Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 Dec 12
10:10
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 12
Like they did to the News of the World...
Show More
Rupert Murdoch closed down NotW because he was scared sh*tless the scandal would bring down his empire of filth...
so why aren't the bbc worried about their empire of filth?
Because it is a left wing empire of flith and they get a free pass.
They should do away with the license fee and let the BBC live or die by subscription, like every body else.
And get something like ITV.....no thanks.....
BBC ....great value for about 40p per day... (£145.5 / 365 )...
BBC ....great value for about 40p per day... (£145.5 / 365 )...
polybot Joined: 20 Oct 03
Replies: 3345 12 Dec 12 10:32
so why aren't the bbc worried about their empire of filth?
Well, unlike News International, they have announced two seperate independent enquiries into issues surrounding their historical black spot (savile and the subsequent fall out), haven't lied through their teeth about what went on to the House of Commons and a judicial enquiry and the top man (as regards the Newsnight fiasco) has taken responsibility and resigned.
That is to say, they are dealing with the allegations in a professional and morally acceptable manner.
Replies: 3345 12 Dec 12 10:32
so why aren't the bbc worried about their empire of filth?
Well, unlike News International, they have announced two seperate independent enquiries into issues surrounding their historical black spot (savile and the subsequent fall out), haven't lied through their teeth about what went on to the House of Commons and a judicial enquiry and the top man (as regards the Newsnight fiasco) has taken responsibility and resigned.
That is to say, they are dealing with the allegations in a professional and morally acceptable manner.
BBC ....great value for about 40p per day... (£145.5 / 365 )...
Then you will no doubt be one that subscribes. There are others with a different point of view.
Then you will no doubt be one that subscribes. There are others with a different point of view.
"That is to say, they are dealing with the allegations in a professional and morally acceptable manner."
what, you mean thirty years later? After the "top man" snuck out the back door just in time and got a plum job at the equally corrupt New York Times?
what, you mean thirty years later? After the "top man" snuck out the back door just in time and got a plum job at the equally corrupt New York Times?
The Leopard
You should feel free to subscribe but you and they shouldn't compel the rest of us to do so on pain of imprisonment.
You should feel free to subscribe but you and they shouldn't compel the rest of us to do so on pain of imprisonment.
what, you mean thirty years later? After the "top man" snuck out the back door just in time and got a plum job at the equally corrupt New York Times?
Yes (to the first part of your statement). Would you rather they'd continue to deny all responsibility or to put it down to one 'rogue element'?
As to your second point, well, That's Life (god I hope Rantzen is implicated in this somewhere). Get to a certain level in commerce or football management and no matter how big your fk up, you're still on Easy Street, parked up next to a machine that sh1ts gold.
Yes (to the first part of your statement). Would you rather they'd continue to deny all responsibility or to put it down to one 'rogue element'?
As to your second point, well, That's Life (god I hope Rantzen is implicated in this somewhere). Get to a certain level in commerce or football management and no matter how big your fk up, you're still on Easy Street, parked up next to a machine that sh1ts gold.
As there is nearly as much advertising on the BBC as any commercial channel maybe it is time to reassess the funding arrangements.
BBC ....great value for about 40p per day... (£145.5 / 365 )...
ITV is even better value at 0p per day. £0.00 / 365 = £0.00
ITV is even better value at 0p per day. £0.00 / 365 = £0.00
The Leopard 12 Dec 12 10:51
BBC ....great value for about 40p per day... (£145.5 / 365 )...
If that's correct it will take me 6850 years just to pay Gary Lineker's salary for 1 year.
BBC ....great value for about 40p per day... (£145.5 / 365 )...
If that's correct it will take me 6850 years just to pay Gary Lineker's salary for 1 year.
So we are all moaning about the BBC...again! It is superb value. Do any of you realise the truth about 'commercial television'? Firstly their advertising invades your life with almost constant interruption about totally 'out of context' products. If I am watching a car programme they could at least show related adverts instead of some 'because we're worth it' crap.
So, they make you endure their adverts (which are very expensive) and they get YOU to pay for them when you buy the product.
So, they make you endure their adverts (which are very expensive) and they get YOU to pay for them when you buy the product.
naydam
If you don't like the adverts you are at liberty to switch over to another channel. It seems that if others like paying for the BBC it is tough luck because some of you think it is good value. Some of us don't share your view. Some of us think the idea of a state broadcaster paid for upon threat of imprisonment belongs in another age.
If you don't like the adverts you are at liberty to switch over to another channel. It seems that if others like paying for the BBC it is tough luck because some of you think it is good value. Some of us don't share your view. Some of us think the idea of a state broadcaster paid for upon threat of imprisonment belongs in another age.
Anything on commercial channels can be recorded, so adverts have no effect for me.
What shames the left wing bbc though, is the need to hide court cases involving pakistani gangs and schoolgirls.
They hide this at local level as much as national news.
Young man that was murdered by a gang of 30 hoodies while watching Chelsea in the pub last May, disgrace that these pc liars attempted to make it sound like a row between football fans.
Always pushing the gay issue, to the point that it seems compulsory to be gay to be employed as a weatherman, beginning to seem as though if you are are white and heterosexual, there is nothing to see here.
What shames the left wing bbc though, is the need to hide court cases involving pakistani gangs and schoolgirls.
They hide this at local level as much as national news.
Young man that was murdered by a gang of 30 hoodies while watching Chelsea in the pub last May, disgrace that these pc liars attempted to make it sound like a row between football fans.
Always pushing the gay issue, to the point that it seems compulsory to be gay to be employed as a weatherman, beginning to seem as though if you are are white and heterosexual, there is nothing to see here.
Hundreds of channels & you are forced by law to pay to watch around half a dozen of them, so though you pay for the BBC you cannot turn on your set to watch any other channel as you will be breaking the law, you could not make it up really.
Good lord. I despair. The mixture of stupidity and misinformation (and CaT's late entry of gormless bigotry) are depressing: never has a nation been so keen to dismantle the institutions that once made it great.
We'll abolish Test cricket and mushy peas next and then gently sink beneath the icy waters of la Manche.
We'll abolish Test cricket and mushy peas next and then gently sink beneath the icy waters of la Manche.
Its making a great job of dismantling itself if you ask me.
ORIOLE,
Show me which of my points are not fact please, thank you,you moron.
Show me which of my points are not fact please, thank you,you moron.
Notwithstanding the rather obvious point that you are expressing opinions, not facts, let's examine the breathless assertion:
it seems compulsory to be gay to be employed as a weatherman
Rock solid.
Licking the lead paint off your toys was always going to catch up with you.
it seems compulsory to be gay to be employed as a weatherman
Rock solid.
Licking the lead paint off your toys was always going to catch up with you.
I'm in total shock today, for the first time the bbc did not put a negative spin within the news story of the unemployment fall. 
"Licking the lead paint off your toys was always going to catch up with you."
Best response ever.
I very, very rarely watch ITV, but I pay for it every time I go to the shops and purchase something. My choice in the matter is pay or go shoplifting.
I cannot remember the last 'must see' that ITV did. I use the BBC as my main source of news, the radio station I listen to the most, and most of the programmes I try to see are on there.
I could rely on commercial enterprises for any of the above but I don't fancy being an X-Factor viewing, Heart listening, Murdoch believing bellend like too many of the population these days.
Best response ever.
I very, very rarely watch ITV, but I pay for it every time I go to the shops and purchase something. My choice in the matter is pay or go shoplifting.
I cannot remember the last 'must see' that ITV did. I use the BBC as my main source of news, the radio station I listen to the most, and most of the programmes I try to see are on there.
I could rely on commercial enterprises for any of the above but I don't fancy being an X-Factor viewing, Heart listening, Murdoch believing bellend like too many of the population these days.
Best post as usual comes from EO with this:
Some of us think the idea of a state broadcaster paid for upon threat of imprisonment belongs in another age.
Spot on.
Some of us think the idea of a state broadcaster paid for upon threat of imprisonment belongs in another age.
Spot on.
No, it's not, 'spot on'. I take the poster's point, but the BBC is nominally a state broadcaster.
The entirely laudable point he makes depends upon the traditional definition of a state broadcaster as a propaganda machine, slavishly supporting a government at the cost of credibility: the comments on this thread are evidence that the BBC doesn't fit that definition in the least.
The entirely laudable point he makes depends upon the traditional definition of a state broadcaster as a propaganda machine, slavishly supporting a government at the cost of credibility: the comments on this thread are evidence that the BBC doesn't fit that definition in the least.
It belongs in another age, because in this day and age Murdoch / Dacre and the like would ensure that it never happened, and for that, everyone in the UK should be eternally grateful.
cloughandtaylor
I had a look at the case you mention, it does make interesting reading. Certainly the initial reports from the tabloids and other media refer to what was essentially an armed assault by a gang of black youths on pub-goers. The BBC report (earlier, in most cases), whilst arguably still factually accurate, could be considered misleading...if of course the other reports (all of seem to follow the same source). I couldn't say with certainty the BBC were being cautious or deliberately misleading, but they do generally hold themselves to higher standards of proof.
Having had a look for further information, there's been almost no coverage since, except by the BBC, who have even named those accused. The numbers of those arrested would appear to support the gang attack but a few further points.
The victim was an Arsenal fan. Chelsea have a very large number black players, and presumably therefore black fans. The supposed dispute in the shop could very well have been over football.
The reason the better broadcasters are cautious is because sometimes witnesses makes mistakes or lie. The tabloids reported someone saying 20 people were involved, in your version it's jumped to 30.
The tabloids reported someone saying it was a black gang, this could well be true, but the names of two of the three charged sound more Asian to me. The bottom line is I don't know. I wish the BBC would be more forthright about racial issues sometimes, but they're still better than pretty much any other media source.
I had a look at the case you mention, it does make interesting reading. Certainly the initial reports from the tabloids and other media refer to what was essentially an armed assault by a gang of black youths on pub-goers. The BBC report (earlier, in most cases), whilst arguably still factually accurate, could be considered misleading...if of course the other reports (all of seem to follow the same source). I couldn't say with certainty the BBC were being cautious or deliberately misleading, but they do generally hold themselves to higher standards of proof.
Having had a look for further information, there's been almost no coverage since, except by the BBC, who have even named those accused. The numbers of those arrested would appear to support the gang attack but a few further points.
The victim was an Arsenal fan. Chelsea have a very large number black players, and presumably therefore black fans. The supposed dispute in the shop could very well have been over football.
The reason the better broadcasters are cautious is because sometimes witnesses makes mistakes or lie. The tabloids reported someone saying 20 people were involved, in your version it's jumped to 30.
The tabloids reported someone saying it was a black gang, this could well be true, but the names of two of the three charged sound more Asian to me. The bottom line is I don't know. I wish the BBC would be more forthright about racial issues sometimes, but they're still better than pretty much any other media source.
I would go as far as to say there is a general media reluctance regarding the race issue. Quite often, in all forms of media a description of a wanted person will describe them as white or not give a colour, very rarely says black.
I don't think its a BBC issue.
I don't think its a BBC issue.
Indeed, and while that's wrong, I think the BBC are often more daring than commercial networks, especially when tackling radical Islam.
In response to the op,i think it should be banned due to the fact is an Act not a Law.
They try and enforce it like a law but when challanged they soon back off.
Daylight robbery.
They try and enforce it like a law but when challanged they soon back off.
Daylight robbery.
What is the difference between an Act and Law?
U tube the subject mate,(tv licence fee)then it will all be clear.
ah yes, the source of all expert, non-biased learning! :-)
They should do away with the license fee and let the BBC live or die by subscription, like every body else.
I agree with Sibaroni, and why should people who never watch it and struggle to pay the license fee have to help to fund it?
It's not as if a vital service.
It's become more like a sort of career club money pit that provides high paid jobs for certain types.
It's a relic of the past.
I agree with Sibaroni, and why should people who never watch it and struggle to pay the license fee have to help to fund it?
It's not as if a vital service.
It's become more like a sort of career club money pit that provides high paid jobs for certain types.
It's a relic of the past.
phil
Seeing as you made the assertion and I'm a non practising barrister I'm asking you to explain it. Always happy to learn new things.
Seeing as you made the assertion and I'm a non practising barrister I'm asking you to explain it. Always happy to learn new things.
As there is nearly as much advertising on the BBC as any commercial channel maybe it is time to reassess the funding arrangements.
This is spot on.
The amount of 'covert' advertising on both the BBC Radio and Television is staggering. Daytime TV consists of never ending barrage of advertising dressed up as programing. Today's 'Breakfast' fare consisted off a 5 minute promo for a Hillsborough Charity record followed by an 8 minute advertisement for an up and coming film called 'Quartet' - I turned over to Lorraine for some real advertising.
Shows such as Graham Norton's are a never ending plug for latest films, records, shows, books et al. Even Jules Holland gets in on the act by blatantly holding up a guests latest CD or book.
I recently listened on BBC radio to a full 20 minutes of Ben Elton plugging his latest book.
This is spot on.
The amount of 'covert' advertising on both the BBC Radio and Television is staggering. Daytime TV consists of never ending barrage of advertising dressed up as programing. Today's 'Breakfast' fare consisted off a 5 minute promo for a Hillsborough Charity record followed by an 8 minute advertisement for an up and coming film called 'Quartet' - I turned over to Lorraine for some real advertising.
Shows such as Graham Norton's are a never ending plug for latest films, records, shows, books et al. Even Jules Holland gets in on the act by blatantly holding up a guests latest CD or book.
I recently listened on BBC radio to a full 20 minutes of Ben Elton plugging his latest book.
Yeah, well that's (at a guess) about 90% of live TV output, be it ITV, BBC or Sky.
On the news now you'll get Will Gompertz w@nking on about the new Carlos Ascosta 'Tour De Force' at the English National Ballet and you think to yourself 'is this really news or a weird looking freak giving handjobs to his mates in the Arts?'
Just checkout how much TV is, in reality, press releases dressed up to look like something newsworthy or entertaining.
On the news now you'll get Will Gompertz w@nking on about the new Carlos Ascosta 'Tour De Force' at the English National Ballet and you think to yourself 'is this really news or a weird looking freak giving handjobs to his mates in the Arts?'
Just checkout how much TV is, in reality, press releases dressed up to look like something newsworthy or entertaining.
Carlos Acosta, as well as being a very close personal friend, is the greatest dancer of the modern era - ANYTHING he does is news.
Philistine.
I'll get me tutu.
Philistine.
I'll get me tutu.
Well, yes you can't argue with that - it was more the point that pretty much everything that isn't a costume drama or live sport on TV is a Press Release that has a camera pointed at it, dressed up to look like something different.
agree with the covert advertising points, it's pitiful. Then when speaking to Joe Public on the radio or quiz shows and the like they'll make a big issue about the punter mentioning who he/she is employed by. Ooops musn't say you work for Ford Dagenham as we're a non commercial entity you see. Yet on one of those quizzes with guest celebrities they'll be asked about their book, CD and where they're performing in Panto ffs.
I recall the old days in soap operas, when something as ordianry as a bottle of tomato sauce on a table would have had the brand name papered over. 
It's not covert advertising, if instead of using license payers money to pay someone to come on a show you let them talk about the book they're bringing out. It's overt, and it's practical, at least on the BBC.
I pay for all sorts of stuff I don't use, why on earth should people object to paying for a tv station the envy of the globe?
I pay for all sorts of stuff I don't use, why on earth should people object to paying for a tv station the envy of the globe?
Clungehungry 13 Dec 12 12:50
It's not covert advertising,
It is.
if instead of using license payers money to pay someone to come on a show you let them talk about the book they're bringing out.
They do both, they promote the book and the BBC pay them for doing it.
It's overt, and it's practical, at least on the BBC
If by that you mean, it's the only way they can get some guests to appear then you may be right.
I pay for all sorts of stuff I don't use,
You must be very rich.
why on earth should people object to paying for a tv station the envy of the globe?
Don't we hear the same argument for the NHS.
It's not covert advertising,
It is.
if instead of using license payers money to pay someone to come on a show you let them talk about the book they're bringing out.
They do both, they promote the book and the BBC pay them for doing it.
It's overt, and it's practical, at least on the BBC
If by that you mean, it's the only way they can get some guests to appear then you may be right.
I pay for all sorts of stuff I don't use,
You must be very rich.
why on earth should people object to paying for a tv station the envy of the globe?
Don't we hear the same argument for the NHS.
If it's covert, how can we all see it.
They pay less of our money then they would otherwise have to. That is obvious.
Yup.
No, any taxpayer does. Which is everyone. The rich, the poor, everyone.
Yes.
As you can tell I'm in a hurry, off to works lunch, for free booze!
Have a great day one and all!
They pay less of our money then they would otherwise have to. That is obvious.
Yup.
No, any taxpayer does. Which is everyone. The rich, the poor, everyone.
Yes.
As you can tell I'm in a hurry, off to works lunch, for free booze!
Have a great day one and all!
why on earth do people on here think the bbc are left wing?
i can only assume that those that do are very right wing and think the daily mail is the reasoned voice of the people.
the far left used to accuse them of being the voice of imperialism and still see them as an establishment mouthpiece.
when you get flak from both left & right you are probably doing a pretty decent job imo.
i can only assume that those that do are very right wing and think the daily mail is the reasoned voice of the people.
the far left used to accuse them of being the voice of imperialism and still see them as an establishment mouthpiece.
when you get flak from both left & right you are probably doing a pretty decent job imo.
OK. Just supposing that the 'BBC Slayers' got their way and it was closed down. You would still have to pay your Television Licence fee. It is a tax which IS enforceable by law and you might find that HMRC are far less tolerant than the Beeb (who were given the job of collecting, but not the authority to enforce it).
You would still not be allowed to receive television broadcasts without a licence...So, what have you gained?
You would still not be allowed to receive television broadcasts without a licence...So, what have you gained?
I hate paying the licence fee but I hate paying for the Royals too.
If it's covert, how can we all see it.
It's 'dishonestly' dressed up as 'news' or 'current events', as in the case of Breakfast. In shows like Norton it's projected as entertainment.
The BBC is presenting a biased picture when it spends 8 minutes promoting 'Quartet'. It hangs on to its entertainment coat tails by wheeling in Courtney and Connelly to tell a 'few jokes' and reveal a few set 'secrets'. Where is the balance? What about the other films that will be released in the new year. The BBC has a programme called Film 2012 to reflect what's happening in the celluloid world, that's where it should feature.
It's 'dishonestly' dressed up as 'news' or 'current events', as in the case of Breakfast. In shows like Norton it's projected as entertainment.
The BBC is presenting a biased picture when it spends 8 minutes promoting 'Quartet'. It hangs on to its entertainment coat tails by wheeling in Courtney and Connelly to tell a 'few jokes' and reveal a few set 'secrets'. Where is the balance? What about the other films that will be released in the new year. The BBC has a programme called Film 2012 to reflect what's happening in the celluloid world, that's where it should feature.
Clungehungry 13 Dec 12 13:13
As you can tell I'm in a hurry, off to works lunch, for free booze!
Have a great day one and all!
Do you work for the BBC?
As you can tell I'm in a hurry, off to works lunch, for free booze!
Have a great day one and all!
Do you work for the BBC?
I pay for all sorts of stuff I don't use, why on earth should people object to paying for a tv station the envy of the globe?
By choice you do. And even when it is tax for something you don't like, I presume you campaign or vote to change that piece of expenditure.
Can I put one myth to bed, the BBC does not cost 40 odd pence a day per person. That is the cost to every person, whether they want it or not. The true cost will only be arrived at by stripping away those paying who do not want to pay.
Can I put another myth to bed. No-one is calling for the BBC to be shut down. It can live in the market place perfectly well I am sure. Indeed, I would not be surprised if it found subscriptions far easier to collect than license fees.
I use its radio often. I would pay to do so. I watch BBC television hardly ever, if at all. Its coverage of economic and political news is plainly biased, patently so. In general terms, I would prefer not to pay the TV license. In respect of its news coverage, I find it increasingly objectionable that I am forced to do so.
But whether you like the BBC or not, the argument always comes up against this absolute. If you want it, fine. You pay for it, but don't ask me to pay for your TV as well.
By choice you do. And even when it is tax for something you don't like, I presume you campaign or vote to change that piece of expenditure.
Can I put one myth to bed, the BBC does not cost 40 odd pence a day per person. That is the cost to every person, whether they want it or not. The true cost will only be arrived at by stripping away those paying who do not want to pay.
Can I put another myth to bed. No-one is calling for the BBC to be shut down. It can live in the market place perfectly well I am sure. Indeed, I would not be surprised if it found subscriptions far easier to collect than license fees.
I use its radio often. I would pay to do so. I watch BBC television hardly ever, if at all. Its coverage of economic and political news is plainly biased, patently so. In general terms, I would prefer not to pay the TV license. In respect of its news coverage, I find it increasingly objectionable that I am forced to do so.
But whether you like the BBC or not, the argument always comes up against this absolute. If you want it, fine. You pay for it, but don't ask me to pay for your TV as well.
I pay my taxes willingly Sib, but no I don't campaign or vote for services that benefit other people more.
Eeternaloptimist sorry i never replied to your question last night,had to get my head down early start today.
TV licence fee is under the communications Act 2003 makes it legal requirement to pay tv licence.
However there is no law that states you have to pay tv licence.
An act is different to a law in which it can only be actioned upon if the citizen agrees to be subject to its original intention by human consent,bit like a contract.
I never agreed to pay a licence did you?
TV licence fee is under the communications Act 2003 makes it legal requirement to pay tv licence.
However there is no law that states you have to pay tv licence.
An act is different to a law in which it can only be actioned upon if the citizen agrees to be subject to its original intention by human consent,bit like a contract.
I never agreed to pay a licence did you?
phil
An Act Of Parliament passes into law when it is signed off by the queen after passing through parliament. Assuming that was the case then it is now a part of the law of the land.
An Act Of Parliament passes into law when it is signed off by the queen after passing through parliament. Assuming that was the case then it is now a part of the law of the land.
'An act is different to a law in which it can only be actioned upon if the citizen agrees to be subject to its original intention by human consent,bit like a contract.'
Really?
Really?
Sib, you're ready for parliament! That post is sufficiently vague and disingenuous to grace the lower house and may find you in the upper erelong.
He's after your Job O, although i doubt he could come up and waffle for 1/2 a page without saying nowt !!
Hope you've given the Butler an Xmas box btw, or is it the usual 10% of the years profits on the AW as usual
I'll take the double negative as a compliment, Z.
The staff are paid appropriately, and that includes a generous bonus at Christmas (a clementine).
The staff are paid appropriately, and that includes a generous bonus at Christmas (a clementine).
Eeternaloptimist
If that was the case there would be a law in which it falls under.There is no such law only an act.
I am no expert in this but done a bit or research a few months back.
If you were not to pay it you will get the knock on the door by the tv licence people,they will ask are you mr xxx,you reply am i obliged by law to answer you question,they will reply no.
You may then get,do you own a tv,again you reply the same as above and get the same reply back.no
If you answer these questions it then forms the agreement then and only then can they prosecute you.
If that was the case there would be a law in which it falls under.There is no such law only an act.
I am no expert in this but done a bit or research a few months back.
If you were not to pay it you will get the knock on the door by the tv licence people,they will ask are you mr xxx,you reply am i obliged by law to answer you question,they will reply no.
You may then get,do you own a tv,again you reply the same as above and get the same reply back.no
If you answer these questions it then forms the agreement then and only then can they prosecute you.
I don't listen to BBC Radio nor TV but I pay a licence, it's ridiculous.
phil
Sorry but you are confusing two very different facts here. The Communications Act is the relevant law irrespective of what you may have heard or read. Where you are right is that this law doesn't bestow any special powers on the people who come to check if you have a licence so you are not obliged to answer their questions or let them in.
That isn't the end of the matter though because they have other remedies which they can then employ which include getting a search warrant at which point you would be obliged to comply.
Sorry but you are confusing two very different facts here. The Communications Act is the relevant law irrespective of what you may have heard or read. Where you are right is that this law doesn't bestow any special powers on the people who come to check if you have a licence so you are not obliged to answer their questions or let them in.
That isn't the end of the matter though because they have other remedies which they can then employ which include getting a search warrant at which point you would be obliged to comply.
orioles
Joined: 26 Feb 03
Replies: 8313 13 Dec 12 19:02
I'll take the double negative as a compliment, Z.
The staff are paid appropriately, and that includes a generous bonus at Christmas (a clementine).
I've got to be quick - I'm writing this under the stairs whilst Mister High and Mighty sorts out the seller at Sothwell.
He's a bloody liar. It wasn't a Clementine - it was a plum AND he's just sent the scullery maid to the New World for a termination after the eldest did the nasty with her and left her in the clarts.
There's more....hang on....I hear footsteps....oh God nOOOOOOOOO....!
Joined: 26 Feb 03
Replies: 8313 13 Dec 12 19:02
I'll take the double negative as a compliment, Z.
The staff are paid appropriately, and that includes a generous bonus at Christmas (a clementine).
I've got to be quick - I'm writing this under the stairs whilst Mister High and Mighty sorts out the seller at Sothwell.
He's a bloody liar. It wasn't a Clementine - it was a plum AND he's just sent the scullery maid to the New World for a termination after the eldest did the nasty with her and left her in the clarts.
There's more....hang on....I hear footsteps....oh God nOOOOOOOOO....!
Eeternaloptimist
The communication act is ledislation gone though parlment passed by goverment but it is not part of the constitution which is common law.It is classed as commercial law, two very different things.the law of the land aplies to this topic.
Also the courts would never grant a search warrant on the grounds mr xxx may or may not have have a tv pulling live broadcasts.
Anyway hitting the sack now,i will look in again tommorow.
good luck m8
The communication act is ledislation gone though parlment passed by goverment but it is not part of the constitution which is common law.It is classed as commercial law, two very different things.the law of the land aplies to this topic.
Also the courts would never grant a search warrant on the grounds mr xxx may or may not have have a tv pulling live broadcasts.
Anyway hitting the sack now,i will look in again tommorow.
good luck m8
caleyjags 13 Dec 12 19:22
I don't listen to BBC Radio nor TV but I pay a licence, it's ridiculous.
Why?
I don't listen to BBC Radio nor TV but I pay a licence, it's ridiculous.
Why?
Mitt Romney wanted to remove funding from America's PBS. I wouldn't have expected to find so many of his followers on this forum.
I thought people needed to have a clear speaking voice to read the news on BBC radio.
I turned on Radio 4 the other day and they had a bloke reading the news who sounded like Frank Bruno................Harry.
Now I like Frank but he’s not got the perfect voice for reading the news, neither did the one they'd got reading it.
What's that all about?
I turned on Radio 4 the other day and they had a bloke reading the news who sounded like Frank Bruno................Harry.
Now I like Frank but he’s not got the perfect voice for reading the news, neither did the one they'd got reading it.
What's that all about?
... why should people who never watch it ... have to help to fund it?
You are presumably outside this select group then, Dr Crippen, and have dutifully paid up.
You are presumably outside this select group then, Dr Crippen, and have dutifully paid up.
If the BBC is such fantastic value,why not charge ,say,£20 pm,make it an optional subscription service.The money will come flooding in,surely.
Only problem with the BBC is it is too cheap.
Mind you I don't read the Daily Mail and haven't had my fragile mind warped by its war on political correctness.
Mind you I don't read the Daily Mail and haven't had my fragile mind warped by its war on political correctness.
BBC4 offers some very interesting programs
maybe BBC3 but I am bit old for that
good childrens TV coverage...even older for that
BBC1...seems more a womans channel now
BBC2 emr I am not sure what that is
personal imo
maybe BBC3 but I am bit old for that
good childrens TV coverage...even older for that
BBC1...seems more a womans channel now
BBC2 emr I am not sure what that is
personal imo
BBC3 and BBC4 don't start until 7:00 PM.
Why's that when all the commercial channels start in the morning?
Are they on ration?
Why's that when all the commercial channels start in the morning?
Are they on ration?
BBC4 and BBC3 are a little specialised
very much aimed at a certain audience..so limited content
which is good in my opinion
commercial channels doing this..tend to repeat all day long
ITV much better for Drama imo
have been for a long time now
very much aimed at a certain audience..so limited content
which is good in my opinion
commercial channels doing this..tend to repeat all day long
ITV much better for Drama imo
have been for a long time now
I don't particularly want to pay the BBC to film programmes like Eastenders and Strictly, but understand that they are there to provide a range of programmes for the whole country.
I do like the fact that they make commercially unprofitable documentaries on BBC4 which I do like, and wouldn't be made by any other broadcaster in the world
It's far from perfect but far better than any alternative currently out there - I can't imagine that there is anyone in Britain who wouldn't enjoy any of its productions
I do like the fact that they make commercially unprofitable documentaries on BBC4 which I do like, and wouldn't be made by any other broadcaster in the world
It's far from perfect but far better than any alternative currently out there - I can't imagine that there is anyone in Britain who wouldn't enjoy any of its productions
I will hunt you down Crippen you piece of s***
Class post salmon, nice one.
I'm immediately putting you down as my number one stalker on the strength of that.
Class post salmon, nice one.
I'm immediately putting you down as my number one stalker on the strength of that.
I assumed he was joking, DC. If not, that's too much 
get rid of it ,subscription or advertisement should fund it ,there is nothing left on it anyway
would actually be prepaired to pay a smaller fee for radio ..
would actually be prepaired to pay a smaller fee for radio ..
orioles he'll get over it.
I've forgiven him for it already.
I've forgiven him for it already.
phil
The communication act is ledislation gone though parlment passed by goverment but it is not part of the constitution which is common law.It is classed as commercial law, two very different things.the law of the land aplies to this topic.
Also the courts would never grant a search warrant on the grounds mr xxx may or may not have have a tv pulling live broadcasts.
Sorry Phil but you are piling confusion up on confusion. Common law refers to the centuries of judge made law and the system of precedent. It is one part of our legal system which is accompanied by parliamentary law. To suggest that parliamentary law is somehow not law is nonsense. Parliament is the most important law making body in the country which is embodied in the notion that parliament can make any law and break any law. In short the law of the land is Parliamentary Acts and common law with parliamentary acts being the most important.
You are also wrong about the courts. They would indeed grant a warrant. Whether the BBC would apply for one is unlikely.
The communication act is ledislation gone though parlment passed by goverment but it is not part of the constitution which is common law.It is classed as commercial law, two very different things.the law of the land aplies to this topic.
Also the courts would never grant a search warrant on the grounds mr xxx may or may not have have a tv pulling live broadcasts.
Sorry Phil but you are piling confusion up on confusion. Common law refers to the centuries of judge made law and the system of precedent. It is one part of our legal system which is accompanied by parliamentary law. To suggest that parliamentary law is somehow not law is nonsense. Parliament is the most important law making body in the country which is embodied in the notion that parliament can make any law and break any law. In short the law of the land is Parliamentary Acts and common law with parliamentary acts being the most important.
You are also wrong about the courts. They would indeed grant a warrant. Whether the BBC would apply for one is unlikely.
I'm sure it would do very well on subscription, certainly its programmes sell very well abroad, but the point surely is to provide some intelligent television for those who would otherwise watch x factor all day. I genuinely doubt they would subscribe, however good value it is.
I see absolutely no intelligent television at all on BBC1..
but yes the rest of their channels tv/radio have some merit imo
but yes the rest of their channels tv/radio have some merit imo
Eeternaloptimist
The face remains it is an act,which in turn needs agreement to be enforsed,without your name or address or signature they have not got a contract and can not prosucute,this i why the inspectors are only payed their £20 fee if they get one of the above.
You can also remove the implied right of access if you do not what anymore doorstep visits off them.
And if it somehow went to court the bill of rights 1689 would kick it and it would be throw out it says,
That all grants of promises of fines and foreitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.
late for work now
The face remains it is an act,which in turn needs agreement to be enforsed,without your name or address or signature they have not got a contract and can not prosucute,this i why the inspectors are only payed their £20 fee if they get one of the above.
You can also remove the implied right of access if you do not what anymore doorstep visits off them.
And if it somehow went to court the bill of rights 1689 would kick it and it would be throw out it says,
That all grants of promises of fines and foreitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.
late for work now
BBC3 and BBC4 don't start until 7:00 PM.
Why's that when all the commercial channels start in the morning?
Are they on ration?
Sort of, they share bandwidth with the two children's channels (so can't broadcast at the same times). The constraints on available broadcast time does seem to improve programme output as measured against the 'opposition'.
Why's that when all the commercial channels start in the morning?
Are they on ration?
Sort of, they share bandwidth with the two children's channels (so can't broadcast at the same times). The constraints on available broadcast time does seem to improve programme output as measured against the 'opposition'.
"they share bandwidth with the two children's channels"
don't the bbc have a restraining order? like Elmo?
don't the bbc have a restraining order? like Elmo?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539