|
|
Post by witchfinder on Jul 14, 2024 11:25:37 GMT
So which commercial broadcaster offers better value for money ? SKY - which makes virtually nothing, contributes nothing to the UK film and TV production industry, contributes next to nothing to British culture, has a broadcast output which is mostly foreign, with large amounts of repeats. Or maybe ITV - which cannot aford to make childrens programmes any more, which can barely aford to produce local news, and because of increasing competition shows more repeats and more foreign programmes than it has ever done. Remember when there were only 3 or 4 channels ?, but at least there was always something to watch De-regulation has given us more and more channels, more choice, but the quality is crap, privatise, de-regulate, a race to the bottom. Just out of curiosity what does the BBC contribute to British culture? As far as I can see any British Cultural tradition, icon, belief or value it mashes up as much as it can and calls it either evil or just plain bad. Culture is what you have not what you recreate, or try to. Almost everything that other commercial channels show was originally made by the BBC, because the commercial channels cannot aford to make programmes. Whether it be Great British Railway Journeys, The Coast, Hairy Bikers, Till Death Us Do Part or Bread. If the BBC becomes the same, who then will make BRITISH drama, programmes about BRITISH History, BRITISH Comedy or documentaries about our wildlife and our natural history. ? Its hard to believe that people on the Right of politics want to trash the BBC, just about the only broadcaster which keeps British culture alive and successfull, and exports Millions of pounds worth of British history, drama and culture around the world, thereby helping to offsett the licence fee. In the days when ITV could compete on a level playing field with the BBC ( before deregulation ), ITV produced world class natural history documentaries which competed with David Attenbrough, and top rated current affairs programmes such as "World In Action", and ITV made childrens programmes such as "Magpie" ..... All gone, due to deregulation and so called Choice, the choice of trash and bottom of the pile quality. www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0yIDXP7nbM |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Jul 14, 2024 13:00:51 GMT
From the link:
The BBC Charter, which outlines its funding and governance, is up in three years.
Sir Keir said there would be “more thought between now and then” on funding.
More thought between now and when the BBC Charter is due for reappraisal seems fair — what sensible changes do we reckon could be brought in before then?
The BBC has a reputation around the world as an important unbiased news provider, and is a great UK image promoter...
Problem solved.
Let all those adoring foreigners pay the licence fee.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 13:05:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 13:41:08 GMT
he played a blinder? Fuck me you must wear out some amount of cloths polishing turds. Did we watch different run ups to the general election ? when its pointed out starmers blinder was merely to get the votes of 20 % of the electorate and a disproportionate amount of seats , you tell us its nothing more than sour grapes from losers. If a politician who sat on his hands the whole election , and let the system put him in power is playing a blinder , then you are either easily pleased or over dramatic . Opposition followers had no acceptable ideas or challenges to Starmer, that's how pathetic they were, so Starmer rightfully won the election. In short the opposition was garbage. eh? starmer got elected by a dodgy system that rewarded his failure to garner the publics support , and you waffle on yet agin about his opposition (which of course under the two party stitch up is the tories) having no ideas? We dont want to hear about the tories . We want to know what labour are going to do after unfairly winning an election on no popular mandate from the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 14, 2024 14:24:27 GMT
Just out of curiosity what does the BBC contribute to British culture? As far as I can see any British Cultural tradition, icon, belief or value it mashes up as much as it can and calls it either evil or just plain bad. Culture is what you have not what you recreate, or try to. Almost everything that other commercial channels show was originally made by the BBC, because the commercial channels cannot aford to make programmes. Whether it be Great British Railway Journeys, The Coast, Hairy Bikers, Till Death Us Do Part or Bread. Great British Railway Journeys was made by Thames TV. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 14, 2024 15:31:52 GMT
Just out of curiosity what does the BBC contribute to British culture? As far as I can see any British Cultural tradition, icon, belief or value it mashes up as much as it can and calls it either evil or just plain bad. Culture is what you have not what you recreate, or try to. Almost everything that other commercial channels show was originally made by the BBC, because the commercial channels cannot aford to make programmes. Whether it be Great British Railway Journeys, The Coast, Hairy Bikers, Till Death Us Do Part or Bread. If the BBC becomes the same, who then will make BRITISH drama, programmes about BRITISH History, BRITISH Comedy or documentaries about our wildlife and our natural history. ? Its hard to believe that people on the Right of politics want to trash the BBC, just about the only broadcaster which keeps British culture alive and successfull, and exports Millions of pounds worth of British history, drama and culture around the world, thereby helping to offsett the licence fee. In the days when ITV could compete on a level playing field with the BBC ( before deregulation ), ITV produced world class natural history documentaries which competed with David Attenbrough, and top rated current affairs programmes such as "World In Action", and ITV made childrens programmes such as "Magpie" ..... All gone, due to deregulation and so called Choice, the choice of trash and bottom of the pile quality. www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0yIDXP7nbMHave you got anything up to date as regards contributions to British culture? It is generally the last decade that the most obvious problems are. Before that programmes were generally OK but starting to go down the woke/climate change/preaching road. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 15, 2024 7:09:52 GMT
Opposition followers had no acceptable ideas or challenges to Starmer, that's how pathetic they were, so Starmer rightfully won the election. In short the opposition was garbage. eh? starmer got elected by a dodgy system that rewarded his failure to garner the publics support , and you waffle on yet agin about his opposition (which of course under the two party stitch up is the tories) having no ideas? We dont want to hear about the tories . We want to know what labour are going to do after unfairly winning an election on no popular mandate from the people. Your dodgy thinking ^ is just more of your many years of anti-Labour bias. Labour won the election 'fair and square' according to the system we use. YOU now have 5 years in which to see what this Labour government stands for. That is of course if you manage to see beyond your blind anti-Labour bias. Which does seem to be highly unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2024 9:33:18 GMT
So which commercial broadcaster offers better value for money ? SKY - which makes virtually nothing, contributes nothing to the UK film and TV production industry, contributes next to nothing to British culture, has a broadcast output which is mostly foreign, with large amounts of repeats. Or maybe ITV - which cannot aford to make childrens programmes any more, which can barely aford to produce local news, and because of increasing competition shows more repeats and more foreign programmes than it has ever done. Remember when there were only 3 or 4 channels ?, but at least there was always something to watch De-regulation has given us more and more channels, more choice, but the quality is crap, privatise, de-regulate, a race to the bottom. You consistently miss the point, intentionally perhaps. It's not about value for money, it's about choice, and as far as the BBC tv licence is concerned, there is no choice. People must by law buy a BBV tv licence in order to watch ITV. The BBC tv licence is becoming increasingly indefensible. It will be gone in a few years, and probably the BBC with it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 15, 2024 12:22:47 GMT
You consistently miss the point, intentionally perhaps. It's not about value for money, it's about choice, and as far as the BBC tv licence is concerned, there is no choice. People must by law buy a BBV tv licence in order to watch ITV. The BBC tv licence is becoming increasingly indefensible. It will be gone in a few years, and probably the BBC with it. The TV licence is to watch live television, it is not to watch the BBC, so whether you choose any station is irrelevant to your licence fee. The same that you need to pay Sky for satellite even if you don't watch their branded offerings. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2024 12:35:22 GMT
You consistently miss the point, intentionally perhaps. It's not about value for money, it's about choice, and as far as the BBC tv licence is concerned, there is no choice. People must by law buy a BBV tv licence in order to watch ITV. The BBC tv licence is becoming increasingly indefensible. It will be gone in a few years, and probably the BBC with it. The TV licence is to watch live television, it is not to watch the BBC, so whether you choose any station is irrelevant to your licence fee. The same that you need to pay Sky for satellite even if you don't watch their branded offerings. No no, you're quite wrong. It is not a TV licence, it's a BBC tv licence. You do not require an ITV tv licence because ITV is funded by advertising, Netflix, Sky etc etc by subscription. Yes I know the BBC call it a TV licence rather than a BBC tv licence, the reasons for that must be obvious. If the BBC disappeared so would the BBC tv licence. Monies collected by TV Licencing are passed to the Government, then all revenue is passed to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.The BBC tv licence funds the BBC, yet you must buy a BBC tv licence to watch ITV. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 15, 2024 15:20:45 GMT
The TV licence is to watch live television, it is not to watch the BBC, so whether you choose any station is irrelevant to your licence fee. The same that you need to pay Sky for satellite even if you don't watch their branded offerings. No no, you're quite wrong. It is not a TV licence, it's a BBC tv licence. You do not require an ITV tv licence because ITV is funded by advertising, Netflix, Sky etc etc by subscription. Yes I know the BBC call it a TV licence rather than a BBC tv licence, the reasons for that must be obvious. If the BBC disappeared so would the BBC tv licence. Monies collected by TV Licencing are passed to the Government, then all revenue is passed to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.The BBC tv licence funds the BBC, yet you must by a BBC tv licence to watch ITV. Well, yes, because you need a TV licence to watch any TV. 🙃 That's why it's called TV licence, rather than BBC licence. The fact that the money helps towards the funding of the BBC is not relevant to whether you are liable for it. It's not that complicated! |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2024 15:39:29 GMT
No no, you're quite wrong. It is not a TV licence, it's a BBC tv licence. You do not require an ITV tv licence because ITV is funded by advertising, Netflix, Sky etc etc by subscription. Yes I know the BBC call it a TV licence rather than a BBC tv licence, the reasons for that must be obvious. If the BBC disappeared so would the BBC tv licence. Monies collected by TV Licencing are passed to the Government, then all revenue is passed to the BBC as Grant-in-Aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.The BBC tv licence funds the BBC, yet you must by a BBC tv licence to watch ITV. Well, yes, because you need a TV licence to watch any TV. 🙃 That's why it's called TV licence, rather than BBC licence. The fact that the money helps towards the funding of the BBC is not relevant to whether you are liable for it. It's not that complicated! The BBC tv licence fee goes to the BBC, without it the BBC could not exist. To say it is not a BBC tv licence fee flies in the face of the obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Jul 15, 2024 15:50:46 GMT
You must have a TV Licence no matter which TV channels you watch, therefore the TV Licence is a "TV Licence" and not a "BBC Licence".
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 15, 2024 16:14:30 GMT
You must have a TV Licence no matter which TV channels you watch, therefore the TV Licence is a "TV Licence" and not a "BBC Licence". Exactly - I'm unsure why he's struggling with this? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 15, 2024 16:54:26 GMT
Reds point is that without the BBC there would be no TV Licence - the only point of the TV licence is to fund the BBC. I thought his point quite obvious...  |
|
