What do you think would happen if the bbc closed down tomorrow ?
Krustov
why .
Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
As none of the 'bbc must exist at all cost' posters will say why they
think the way they do - it seems clear whatever events they visualise
must be really bad shit .
Perhaps a can of coke can be used as comparison .....
- its drunk by rock stars and the rich and famous and when you take a
drink of it - it conjours up images of tropical sun kissed beaches and
the good life in a desired relaxing easy going laid life style
- but to other people its just a fizzy drink
The point being that if coke stopped being made tomorrow then people
would just start drinking pepsi instead .
Isnt it safe to say that if the bbc closed down tomorrow then people
would just start watching different tv channels .
If indeed that is the case - and unless the 'bbc must exist' posters can
give good valid reasons why they think the way they do - then there isnt
actually any real need to continue the unfair and brute force collection
of the bbc licence fee is there .
michael adams
"Krustov" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2082f8b2d...@news.newsreader.com...
> What do you think would happen if the bbc closed down tomorrow ?
Any number of posters to this NewsGroup, you included
would have f*ck all to post about, for a start.
Next!
michael adams
...
Alan Hope
>The point being that if coke stopped being made tomorrow then people
>would just start drinking pepsi instead .
>Isnt it safe to say that if the bbc closed down tomorrow then people
>would just start watching different tv channels .
Yes, but in that case the alternative is not Pepsi, it's more like
Lidl's own brand.
--
Alan Hope
http://sour-grapes.tumblr.com/
Daniel Lincoln
Gaz
> Krustov goes:
>
>> The point being that if coke stopped being made tomorrow then people
>> would just start drinking pepsi instead .
>
>> Isnt it safe to say that if the bbc closed down tomorrow then people
>> would just start watching different tv channels .
>
> Yes, but in that case the alternative is not Pepsi, it's more like
> Lidl's own brand.
It is true that orginal british tv production has gone downhill. We only
really have BBC, ITV and Ch4 producing original (and generic) programming.
ITV can be discounted, as it is almost entirely forumlaic, talentless,
cringeworthy rubbish. Ch4 are pushing the boundaries in commissioning non
mainstream docs, investigative journalism and adult drama, but like the BBC
they do fall into the trap of fawning over minority groups.
The BBC can be an excellent institution, its radio, internet and tv output
are generally quite good. However its size and dominance on the uk media
stage make it a dangerous organisation, open to infiltration, and as was the
case, a showcase for government propoganda/
.
Gaz
Flying Tortoise
> Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
> why .
>
> Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
> catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
>
> As none of the 'bbc must exist at all cost' posters will say why they
> think the way they do - it seems clear whatever events they visualise
> must be really bad shit
No shipping forecast, no foreign broadcast monitoring station, no
radio comedy, no Crimewatch, no World Service, no access to
Parliament, no choral evensong, no Children in Need .... oh yes,
that's a world I want to live in! Nice attempt at reductionsim,
though ... the BBC - a couple of TV channels. That could catch on if
only it weren't so farcically inaccurate!
>
> Perhaps a can of coke can be used as comparison .....
No, it can't!
>
> - its drunk by rock stars and the rich and famous and when you take a
> drink of it - it conjours up images of tropical sun kissed beaches and
> the good life in a desired relaxing easy going laid life style
>
> - but to other people its just a fizzy drink
>
> The point being that if coke stopped being made tomorrow then people
> would just start drinking pepsi instead .
>
If Coke stopped being made tomorrow the world economy would collapse!
> Isnt it safe to say that if the bbc closed down tomorrow then people
> would just start watching different tv channels .
Well, apart from the thousands who find themselves unemployed and
having to sell their tellies as a result possibly?
>
> If indeed that is the case - and unless the 'bbc must exist' posters can
> give good valid reasons why they think the way they do - then there isnt
Of course the BBC doesn't have to exist. Neither do public libraries,
sports centres, or, come to that, hospitals and refuse collection, all
of which you are given no choice about paying for whather you make use
of them or not! Dammit, if people want to read and get sweaty why
should folk that buy books and have tennis courts and swimming pools
in their back gardens pay for them them to have the privilege?
> actually any real need to continue the unfair and brute force collection
> of the bbc licence fee is there .
You are charged a fee to licence your use of television equipment. Do
you seriously think any Government would abandon that licence fee if
the Beeb didn't exist? Nice little earner like that?
allan tracy
> Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
> catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
>
Far from it, their extensive program archives would be trawlled over
by the commercial stations who would then repeat them endlessly as the
do already on the statelite stations.
Damot
>Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
>why .
>..
Give it a couple of weeks and nobody would really notice.
Flying Tortoise
24 hour repeats then. Even more enticing ... not!
Richard Brooks
> Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
> why .
>
> Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
> catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
>
> As none of the 'bbc must exist at all cost' posters will say why they
> think the way they do - it seems clear whatever events they visualise
> must be really bad shit .
>
>
> Perhaps a can of coke can be used as comparison .....
>
> - its drunk by rock stars and the rich and famous and when you take a
> drink of it - it conjours up images of tropical sun kissed beaches and
> the good life in a desired relaxing easy going laid life style
>
> - but to other people its just a fizzy drink
Let's lose them all as all are just a fizzy drink or your famous 'box of
chocolates' from that indifferent film.
I don't think that the BBC should 'exist at all costs' but neither do I
think that any of the other channels should or need to, either.
Richard.
--
"Initiative is punishable."
Russian business saying.
Krustov
<Richard Brooks>
<Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:55 +0100>
<Q-qdnePo8ZAumoTb...@bt.com>
> I don't think that the BBC should 'exist at all costs' but neither do I
> think that any of the other channels should or need to, either.
>
The bbc isnt like other tv channels as the bbc is the one and only tv
network who can plunder your bank account every month - regardless if
you do or dont watch any bbc channels .
--
www.freeviewepg.co.uk
(under construction)
Clark.W.Griswold
There'd be some seriously pissed off 'Life on Mars' fans, could you
hold off 'til next wednesday?
Phil
Richard Brooks
Doesn't Sky get some monies for it's rather worthless efforts even if
you don't watch Sky but have a dish or cable service ?
Ask your cable service or Sky how much less it would cost you if you
didn't watch any of the Sky channels ?
Seriously, the only things worth watching last week was "Secret Files of
the Inquisition" on UKTV History and possibly one or two films on Film 4
and that's it!
Alan Hope
Doesn't say much for your bank account if eleven quid out counts as
plundering.
Bit short of cash, are we? The php market not what you thought it
might be?
Edward Cowling London UK
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>Isnt it safe to say that if the bbc closed down tomorrow then people
>would just start watching different tv channels .
>
Heretic !!
You're set on course for hell, unbeliever :-)
--
Edward Cowling London UK
Baldoni
Krustov <m...@privacy.net> typed:
70 % of the population of Afghanistan would go mental as the BBC produces
their favorite program. Paid for by us licence payers for the BBC to be
able to get a message on how to live civilized lives.
That is but one example.
Count Baldoni
AC
"Richard Brooks" <richar...@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote in
message news:KqednQA3E7ekg4Tb...@bt.com...
Bloody, fucking, fantastic point. And like all the best points, its
really obvious once some-one (you) says it.
I dont watch any *sky* channels, but I do have to pay sky to use thier
satalite infrastructure to see non Sky chanels.
Yeah, this line of thinking does have some holes, but its broadly the
same thinking.
Nice one Richard
AC
AC
"Phil" <sp...@ddressforme.com> wrote in message
news:D29Sh.559$fg3...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Well it would really piss off all of the white, liberal
> heterosexuals.
>
Does that make you a black, neo-con, gay?
How cool :)
AC
Richard Brooks
A serious point might be a php based agency for plumbers, builders
painters & decorators, for them to grab hold of one of a team that's
needed for a job but someone's dropped out.
A painter/decorator mate of mine has this trouble all the time when he'd
had a job on. All he'd have to do is to do a lookup, call the bloke up
and tell them where to meet him to start. The agency (Krusty) gets
their cut.
I'm waiting for the advert where some forlorn guy says "I replied to one
of those Computeach ads and the work dried up." Pull back the camera
and we see him in a boiler suit and a grin appears on his face "now I'm
a plumber I'm bloody raking it in! Any chance of a cup of tea, love,
I've got to knock off early today so we'll have that shag in a minute!"
Alan Hope
>A serious point might be a php based agency for plumbers, builders
>painters & decorators, for them to grab hold of one of a team that's
>needed for a job but someone's dropped out.
I may be old-fashioned, but in my experience every contractor in an
area already knows exactly where he can lay his hands on a bit of
one-day casual labour, right now or within fifteen minutes. They use
the same local sources to recruit labour in the first place. It's all
bush telegraph. I can't see how it would help to know there was a
plasterer free in Cornwall if you had a job on in Glasgow.
Aside from anything else, all the fittest workmen these days are
Poles, and you need to know a way to get one, such is the demand. They
wouldn't sign up for some poxy php site because they don't need to,
and because it might blow the gaff.
Or are you still using Irishmen?
Richard Brooks
> Richard Brooks goes:
> Aside from anything else, all the fittest workmen these days are
> Poles, and you need to know a way to get one, such is the demand. They
> wouldn't sign up for some poxy php site because they don't need to,
> and because it might blow the gaff.
>
> Or are you still using Irishmen?
Me, it would probably be British Jamaicans if it was people I knew but
anything major then that's covered by the council. There's even a
lookup book for what needs doing, almost like an I-Spy book.
John Rowland
> "Krustov" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2082f8b2d...@news.newsreader.com...
>
>> What do you think would happen if the bbc closed down tomorrow ?
All of London's rent boys would starve.
Carl Waring
> Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
> why .
>
> Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
> catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
If it was "only a couple of TV channels" you might have a point; though
probably not!
However, the fact is that the BBC provides:
* 8 TV channels
* 8 National radio channels
* 40 local radio channels
* 4 regional radio stations
* The uk's biggest and mos popular (non-search-engine) website.
So a little more than "a couple of TV channels" then!
> As none of the 'bbc must exist at all cost' posters will say why they
> think the way they do - it seems clear whatever events they visualise
> must be really bad shit .
We have. You just seem to somehow forget it every other week!
So, here we go again..
Because no other broadcaster produces anything like as broad a range of
UK-produced programming and is quite often prepared to take risks with
programmes that would simply not be made by commercial broadcasters.
> Perhaps a can of coke can be used as comparison .....
You could, but as I don't drink Coke or any other fizzy drink for that
matter, the analogy is lost on me ;-)
> The point being that if coke stopped being made tomorrow then people
> would just start drinking pepsi instead .
Yes, but that's because it's, essentially, the EXACT SAME DRINK.
> Isnt it safe to say that if the bbc closed down tomorrow then people
> would just start watching different tv channels .
Yes, but we would lose a lot more than we would gain, and our TV viewing
would be much worse for it.
> If indeed that is the case - and unless the 'bbc must exist' posters
> can give good valid reasons why they think the way they do - then
> there isnt actually any real need to continue the unfair and brute
> force collection of the bbc licence fee is there .
Once again, it's a TV LICENCE; a licence to use a TV for receiving ANY
broadcast TV signals. So IF the BBC did close down tomorrow, you would
(okay, might!) still need the licence. However, the Govt. would simply put
the money to some other use.
--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
DGLite: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495 - FREE!!!
http://www.snap-seo.co.uk/web-hosting/web-hosting-packages.php
Packages ranging from FREE to UNLIMITED!
Carl Waring
> Krustov said the following on 08/04/07 17:13:
>> <uk.media.tv.misc>
>> <Richard Brooks>
>> <Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:55 +0100>
>> <Q-qdnePo8ZAumoTb...@bt.com>
>>
>>> I don't think that the BBC should 'exist at all costs' but neither
>>> do I think that any of the other channels should or need to, either.
>>>
>>
>> The bbc isnt like other tv channels as the bbc is the one and only tv
>> network who can plunder your bank account every month - regardless if
>> you do or dont watch any bbc channels .
>
> Doesn't Sky get some monies for it's rather worthless efforts even if
> you don't watch Sky but have a dish or cable service ?
>
> Ask your cable service or Sky how much less it would cost you if you
> didn't watch any of the Sky channels ?
Well, of course VM *did* just lose the Sky channels (not Sports or Movies
though) and, although there has been no "across the board" subs reduction, a
lot of people have got 'deals' to pay less and the money saved is being used
to get more programming for their 'On Demand' service.
Carl Waring
Apart from the fact that it's completely inaccurate or, put another way,
just plain WRONG.
The TV LICENCE FEE is used to fund the UK BBC services ONLY. NOTHING ELSE.
While I don't know exactly what you're referring to, I can only assume it's
on either the World Service or BBC Prime or something. That being the case,
then NONE of these services use the money from made from the UK TVL.
The World Service is, in fact, Govt. funded (NOT by the TVLF!) and BBC Prime
is a commercial - ie ad funded - service.
Therefore your argument fails. Please try again ;-)
The Cardboard Voord
Krustov said:
>Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
>why .
Oh give it a rest you sad live at home virgin.
Edward Cowling London UK
Voord <notmy...@address.com> writes
I'm sure he's paid by Rupert Murdoch.
Lister
Stop likening Krusty to Richard Branson :)
Krustov
<Lister>
<Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:31:59 +0100>
<0vmk13tegork1qfgd...@4ax.com>
> >Oh give it a rest you sad live at home virgin.
>
>
> Stop likening Krusty to Richard Branson :)
>
Is being a sad live at home virgin such a bad thing .
If so - doesnt that mean the people who say that must regard moving away
from home and having sex at least once as being the ultimate achievment
in life - if not the meaning of life the universe and everything .
--
www.freeviewepg.co.uk
(under construction)
Fred X
> Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
> why .
>
> Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
> catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
>
> As none of the 'bbc must exist at all cost' posters will say why they
> think the way they do - it seems clear whatever events they visualise
> must be really bad shit .
>
Well it wouldn't be a catastrophe, but the effects would be felt in subtle
ways across the whole of the TV industry. For starters the commercial
sector would have to start paying for the full costs of training their
technical staff as a lot of them have been trained by the Beeb. Also a lot
of independant production companies would go bust as they rely on BBC
comissions. The biggest impact though would be in the music industry as it
would then have to rely on the commercial radio stations for promoting
new band and music, which would be amusing, although not if you are in an
up and coming band!
Fred X
The Cardboard Voord
Krustov said:
Could you give me some alternatives? Anything involving php (whatever
the fuck that is) doesn't count.
You won't have seen the sketch show pilot "Spacehopper" (it was on the
BBC) but there was a moment that springs to mind where, during a
montage of people recounting their first sexual experiences, one chap
says he's saving himself for someone who likes him.
On a slightly more serious note, if you ever experience sex with
someone you love (but aren't related to) you might realise that, yes,
in fact that is the meaning which you are seeking.
Keep on looking though.
Krustov
<The Cardboard Voord>
<Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:54:11 GMT>
<0fgl13tte26g8djv3...@4ax.com>
> >> >Oh give it a rest you sad live at home virgin.
> >>
> >>
> >> Stop likening Krusty to Richard Branson :)
> >>
> >
> >Is being a sad live at home virgin such a bad thing .
> >
> >If so - doesnt that mean the people who say that must regard moving away
> >from home and having sex at least once as being the ultimate achievment
> >in life - if not the meaning of life the universe and everything .
>
> Could you give me some alternatives?
>
Wasnt it yourself who stated what the definiton a full and complete
happy life was by stating what you think it isnt .
Either way , If your asking for alternatives then that must mean you
dont have a full and complete happy life either .
--
www.freeviewepg.co.uk
(under construction)
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
> The biggest impact though would be in the music industry as it
> would then have to rely on the commercial radio stations for promoting
> new band and music, which would be amusing, although not if you are in an
> up and coming band!
I believe the biggest impact would be an immediate large increase in Sky
subscription charges and an immediate cancellation of a number of the more
expensive to provide Sky services.
In addition, the license fee would not disappear. The remaining terrestial
channels would campaign for it to be retained and split between ITV,Ch4 and
5 depending on the relative audience numbers.
--
Geoff Lane, Airstrip One
90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
JNugent
> Krustov <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Some people think the bbc must exist at all costs - but they never say
>>why .
>>Do they really think losing a couple of tv channels would be
>>catastrophic and bring the uk to grinding halt ? .
> No shipping forecast, no foreign broadcast monitoring station,
Are those paid for out of the licence?
Presumably, any broadcaster could do them if paid.
Does the BBC actually do the second of them? I
thought that was a function of GCHQ?
> no radio comedy, no Crimewatch,
OK, non-BBC radio in the UK is fairly dire. Why
Ofcom doesn't insist on something a bit better on
commercial radio than playing records is one of
life's mysteries. But there could be a more
balanced output if Parliament set its mind to it.
As for Crimewatch - that is an idea that started
on ITV, forty+ years ago, with "Police Five",
"Police File", etc.
> no World Service, no access to Parliament,
Are either of those paid for out of the licence?
Presumably, any broadcaster could do them if paid.
> no choral evensong,
OK.
> no Children in Need ....
You've convinced me - scrap the licence fee.
[ ... ]
> Of course the BBC doesn't have to exist. Neither do public libraries,
> sports centres, or, come to that, hospitals and refuse collection, all
> of which you are given no choice about paying for whather you make use
> of them or not! Dammit, if people want to read and get sweaty why
> should folk that buy books and have tennis courts and swimming pools
> in their back gardens pay for them them to have the privilege?
You cannot be serious. The BBC, important as it
is, is not in the same league as hospitals or a
public health system.
Yes - the BBC *could* be as vital as the public
library service. But it decided not to be in that
sort of business a couple of decades ago.
> You are charged a fee to licence your use of television equipment.
Oh, give it a rest.
JNugent
> Krustov said the following on 08/04/07 17:13:
>
>> <uk.media.tv.misc>
>> <Richard Brooks>
>> <Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:55 +0100>
>> <Q-qdnePo8ZAumoTb...@bt.com>
>>
>>> I don't think that the BBC should 'exist at all costs' but neither do
>>> I think that any of the other channels should or need to, either.
>>>
>>
>> The bbc isnt like other tv channels as the bbc is the one and only tv
>> network who can plunder your bank account every month - regardless if
>> you do or dont watch any bbc channels .
> Doesn't Sky get some monies for it's rather worthless efforts even if
> you don't watch Sky but have a dish or cable service ?
You can get satellite services (an incredibly
large number of them) for free.
You just pay for the equipment and installation.
Richard Brooks
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>> Doesn't Sky get some monies for it's rather worthless efforts even if
>> you don't watch Sky but have a dish or cable service ?
>
> You can get satellite services (an incredibly large number of them) for
> free.
>
> You just pay for the equipment and installation.
Which channels come without adverts ? It's actually an important point
as anything worth watching has to have the adverts and other crap cut
out before it's watchable. I find adverts a good excuse to wander to
another channel or out of the room, then not finish watching what I
started to watch.
So, maybe adverts are a good thing if it stops people watching ?
Flying Tortoise
> > No shipping forecast, no foreign broadcast monitoring station,
>
> Are those paid for out of the licence?
No, but that wasn't the question. The question was what would happen
if the BBC closed down.
>
> Presumably, any broadcaster could do them if paid.
>
> Does the BBC actually do the second of them? I
> thought that was a function of GCHQ?
>
GCHQ monitors transmissions other than broadcast media. The Beeb
monitors broadcast media ...
"BBC Monitoring is a division of the British Broadcasting Corporation
that monitors the mass media worldwide and acts as the British
Government's provider of open source intelligence (OSINT). It is based
at Caversham Park in Caversham, Reading in southern England, and
selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news
agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70
languages. It has overseas offices in Moscow, Nairobi, Kiev, Baku and
Tashkent.
Although nominally and administratively part of the BBC, BBC
Monitoring does not receive any licence fee money and is instead
funded directly by its stakeholders as well as by subscriptions from
official and commercial bodies throughout the world. Customers for BBC
Monitoring's services include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the
Defence Intelligence Staff, and other government bodies and
intelligence agencies."
> > no radio comedy, no Crimewatch,
>
> OK, non-BBC radio in the UK is fairly dire. Why
> Ofcom doesn't insist on something a bit better on
> commercial radio than playing records is one of
> life's mysteries. But there could be a more
> balanced output if Parliament set its mind to it.
Well, no. By definition the output is determined by the sort of
programming advertisers are prepared to place adverts in which is
itself determined by the number of listeners a programme can command.
If Parliament started making rules, the commercial radio sector could
literally disappear overnight.
>
> As for Crimewatch - that is an idea that started
> on ITV, forty+ years ago, with "Police Five",
> "Police File", etc.
Er yes. But one which ITV abandoned and only ever devoted a minimum
amount of time to before that.
>
> > no World Service, no access to Parliament,
>
> Are either of those paid for out of the licence?
Again, not the question.
>
> Presumably, any broadcaster could do them if paid.
>
The World service network would be very difficult to emulate from
scratch. Parliament they could, but would they?
> > no choral evensong,
>
> OK.
>
> > no Children in Need ....
>
> You've convinced me - scrap the licence fee.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Of course the BBC doesn't have to exist. Neither do public libraries,
> > sports centres, or, come to that, hospitals and refuse collection, all
> > of which you are given no choice about paying for whether you make use
> > of them or not! Dammit, if people want to read and get sweaty why
> > should folk that buy books and have tennis courts and swimming pools
> > in their back gardens pay for them them to have the privilege?
>
> You cannot be serious. The BBC, important as it
> is, is not in the same league as hospitals or a
> public health system.
>
> Yes - the BBC *could* be as vital as the public
> library service. But it decided not to be in that
> sort of business a couple of decades ago.
That's a matter of opinion. It's still the Open University broadcaster
for example.
>
> > You are charged a fee to licence your use of television equipment.
>
> Oh, give it a rest.
Truth hurts does it?
JNugent
>>>No shipping forecast, no foreign broadcast monitoring station,
>>Are those paid for out of the licence?
> No, but that wasn't the question. The question was what would happen
> if the BBC closed down.
And the answer is that someone else would provide
the services.
>>Presumably, any broadcaster could do them if paid.
>>Does the BBC actually do the second of them? I
>>thought that was a function of GCHQ?
> GCHQ monitors transmissions other than broadcast media. The Beeb
> monitors broadcast media ...
But anyone could do it on the same financial terms.
> "BBC Monitoring is a division of the British Broadcasting Corporation
> that monitors the mass media worldwide and acts as the British
> Government's provider of open source intelligence (OSINT). It is based
> at Caversham Park in Caversham, Reading in southern England, and
> selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news
> agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70
> languages. It has overseas offices in Moscow, Nairobi, Kiev, Baku and
> Tashkent.
> Although nominally and administratively part of the BBC, BBC
> Monitoring does not receive any licence fee money and is instead
> funded directly by its stakeholders as well as by subscriptions from
> official and commercial bodies throughout the world. Customers for BBC
> Monitoring's services include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the
> Defence Intelligence Staff, and other government bodies and
> intelligence agencies."
Exactly. The name would change, but the function
would not.
>>>no radio comedy, no Crimewatch,
>>OK, non-BBC radio in the UK is fairly dire. Why
>>Ofcom doesn't insist on something a bit better on
>>commercial radio than playing records is one of
>>life's mysteries. But there could be a more
>>balanced output if Parliament set its mind to it.
> Well, no. By definition the output is determined by the sort of
> programming advertisers are prepared to place adverts in which is
> itself determined by the number of listeners a programme can command.
> If Parliament started making rules, the commercial radio sector could
> literally disappear overnight.
I don't think so. If anyone had proposed starting
a commercial classical music station in (say)
1974, you'd have said they were mad.
>>As for Crimewatch - that is an idea that started
>>on ITV, forty+ years ago, with "Police Five",
>>"Police File", etc.
> Er yes. But one which ITV abandoned and only ever devoted a minimum
> amount of time to before that.
It's a TV programme. Anyone could make it.
>>>no World Service, no access to Parliament,
>>Are either of those paid for out of the licence?
> Again, not the question.
>>Presumably, any broadcaster could do them if paid.
> The World service network would be very difficult to emulate from
> scratch. Parliament they could, but would they?
There'd be money in it for someone.
Not that anyone admits to watching it very much.
>>>no choral evensong,
>>OK.
>>>no Children in Need ....
>>You've convinced me - scrap the licence fee.
>>[ ... ]
>>>Of course the BBC doesn't have to exist. Neither do public libraries,
>>>sports centres, or, come to that, hospitals and refuse collection, all
>>>of which you are given no choice about paying for whether you make use
>>>of them or not! Dammit, if people want to read and get sweaty why
>>>should folk that buy books and have tennis courts and swimming pools
>>>in their back gardens pay for them them to have the privilege?
>>You cannot be serious. The BBC, important as it
>>is, is not in the same league as hospitals or a
>>public health system.
>>Yes - the BBC *could* be as vital as the public
>>library service. But it decided not to be in that
>>sort of business a couple of decades ago.
> That's a matter of opinion. It's still the Open University broadcaster
> for example.
Are you sure?
>>>You are charged a fee to licence your use of television equipment.
>>Oh, give it a rest.
> Truth hurts does it?
We all know what the strict wording of the legal
position is. No-one disputes it.
We all (including you) also know that the licence
fee is simply the (not quite unique) way in which
the BBC is funded. It is a tax to fund the BBC.
That may be no bad thing, but that does not mean
that the BBC or the licence fee are above
criticism or beyond question.
Krustov
<JNugent>
<Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:48:41 +0100>
<T6CdnUEDjph7M4Hb...@pipex.net>
> >>Oh, give it a rest.
>
> > Truth hurts does it?
>
> We all know what the strict wording of the legal
> position is. No-one disputes it.
>
> We all (including you) also know that the licence
> fee is simply the (not quite unique) way in which
> the BBC is funded. It is a tax to fund the BBC.
> That may be no bad thing, but that does not mean
> that the BBC or the licence fee are above
> criticism or beyond question.
>
Not only did somebody at the bbc suggest the once a year on friday
nights children in need thingy get turned into a week long event - but
somebody at the bbc actually agreed with it .
In effect , People are paying to have a collection tin rattled under
their nose for a solid week .
--
www.freeviewepg.co.uk
(under construction)
Hognoxious
news:bcbi131mdojj5ho1n...@4ax.com...
...
> Doesn't say much for your bank account if eleven quid out counts as
> plundering.
Says the man who shops at Lidl. Binner!
Hognoxious
news:biek13dgq4qhq88a5...@4ax.com...
That's not fair. You forgot to mention he's a dopehead.
Alan Hope
One never needs to remember where one went with a stalker around.
Thank goodness for Hoggie. Must ask him for a spreadsheet on my
spending last month. You'll have it all noted, eh Hoggie?