve 6 months before it was on UK TV but UK license fee payers funded that programme, I know this due to being able to watch tv from around the world, I was a tad peeved. These are some of the arguments defund the bbc state, but I would pay for this service behind a paywall, it has no excuse for spending public money on profit overseas. " He’s gone but I agree with his last point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"when they spent 27 million of our money on gagging orders after the saville affair should have raised a red flag for many. Theres no one daft enough to bring that name up in public again now is there, lol" wink | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never had a problem paying for the licence. My problem has been paying excessive wages. Gary Lineker as example. 20 minutes work, not much for your buck there. Cbeebies is a great channel for toddlers and parents. The dramas and big programs are still a high standard. So whatever is sold around the world it would be interesting to know what profit trickles back and where. I have like us all grew up with the beeb, I thought that the license was their only income, until I came across BBC Amercia which is BBC behind a paywall. Then I discovered BBC programmes in Europe such as the blue planet behind a pay wall, BBC films BBc worldwide, and other interest that bring a profit to the BEEB. So I now see the license fee as a tax a tax to control the Beebs output and keep it in control. thank god for the rise of the streaming service where I can't see BBC programmes as the BBC couldn't sell their programmes to other streaming services as their programmes are funded by the public. So the BBC raises funds to improve their revenue and keep the licence fee down by charging other countries to watch programmes . I think that can only be a positive . Its against the charter under which the BBC operates, thus they cannot add revenues made outside of the uk, hence the license fee will always rise as tv production becomes more expensive, this is the way our public service broadcaster is treated by government to keep them in line. believe it or not the beeb makes more cash than net flicks worldwide and yes they are trusted worldwide from the comments made to me from people from abroad. I like the beeb as a broadcaster it lifts British interests around the world, I just don't like the politics. I can only agree with most of that. I wasn’t aware of the charter restrictions on foreign earnings so my apologies for my earlier comment. Why on earth is that accepted? It’s nuts !! EON the French government owned energy generator charges U.K. customers and makes a profit sent back to the French. We do have some strange quietly kept stuff in this country. I know the charging pensioners was a political game by the tories in this country and they blamed the BBC . I think the politics of the BBC is middle and they are accused by both sides so that is a good thing in my view. I want them challenging both sides harder if anything. no need to apologise its a debate we all learn by speaking to each other. I remember the bbc has uncovered lots of breaking stories and documentaries which must have made governments of the past fume. so they control them with the license fee, channel 4 our having their own issues as the gov' has threatened to sell them off. if they can't control these news outlets then the gov' will sell to the highest bidder usually a tory coffer, then all neutrality is gone and channel 4 will have to toe the new owners tune or narrative. I really think the BBC is a massive asset and is powerful enough to fight the politicians if they try to control the narrative. I think in the era of increasingly sinister government controls we definitely need an independent media outlet. there are many ways the bbc are in control of themselves, but holding the purse strings for uk operations isn't one of them. the bbc could have bbc one as free to air and put the other channels behind a paywall, I wouldn't mind that at all now that I already use streaming services. Yes but who pays for the low volume viewing stuff that is educational or the world fee to air radio. It will disappear if funding is cut as popular will have to be the way forward and popular seems to be dumbing down. Do you want more Dave and five star along with influencer media? I don’t . I listened to radio four a lot and the world service is fascinating but the people out there won’t pay as they can’t. Soft power again. interesting, if this subject is of interest to you defund the bbc has alternatives. if bbc went behind a paywall viewing figures wouldn't matter. but to keep the public service broadcaster name a channel would need to be on air through the Ariel so to speak. as for radio I didn't think of that, would be a shame to go commercial as could bbc 1 if it was free to air I will have to wait for the outcome. Viewing figures would matter if the fees were calculated against revenue . What happened to world in action or such like . They were binned because they didn’t get the viewing figures the advertisers wanted. What would happen to all the BBC sounds who only get limited listeners? I’m thinking that the BBC should be able to sell its content globally and receive that money in the U.K. to support a wide variety of people as it does now. Until that is self sustaining then there should be a set fee paid by U.K. residents . It’s to our benefit to have it independent. Hopefully the figure per licence would get less not more. It should have a independent remunerations board and continue with its audit . It should be non profit ultimately so any extra revenue goes to re-invest. It should not have any shares to by or sell and always be owned by the people of the U.K. . I think it’s a bit like NHS it costs and doesn’t make a profit but hopefully it’s worth it. It’s also critical to keep the variety of arts alive and supported in this country . What a dull place it would be if it was just a choice of X factor or wheel of fortune followed by ten episodes of interceptors with love island to finish!! Ugh!! According to my brother who lives there a lot of Americans pay for the BBC because they don’t have the quality of programmes or the trust in their own networks. I have to balance this with there are some good programmes but they are drowned by the popular stuff . In just think the less educated and cultural this country gets the poorer it will get. World in Action was a Granda TV production for the ITV network it was lost to to deregulation, renew of tv production licenses. The BBC already sells its content worldwide and makes a profit, this profit cannot go on UK production so its a tad wrong, plus who do these profits go to? As you stated BBC Amercia is behind a paywall, it showed Killing Eve 6 months before it was on UK TV but UK license fee payers funded that programme, I know this due to being able to watch tv from around the world, I was a tad peeved. These are some of the arguments defund the bbc state, but I would pay for this service behind a paywall, it has no excuse for spending public money on profit overseas. He’s gone but I agree with his last point. "It's not overseas "profit" if it feeds back into the BBC... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, are Netflix and Amazon and Disney providing adequate coverage of what's happening in Ukraine? Is the BBC reporting too biased?" The BBC is biased - and there are many other news networks to choose from! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, are Netflix and Amazon and Disney providing adequate coverage of what's happening in Ukraine? Is the BBC reporting too biased? The BBC is biased - and there are many other news networks to choose from! " Is the BBC biased in it's reporting of Ukraine? Can you explain how? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, are Netflix and Amazon and Disney providing adequate coverage of what's happening in Ukraine? Is the BBC reporting too biased? The BBC is biased - and there are many other news networks to choose from! " ............................... Do you believe those other networks are unbiased or is it they have a bias you agree with? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting to hear today that Netflix subscribers are falling and they're considering a cheaper tariff with adverts. I'll happily continue paying the license fee for high quality content and no adverts!" So you don't watch any ad' driven TV at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting to hear today that Netflix subscribers are falling and they're considering a cheaper tariff with adverts. I'll happily continue paying the license fee for high quality content and no adverts! So you don't watch any ad' driven TV at all?" ................................. Yes of course I do, but I wouldn't pay additionally for the privilege. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Netflix wouldn't ask you to. They are simply adding another tier for those who want a cheaper Netflix and are ad' tolerant. Many people love ad's - plus it's a great time to pop out for coffee lol. It gives them - another income stream - just like the BBC should have ".................................. Good for Netflix but it's not an offer that would appeal to me  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So assuming most people on her just watch tv and listen to radio for entertainment . Interesting how no one is mentioning the dumbing down of our Media . Having seen and experienced the educational and important stuff the bbc does here I’m shocked by how people just judge it by game shows and drama . It’s not sky and should never be treated as such. The BBC is excellent for the arts and their radio service is top notch. I plays a very important role in helping unknown or underground artists set their foot in the door. However BBC news is a mess and needs a massive overhaul. Their politics coverage has simply turned into a mouthpiece for the tory government (see Laura K). Their recent articles on Trans people has been terrible - see the article which features contributions from a lesbian pornstar who called for trans women to be lynched. To date they still haven't taken the article down nor have they apologised. BBC was known around the world for its top notch programming. Unfortunately recent tory influence has affected this. Classic example of tories running something into the ground, then using that very same reason to reduce funding (see NHS)." Right-on Sista! X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Funny the way the BBC aren't commercial yet they are . . . 'According to the BBC's 2018/19 Annual Report, its total income was £4.8 billion (£4,889 billion) a decrease from £5,062 billion in 2017/18 – partly owing to a 3.7% phased reduction in government funding for free over-75s TV licences,[121] which can be broken down as follows:' £1.199 billion from the BBC's commercial businesses and government grants. The majority of the BBC's commercial output comes from its commercial arm BBC Worldwide who sell programmes abroad and exploit key brands for merchandise. Of their 2012/13 sales, 27% were centred on the five key "superbrands" of Doctor Who, Top Gear, Strictly Come Dancing (known as Dancing with the Stars internationally), the BBC's archive of natural history programming (collected under the umbrella of BBC Earth) and the (now sold) travel guide brand Lonely Planet. "So are you saying a publicly owned company should not also be allowed to generate profits from overseas markets? You know, increase the value of that publicly owned asset! Better tell the French Govt that about EDF. Oh an Germany and their international train operating publicly owned businesses. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
