Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
09 May 15
13:20
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
As a poor man with nary a coin in his pockets to gamble on an outsider - i bitterly resent forking over £25 each month for six months, to pay these blowhards. Their 24 hour news booming out that vicious drum beat all through the day and night. That insane clock that has a weird time system? weird. The BBC adverts in between the shows? Their constant changing of the schedules. These are the only bozos that muck with the times. I've missed timer taping several films this month because the sports over run. All their formats are rehashed. Talent shows. Antique shows. house selling guff. capture the dole twits. capture the car theives. saints and scroungers. It's depressing. Eastenders is the worst program ever. No wonder I'm depressed right now. I need my £145 to gamble with. A chance at landing a mega multiple. I like tv and could do without this old monkey on my back. Phoning me up with legal threats... pay £25 by next week or else. I don't get this off anybody else... the gas/electricity folk are laid back. But these bbc wazzos are pumped up. Ten percent of all court cases are bbc fees related. Stop them before they take over.
Show More
Just under 40p per day.....great value !
The only reason Murdoch did not take over.
The only reason Murdoch did not take over.
Anything more than a few pence over what ITV charge per day is not value imo.
We all pay for ITV. Just indirectly through advertising.
The Leopard 09 May 15 13:39
Just under 40p per day.....great value !
The only reason Murdoch did not take over.
I dont think its value at all. I watched Top Gear and every now and then will watch a sports event. I used to use BBC Sport but they just focus on Football and sports that are aired on the BBC. Ive found sites far superior to BBC News and I never understand why people in the 21st Century listen to radio.
Just under 40p per day.....great value !
The only reason Murdoch did not take over.
I dont think its value at all. I watched Top Gear and every now and then will watch a sports event. I used to use BBC Sport but they just focus on Football and sports that are aired on the BBC. Ive found sites far superior to BBC News and I never understand why people in the 21st Century listen to radio.
Pretty much all of the BBC's shows are done on a budget, except for Top Gear which they've shafted.
Their sport offering imo is abysmal.
Their sport offering imo is abysmal.
We all pay for ITV. Just indirectly through advertising
Not all of us Darlo, only those that choose to watch ITV, and how much they 'pay' depends on how much they watch. This is how the BBC should raise its money, there's a lot more complaints about the license fee and the way money is collected for the BBC than there is from how ITV raises its money. Personally I only watch a few snooker and wimbledon matches on the bbc over the course of the year, and it's similar to ITV which I watch for football. I have no complaints with how much I pay to ITV, but the BBC is very expensive in comparison.
Not all of us Darlo, only those that choose to watch ITV, and how much they 'pay' depends on how much they watch. This is how the BBC should raise its money, there's a lot more complaints about the license fee and the way money is collected for the BBC than there is from how ITV raises its money. Personally I only watch a few snooker and wimbledon matches on the bbc over the course of the year, and it's similar to ITV which I watch for football. I have no complaints with how much I pay to ITV, but the BBC is very expensive in comparison.
"We all pay for ITV. Just indirectly through advertising" - Correct
"Not all of us Darlo, only those that choose to watch ITV, and how much they 'pay' depends on how much they watch" - So incorrect my head hurts.
"Not all of us Darlo, only those that choose to watch ITV, and how much they 'pay' depends on how much they watch" - So incorrect my head hurts.
I never understand why people in the 21st Century listen to radio.
If I had to choose betwen BBC radio or TV it would be Radio. I actually feel sorry for this chap...my guess is he was part of the MTV generation that only looks at flashing images and has the attention span of a Gnat.
If I had to choose betwen BBC radio or TV it would be Radio. I actually feel sorry for this chap...my guess is he was part of the MTV generation that only looks at flashing images and has the attention span of a Gnat.
"Not all of us Darlo, only those that choose to watch ITV, and how much they 'pay' depends on how much they watch" - So incorrect my head hurts.
I cant see why it's incorrect at all. Advertisers pay based on viewing figures. If someone watches ITV daily they will be influencing and increasing these viewing figures and generating more income for ITV than someone who watches once a month. Someone who doesn't watch it at all contributes nothing, unlike with the BBC.
I cant see why it's incorrect at all. Advertisers pay based on viewing figures. If someone watches ITV daily they will be influencing and increasing these viewing figures and generating more income for ITV than someone who watches once a month. Someone who doesn't watch it at all contributes nothing, unlike with the BBC.
May 9, 2015 -- 5:51PM, blank wrote:
We all pay for ITV. Just indirectly through advertisingNot all of us Darlo, only those that choose to watch ITV, and how much they 'pay' depends on how much they watch. This is how the BBC should raise its money, there's a lot more complaints about the license fee and the way money is collected for the BBC than there is from how ITV raises its money. Personally I only watch a few snooker and wimbledon matches on the bbc over the course of the year, and it's similar to ITV which I watch for football. I have no complaints with how much I pay to ITV, but the BBC is very expensive in comparison.
It doesn't matter how much ITV you watch. It's advertisers who pay for ITV. And where do those advertisers get their money? From all of us.
TV Licence fee a nice big pot of gold for this government to plunder, can’t understand why they didn’t help themselves during the coalition. Would have made more sense than the bedroom tax.
We don't all pay for ITV. I mute the ads & never watch them.
The production of advertising is very expensive. The advertisers must also pay for 'air-time' to ITV (or whoever).l So the cost of producing the advert, plus the price of every time it is shown, is quite considerable.
The toilet roll/corn flakes/insurance/holiday company only has ONE source of income...the people who buy their product.
Whether they watch the telly, or not!
The toilet roll/corn flakes/insurance/holiday company only has ONE source of income...the people who buy their product.
Whether they watch the telly, or not!
But they have a choice to buy these products or not you don't get any choice with the bbc
There's nothing on ITV that I want to watch so unfortunately don't know which products to avoid.
Perhaps someone could post a list on here for me?
Perhaps someone could post a list on here for me?
If you pay for a tree and it falls over in the woods and you didn't see it, did you really pay for it?
Answer: course you *****ing did, because you paid for it, watching it or not watching it has no effect.
Trying to say ITV is a form of Advertiser Pay Per View .. .. aargh!
Answer: course you *****ing did, because you paid for it, watching it or not watching it has no effect.
Trying to say ITV is a form of Advertiser Pay Per View .. .. aargh!
We all pay for ITV. Just indirectly through advertising - Incorrect
Advertising managers aren't stupid. They choose the most cost effective way to promote their service or product. If there was some Statist utopia for bbc luvvies where itv was banned, you'd be paying more for your stuff ( admittedly not by much ).
Advertising managers aren't stupid. They choose the most cost effective way to promote their service or product. If there was some Statist utopia for bbc luvvies where itv was banned, you'd be paying more for your stuff ( admittedly not by much ).
i can't think of a single programme i ever watch on BBC - can't remember ever watching anything on the BBC -it's total shyte .
Brian Cox - is he BBC ? ,the Office might have been - can't remember
Brian Cox - is he BBC ? ,the Office might have been - can't remember
Partridge AHA - i know that was - he was good - well 1st series anyway at the travel tavern
We all pay for advertising regardless of which medium the product manufacturer chooses to use.
We therefore pay for TV, newspapers, Google etc. whether we use them or not.
We therefore pay for TV, newspapers, Google etc. whether we use them or not.
I see where you are coming from Bongo. It's not a zero sum game and successful advertising promotes sales and allows efficiency of scale. Your argument assumes that such savings are then passed on to the customer. While this may be the case in some instances, I would argue that the savings are more likely to passed on to shareholders and to senior management through salary increases and bonuses.
Promoting something regional effectively is a forte of itv advertising I think. You'd have to take a lot of radio time, billboards by the roadside to be as effective. I like the way there's a maximum minutes per hour of advertising ( a free market still has to be well-regulated! ). It means that you still get quality television.
At the tv baftas the BBC got trounced in the television categories, as usual
.http://awards.bafta.org/award/2015/television
So a sponsor of one of these shows gets a 'feel good' factor too.
There's no way of knowing if you're right Foinavon on how much the benefit of effective advertising goes to shareholders, senior staff, and consumers. Many an advertising agency has gone broke. I'm guessing they all get a piece, not just the first two.
At the tv baftas the BBC got trounced in the television categories, as usual
.http://awards.bafta.org/award/2015/television
So a sponsor of one of these shows gets a 'feel good' factor too.
There's no way of knowing if you're right Foinavon on how much the benefit of effective advertising goes to shareholders, senior staff, and consumers. Many an advertising agency has gone broke. I'm guessing they all get a piece, not just the first two.
The Daily Telegraph says the BBC is ‘outdated’ and wants it to ‘demonstrate its continuing relevance’. Excuse me while I reach for my revolver. The BBC is a State broadcaster. State broadcasting was ‘relevant’ in the same way Communism was.
Let’s spell it out, for those who don’t know the history. The BBC was set up to limit free speech.
In June 1920, Marconi, with backing from the Daily Mail, made the first (private) radio broadcast in Britain. The British State, run by Britain’s ruling class, was horrified. They feared the masses, and they feared free mass communication. In America there had been an explosion of private radio stations, broadcasting whatever they liked. Within months, radio broadcasting in Britain had been banned. Scores of private companies were itching to get into radio broadcasting and repeatedly petitioned the government. In response, the British State announced in 1922 that it would control all radio broadcasting. When TV came along, the same thing happened. Companies like Marconi, the Daily Mail, HMV, EMI and others were dying to plunge in. But TV was declared to be a State monopoly.
We’re now well into the 21st Century and, astonishingly, that State monopoly still holds. The BBC’s resources are vast, crowding out any realistic competition. According to Roger Mosey (former Head of BBC Television News, and Editor of the Today Programme), the BBC enjoys a 70 per cent share of ‘news consumption’ on British TV and Radio.
The BBC shares the same dire failings as every other State producer. Those of us who have worked there know the staggeringly vast waste, the meaningless jobs, the corruption (look at the salaries).
But the waste is the least of it. To repeat, the BBC controls 70 per cent of news output on British TV and radio. The people who run the BBC (like others who work for large State organisations) tend to look favourably on high public spending and increased State regulation.
They cannot but have a huge influence on public debate in Britain, subtly colouring our views on everything from the EU and global warming, to ‘austerity’ and debt, the NHS, welfare reform and the size of the public sector.
The BBC reflects perfectly the worldview of the class that really runs Britain. Not the capitalists – if it were the capitalists do you think State spending would account for almost half of GDP? No, the BBC is the propaganda wing of the New Class, a class which is all the more powerful because it slips under the radar (that’s because there isn’t enough good old-fashioned Marxist class analysis among Libertarians).
The name ‘New Class’ may be unfamiliar to you, but close your eyes and you can see them: the cultured, educated but underpaid (according to them), the snob socialist paternalists, the market-hating tax-consuming regulators. If you want understand them better, read John Carey’s Pride and Prejudice: Intellectuals and the Masses. They are confident, self-righteous, parasitic and poisonous. And in Britain, the BBC is their most powerful weapon.
Make no mistake. The BBC has played a key role in the transformation of Britain from a thriving, prosperous, free country, into a flagging State-dominated manufacturing has-been. Don’t be fooled by the glittery frocks on Strictly Come Dancing. The BBC is a sinister organisation. It must not be reformed. It must be abolished.
.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/12/the-bbc-is-a-sinister-organisation-it-must-be-abolished-not-reformed/
Let’s spell it out, for those who don’t know the history. The BBC was set up to limit free speech.
In June 1920, Marconi, with backing from the Daily Mail, made the first (private) radio broadcast in Britain. The British State, run by Britain’s ruling class, was horrified. They feared the masses, and they feared free mass communication. In America there had been an explosion of private radio stations, broadcasting whatever they liked. Within months, radio broadcasting in Britain had been banned. Scores of private companies were itching to get into radio broadcasting and repeatedly petitioned the government. In response, the British State announced in 1922 that it would control all radio broadcasting. When TV came along, the same thing happened. Companies like Marconi, the Daily Mail, HMV, EMI and others were dying to plunge in. But TV was declared to be a State monopoly.
We’re now well into the 21st Century and, astonishingly, that State monopoly still holds. The BBC’s resources are vast, crowding out any realistic competition. According to Roger Mosey (former Head of BBC Television News, and Editor of the Today Programme), the BBC enjoys a 70 per cent share of ‘news consumption’ on British TV and Radio.
The BBC shares the same dire failings as every other State producer. Those of us who have worked there know the staggeringly vast waste, the meaningless jobs, the corruption (look at the salaries).
But the waste is the least of it. To repeat, the BBC controls 70 per cent of news output on British TV and radio. The people who run the BBC (like others who work for large State organisations) tend to look favourably on high public spending and increased State regulation.
They cannot but have a huge influence on public debate in Britain, subtly colouring our views on everything from the EU and global warming, to ‘austerity’ and debt, the NHS, welfare reform and the size of the public sector.
The BBC reflects perfectly the worldview of the class that really runs Britain. Not the capitalists – if it were the capitalists do you think State spending would account for almost half of GDP? No, the BBC is the propaganda wing of the New Class, a class which is all the more powerful because it slips under the radar (that’s because there isn’t enough good old-fashioned Marxist class analysis among Libertarians).
The name ‘New Class’ may be unfamiliar to you, but close your eyes and you can see them: the cultured, educated but underpaid (according to them), the snob socialist paternalists, the market-hating tax-consuming regulators. If you want understand them better, read John Carey’s Pride and Prejudice: Intellectuals and the Masses. They are confident, self-righteous, parasitic and poisonous. And in Britain, the BBC is their most powerful weapon.
Make no mistake. The BBC has played a key role in the transformation of Britain from a thriving, prosperous, free country, into a flagging State-dominated manufacturing has-been. Don’t be fooled by the glittery frocks on Strictly Come Dancing. The BBC is a sinister organisation. It must not be reformed. It must be abolished.
.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/12/the-bbc-is-a-sinister-organisation-it-must-be-abolished-not-reformed/
[img]http://images.onesite.com/community.betfair.com/user/coachbuster/509752...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539