Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 97 comments are related to the topic:
Should they close down the BBC?
Should they close down the BBC?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 97
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
exagerating doesn't help your argument....
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
 |
|
By:
YES
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
I hate paying the licence fee but I hate paying for the Royals too.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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:
what do you watch on TV then?
|
|
By:
I pay my taxes willingly Sib, but no I don't campaign or vote for services that benefit other people more.
|
|
By:
*against.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
'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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
He's after your Job O, although i doubt he could come up and waffle for 1/2 a page without saying nowt !!
|
|
By:
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
 |
|
By:
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). |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Wow.
|
|
By:
Come on, it's only an act.
|
|
By:
I don't listen to BBC Radio nor TV but I pay a licence, it's ridiculous.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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....! |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
caleyjags 13 Dec 12 19:22
I don't listen to BBC Radio nor TV but I pay a licence, it's ridiculous. Why? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
... 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. |
|
By:
orioles, that's correct.
|
|
By:
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.
|