I just don't see the BBC surviving and they can make all the threats they like but the BBC are less relevant these days than ever..
You see, this is what I don't get. If the BBC are as irrelevant as you suggest, then why do 96% of the population regularly use their services; either TV, radio or website.
If they were "irrelevant" then surely that number would be nowhere near as high?
There is a difference between the current BBC and the needs for high quality public broadcasting.
Except that there isn't and the BBC is already a "high quality PSB".
Whittingdale was right to point out that shows like the Voice and Strictly are already catered for by commercial broadcasters.
Even if I grant you "The Voice" - and the case does have some merit - I have a problem with anyone calling SCD out as being 'too commercial' because it begs the question of at what point something the BBC shows goes from being "okay" for them to show to being "too commercial"?
When it started SCD was completely new and unique. IIRC, the first season averaged around 4m viewers, give or take. Was is "commercial" then? If so, why did a commercial channel not think of the idea? (Don't worry. We know the answer; which is because they don't like to take risks.)
So now it gets around 8m viewers it's suddenly "too commercial"?
Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work like that.
Far too much of the BBC output duplicates the fat chav rubbish of ITV.
Wrong. I would say that it is the tiny minority of shows that do as you suggest. Try looking at the output as a whole and not just one channel or one time-frame.
I would happily pay £150 a year for a TV channel that was deducated to science, history and decent political stuff...
Why do people make comparisons between the BBC and the NHS? It seems the NHS is wheeled out everytime in order to "win" some kind of argument that doesn't actually exist.
Because they are comparable in many respects; free at the point of use, paid for via taxes (or a tax) and sometimes quite wasteful with public money.
Because they are comparable in many respects; free at the point of use, paid for via taxes (or a tax) and sometimes quite wasteful with public money.
Seems like quite a valid comparison to me.
If you say so, but I would compare the NHS to education and the BBC to public libraries. That is a much more realistic comparison. The NHS and education are vital whereas the BBC and libraries are important, we would survive without either.
If you say so, but I would compare the NHS to education and the BBC to public libraries. That is a much more realistic comparison. The NHS and education are vital whereas the BBC and libraries are important, we would survive without either.
You try closing a local public library all hell would break loose, in certain areas of the country they are a vital service for many.
I see the chancellor has given a tax break to the film/TV industry
Under the scheme, film production companies can claim tax relief of 25% payable towards the cost of production.
Mr Osborne said: "These tax credits, that support both film and TV production, create around £2bn worth of business for Britain.
The chancellor made the announcement on the set of Agatha Raisin, a Sky One TV detective series being filmed in Wiltshire. The show, starring Ashley Jensen, is one of the TV series which is benefitting from the scheme.
We get the message George...when is he going to impose on Sky/BT/Virgin households with someone aged 75+ will get those services for free.
Joking aside here we have the chancellor recognising the need for taxpayer funding to support a film industry that may pay an actor millions to appear in a cameo role and the profits winging their way to America to such companies as 21st Century Fox.
I doubt under these scheme those companies will have to justify their spending to a Select Committee or the salaries they pay executives.
If you say so, but I would compare the NHS to education and the BBC to public libraries. That is a much more realistic comparison. The NHS and education are vital whereas the BBC and libraries are important, we would survive without either.
I gave an example of Child Benefit which you chose to ignore.
I could have pointed to the likely changes in the rules governing tax and pension contributions and reactions you would see as 'political' because they point out the consequences of such a change.
For financial reasons by 2027 the state pension age for women is due to rise from 60 to 67, along with a rise for men from the age of 65 to 67, and then linked to life expectancy after that.
With the 75+ penalty the chancellor has imposed on the BBC is there a clause linking the age to life expectancy, if not why not?
Isn't it 2018 before all this comes into force as far as the BBC is concerned, the government has promised to introduce legislation to peg the TV licence to inflation and that will go to the BBC. The contribution to broadband from the licence is also being reduced to zero (why licence payers should be financing commercial companies providing broadband is beyond me). So the BBC will only have two years of these cuts before 2020 when the Tory pledge expires.
It's the production companies that get the tax breaks. In this case it's ITV Studios' Mammoth Screen, who also made the BBC's Poldark.
The tax break for production companies and the 75+ free TV are two separate issues but George just happened to confirm his budget announcement on the set of a production for Sky.
As future PM he was not sucking up to the Murdoch clan or being political.
The tax break for production companies and the 75+ free TV are two separate issues but George just happened to confirm his budget announcement on the set of a production for Sky.
As future PM he was not sucking up to the Murdoch clan or being political.
I expect his office phoned around the broadcasters and asked if there was any location filming going on, not too far from London and ITV said said they did.
audience research stats show that most r4 listeners are either buried or cremated. But we keep listening, cos there is nothing remotely similar from commercial radio ......
I expect his office phoned around the broadcasters and asked if there was any location filming going on, not too far from London and ITV said said they did.
ITV?
I believe Agatha Raisin is for Sky, so not only are Sky customers paying through their subscriptions they are subsidising the production through tax credits.
While George is cutting family credit he's giving tax credits to well off luvvies so some selfish Sky subscribers can get others to pay for their viewing...the swine!!
Arrgh... I'll be calling subscriber call centre staff goons next.
wot do bbc and nhs have in common? Best value for money, in their respective spheres. Despite some compulsory privatisation in both. But hark, wot is that horrid noise? Sooth,it is privateers with their snouts in the taxpayer money feeding trough .....
wot do bbc and nhs have in common? Best value for money, in their respective spheres. Despite some compulsory privatisation in both. But hark, wot is that horrid noise? Sooth,it is privateers with their snouts in the taxpayer money feeding trough .....
Do you mean, "What do the BBC and the NHS have in common?", or is this a sideswipe at education as well?
wot do bbc and nhs have in common? Best value for money, in their respective spheres. Despite some compulsory privatisation in both. But hark, wot is that horrid noise? Sooth,it is privateers with their snouts in the taxpayer money feeding trough .....
Other than that, nothing in common.
The NHS saves lives & reduces suffering of people in pain.
The BBC does neither.
Far too much of the BBC output duplicates the fat chav rubbish of ITV. I would happily pay £150 a year for a TV channel that was deducated to science, history and decent political stuff, problem is none of the main broadcasters want to do it, the BBC should be but it isn't. Just how many cooking shows do we need in TV?
I'm not sure how you can say the BBC is not doing it?
Have you not tried the Science and Nature/ History sections of the iplayer?
Even a dedicated Science/History channel would not produce that amount of original content. In fact compare to the dedicated commercial History channel on Sky, http://www.history.co.uk/shows
Other than that, nothing in common.
The NHS saves lives & reduces suffering of people in pain.
The BBC does neither.
It was a campaign by the BBC that started Childline, saving many children from abuse and suicide.
It was a campaign by the BBC that started the first liver and pancreas transplants in the UK, now liver transplants are common place and there are specialist hepatic transplant centres whereas previously there were none.
It was a campaign by the BBC that stopped long kettle leads from being manufactured, which enabled children to pour scalding water over themselves, causing deaths and life long scarring.
It was a campaign by the BBC to introduce moulded plugs after serious injuries (200) and electrocutions (30) on electrical appliances. Now moulded plugs are seen today on all appliances on sale and deaths and injuries as a result are a rarity.
A recent campaign by BBC Watchdog has led to the ban of inflammable children's fancy dress costumes in most major retailers. See below
Even a dedicated Science/History channel would not produce that amount of original content. In fact compare to the dedicated commercial History channel on Sky, http://www.history.co.uk/shows
Well, he is another one who spews a load of nonsense that flies in the face of evidence that is patently available for all to see. How anyone can suggest that the BBC is somehow copying ITV's content is just mind blowing. The two schedules could not be more different. Makes me wonder whether these people think that just because they say something bold and stupid everyone will just nod in agreement as if it must be true. Fortunately, this isn't the Daily Mail and most of us can read and write for ourselves as well as being intelligent enough to do some research.
Ah, so its the BBC to blame for those silly short kettle leads
Aye it's terrible, I haven't had loops of cable sat on the worktop for years due to the interference of that meddling BBC
IIRC going back I vaguely remember my dad redoing one of the old kettle leads back when they were commonly 4 foot long, so it was only about 18 inches (I think it eventually made it's way into one of my computer boxes as it was the ideal length for an old switch).
Ah, so its the BBC to blame for those silly short kettle leads
No it was government legislation after the campaign and I'm sure you could find or make one yourself that is long enough to dangle over your kitchen work surface if it's really so troublesome for you.
Notice that this was the only response you managed to make once your nonsense had been exposed.
Comments
If they were "irrelevant" then surely that number would be nowhere near as high?
Even if I grant you "The Voice" - and the case does have some merit - I have a problem with anyone calling SCD out as being 'too commercial' because it begs the question of at what point something the BBC shows goes from being "okay" for them to show to being "too commercial"?
When it started SCD was completely new and unique. IIRC, the first season averaged around 4m viewers, give or take. Was is "commercial" then? If so, why did a commercial channel not think of the idea? (Don't worry. We know the answer; which is because they don't like to take risks.)
So now it gets around 8m viewers it's suddenly "too commercial"?
Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work like that.
Wrong. I would say that it is the tiny minority of shows that do as you suggest. Try looking at the output as a whole and not just one channel or one time-frame.
That may be, but no-one else would.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/news/2015/audience_research.pdf
"What should the BBC's mission be?"
Top 3:
Entertain - 64%
Inform - 59%
Educate - 43%
Really? The BBC isn't doing science, history or political stuff? (Leaving out the subjective clause in your sentence.) Pretty sure they are!
Seems like quite a valid comparison to me.
If you say so, but I would compare the NHS to education and the BBC to public libraries. That is a much more realistic comparison. The NHS and education are vital whereas the BBC and libraries are important, we would survive without either.
You try closing a local public library all hell would break loose, in certain areas of the country they are a vital service for many.
I see the chancellor has given a tax break to the film/TV industry
We get the message George...when is he going to impose on Sky/BT/Virgin households with someone aged 75+ will get those services for free.
Joking aside here we have the chancellor recognising the need for taxpayer funding to support a film industry that may pay an actor millions to appear in a cameo role and the profits winging their way to America to such companies as 21st Century Fox.
I doubt under these scheme those companies will have to justify their spending to a Select Committee or the salaries they pay executives.
Meanwhile my phone bill is £400, Sky £500, gym £450....
And the BBC doesn't offer value for money?
There is only a tiny minority ( a loud minority mind you) on here who think the BBC is not value for money.
I gave an example of Child Benefit which you chose to ignore.
I could have pointed to the likely changes in the rules governing tax and pension contributions and reactions you would see as 'political' because they point out the consequences of such a change.
For financial reasons by 2027 the state pension age for women is due to rise from 60 to 67, along with a rise for men from the age of 65 to 67, and then linked to life expectancy after that.
With the 75+ penalty the chancellor has imposed on the BBC is there a clause linking the age to life expectancy, if not why not?
It's the production companies that get the tax breaks. In this case it's ITV Studios' Mammoth Screen, who also made the BBC's Poldark.
The tax break for production companies and the 75+ free TV are two separate issues but George just happened to confirm his budget announcement on the set of a production for Sky.
As future PM he was not sucking up to the Murdoch clan or being political.
I expect his office phoned around the broadcasters and asked if there was any location filming going on, not too far from London and ITV said said they did.
ITV?
I believe Agatha Raisin is for Sky, so not only are Sky customers paying through their subscriptions they are subsidising the production through tax credits.
While George is cutting family credit he's giving tax credits to well off luvvies so some selfish Sky subscribers can get others to pay for their viewing...the swine!!
Arrgh... I'll be calling subscriber call centre staff goons next.
Do you mean, "What do the BBC and the NHS have in common?", or is this a sideswipe at education as well?
The NHS saves lives & reduces suffering of people in pain.
The BBC does neither.
From our very own Digital Spy...
I'm not sure how you can say the BBC is not doing it?
Have you not tried the Science and Nature/ History sections of the iplayer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/categories/history/highlights
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/categories/science-and-nature/highlights
Even a dedicated Science/History channel would not produce that amount of original content. In fact compare to the dedicated commercial History channel on Sky, http://www.history.co.uk/shows
It was a campaign by the BBC that started Childline, saving many children from abuse and suicide.
It was a campaign by the BBC that started the first liver and pancreas transplants in the UK, now liver transplants are common place and there are specialist hepatic transplant centres whereas previously there were none.
It was a campaign by the BBC that stopped long kettle leads from being manufactured, which enabled children to pour scalding water over themselves, causing deaths and life long scarring.
It was a campaign by the BBC to introduce moulded plugs after serious injuries (200) and electrocutions (30) on electrical appliances. Now moulded plugs are seen today on all appliances on sale and deaths and injuries as a result are a rarity.
A recent campaign by BBC Watchdog has led to the ban of inflammable children's fancy dress costumes in most major retailers. See below
http://www.cfoa.org.uk/19812
Perhaps you'd like to estimate how many lives have been saved and how many injuries have been prevented in these few examples from the top of my head.
Do not state your own prejudices as fact when there is enough evidence to suggest otherwise, it just makes you look more foolish.
Well, he is another one who spews a load of nonsense that flies in the face of evidence that is patently available for all to see. How anyone can suggest that the BBC is somehow copying ITV's content is just mind blowing. The two schedules could not be more different. Makes me wonder whether these people think that just because they say something bold and stupid everyone will just nod in agreement as if it must be true. Fortunately, this isn't the Daily Mail and most of us can read and write for ourselves as well as being intelligent enough to do some research.
Aye it's terrible, I haven't had loops of cable sat on the worktop for years due to the interference of that meddling BBC
IIRC going back I vaguely remember my dad redoing one of the old kettle leads back when they were commonly 4 foot long, so it was only about 18 inches (I think it eventually made it's way into one of my computer boxes as it was the ideal length for an old switch).
No it was government legislation after the campaign and I'm sure you could find or make one yourself that is long enough to dangle over your kitchen work surface if it's really so troublesome for you.
Notice that this was the only response you managed to make once your nonsense had been exposed.