So only people you agree with should be allowed to broadcast on radio shows. I rather doubt Katie Hopkins is a neo Nazi - but I bow to you superior judgement - but your disdain for free speech is certainly in the direction of travel towards fascism.
In the end no one forces you to listen to or pay for LBC - in a democracy you have that choice. You are forced to fund the BBC.
Commercial broadcasting is paid for by advertising which is ultimately paid for by consumers.
You are forced to fund all commercial stations, in this democracy you don't have a choice.
It was justified - turned out it was 70/30 left/right weighting. Balance? This was the BBC electioneering on behalf of the Labour wing.
It's not unreasonable to cut the funding for a service which offers coverage for primarily one side of the political spectrum.
Hang on a minute. The rules for all of the TV debates were hammered out between the broadcasters and the political parties, all of which agreed to them. In short, UKIP must surely have known how the audience would be selected beforehand?
So only people you agree with should be allowed to broadcast on radio shows. I rather doubt Katie Hopkins is a neo Nazi - but I bow to you superior judgement - but your disdain for free speech is certainly in the direction of travel towards fascism.
Where is the disdain for free speech in my suggesting that I am glad the BBC exists, as an alternative to LBC and its extreme - right output?
As for your other comment I sometimes try to imagine, as a test of character, what people would have done in Occupied France.
I have few doubts about who Ms Hopkins and her apologists would have sided with.
I don't want to have to pay to watch party election broadcasts on behalf of the Labour Party, AKA BBC news / current affairs et al. I'm happy for others to have the choice to pay for it and to so do, and I'm happy to pay a pared down fee for maintaining access to some form of basic service.
So the public news service that in theory is impartial is biased in your opinion what about the privately owned news services are they biased or unbiased? Sky News only came into existence because it was a condition of the permits given to Murdoch and it is regulated as to accuracy. He wanted to have the regulation on Sky News relaxed so it could be more like USA Fox News and the UK news papers he owns, would that be an "unbiased" news.
The UK is become like the USA where the right complain about a left wing biased media when most of the media is right wing biased.
Another one. Have you read the whole article and the thread?
"Who said anything about privatisation? The article clearly states that Farage has stated, "I would like to see the BBC cut back to the bone to be purely a public service broadcaster with an international reach, and I would have thought you could do that with a licence fee that was about a third of what it currently is."
So the question for discussion is whether the BBC offers value for money and whether it's source funding can therefore be cut? (How much would the cut save?)"
The logical extension of such a policy would be privatisation, that is what the likes of UKIP are all about.
However what does the phrase " a public service broadcaster with an international reach" actually mean?
Hang on a minute. The rules for all of the TV debates were hammered out between the broadcasters and the political parties, all of which agreed to them. In short, UKIP must surely have known how the audience would be selected beforehand?
It was justified - turned out it was 70/30 left/right weighting. Balance? This was the BBC electioneering on behalf of the Labour wing.
It's not unreasonable to cut the funding for a service which offers coverage for primarily one side of the political spectrum.
It wasn't a 70/30 left/right weighting. UKIP would like you to think that it was and you seem to have fallen for their propaganda.
A large section of the audience were deliberately chosen because they were undecided voters and didn't know which way they were going to vote. This was so the broadcasters could examine whether they'd been swayed by any of the arguments put forward during the debate.
It would be more accurate to say the audience was about 30% left, 30% right and 40% undecided. As it happens, most of those people didn't seem to appreciate Farage's arguments.
The logical extension of such a policy would be privatisation, that is what the likes of UKIP are all about.
However what does the phrase " a public service broadcaster with an international reach" actually mean?
Yes, that is a strange one. A cut to the bone BBC that provides the basics to the UK LF payer (no entertainment mind) but also has an international reach. Maybe Mr. Farage thinks it means people around the world can listen to the shipping broadcast and watch Songs of Praise. Woohoo:D
It's not so much about incompetence in not be able to select, or lay the rules for selection of, an unbiased audience. It's about the political bias that leads to that outcome. But either incompetence or wilfulness, it comes to the same thing.
I don't want to have to pay to watch party election broadcasts on behalf of the Labour Party, AKA BBC news / current affairs et al. I'm happy for others to have the choice to pay for it and to so do, and I'm happy to pay a pared down fee for maintaining access to some form of basic service.
UK— Research agency and opinion pollster ICM has been picked by a consortium of broadcasters to recruit studio audiences for Britain’s first televised election debates.
Leaders of the three main parties – Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – will face-off against one another in front of a live audience of 200 voters.
Three debates are due to be held, one for each week of the general election campaign. Debate locations are yet to be announced, but ICM has been tasked with recruiting audiences within a 30-mile radius of the host city.
The BBC currently seems to be doing all it can to wind up the Tories and UKIP.
Typical example 2 mins ago. 6 Music News - reported that John Major has spoken about the threat from the SNP, but the clip played was Alistair Darling refuting the accusation.
They have been subtly but noticeably biased through the campaign thus far.
The logical extension of such a policy would be privatisation, that is what the likes of UKIP are all about.
However what does the phrase " a public service broadcaster with an international reach" actually mean?
Perhaps one that doesn't let the political leanings of its editors, correspondents, journalists and presenters permeate every aspect of its programme output?
The BBC currently seems to be doing all it can to wind up the Tories and UKIP.
Typical example 2 mins ago. 6 Music News - reported that John Major has spoken about the threat from the SNP, but the clip played was Alistair Darling refuting the accusation.
They have been subtley but noticeably biased through the campaign thus far.
Why is that biased? Maybe the BBC should have reported what Mr. Major had said and then asked another Tory to embellish it.
Is it biased when they ask Mr. Farage, for example, his view on what another party has said?
Total spend on Radio 2013/2014 £650m (19% of the budget). I think the Archers could survive his proposed reduction. The pinko festival that passes for the News Quiz on the other hand, maybe not
Except that and the 'international reach' Farage demands would eat up almost all of the £48.50p...not leaving a enough money for TV programmes apart for a small part of Scotland.
Farage wants to return to the days of the epilogue ending the days programming when TV came on-air at teatime. No doubt TV studios will have to revert to black & white and save money by only having 405 lines.
Why are 'illegal foreign practices unacceptable whilst 'illegal British practices' acceptable?
Why is it wrong for someone who has worked in this country for several years to get free healthcare whilst someone whose only link to the UK is a passport will get free healthcare
But then if you're going to stop "foreigners" coming here and be entitled to free health care perhaps that should also be extened to those who live here but have never done a day's work in their lives....
Except that and the 'international reach' Farage demands would eat up almost all of the £48.50p...not leaving a enough money for TV programmes apart for a small part of Scotland.
Farage wants to return to the days of the epilogue ending the days programming when TV came on-air at teatime. No doubt TV studios will have to revert to black & white and save money by only having 405 lines.
UKIP Should go one step further and axe it all together. The BBC should be a subscription channel/ package and people are then given the choice whether they want SKY, the BBC, Netflix, BT etc. No one should be forced to buy a TV licence.
UKIP Should go one step further and axe it all together. The BBC should be a subscription channel/ package and people are then given the choice whether they want SKY, the BBC, Netflix, BT etc. No one should be forced to buy a TV licence.
Would be a great shame to lose the BBC as a truly national broadcaster. Can't see it happening.
UKIP Should go one step further and axe it all together. The BBC should be a subscription channel/ package and people are then given the choice whether they want SKY, the BBC, Netflix, BT etc. No one should be forced to buy a TV licence.
For a start Sky subscribers spend only 30% of there viewing watching pay channels a large chunk of their viewing is of BBC programmes, If the BBC went subscription it would cost more (encryption, call centres, advertising, boxes don't come free) Sky charges more than a massive £250 a year for just it's entertainment channels NO films or sport.
Only an idiot or a headless chicken would choose to pay far more than they currently pay for something.
UKIP Should go one step further and axe it all together. The BBC should be a subscription channel/ package and people are then given the choice whether they want SKY, the BBC, Netflix, BT etc. No one should be forced to buy a TV licence.
Most houses have access to a TV aerial. Not all can get Sky etc and those packages are more expensive than the TV licence. The cheapest Sky one seems to be £258 for 12 months. Virgin is closer to £414. The TV licence is the cheapest option and has no set-up costs.
Would be a great shame to lose the BBC as a truly national broadcaster. Can't see it happening.
A great shame for you maybe, but i think a lot of people don't care for it any more, now that we have so many other alternative providers including the internet.
Surely the fairest thing is to make it a subscription channel, then everyone is happy. Those who want it can pay the subscription those who don't watch it can spend their money elsewhere. It's a no brainer
Comments
Commercial broadcasting is paid for by advertising which is ultimately paid for by consumers.
You are forced to fund all commercial stations, in this democracy you don't have a choice.
Hang on a minute. The rules for all of the TV debates were hammered out between the broadcasters and the political parties, all of which agreed to them. In short, UKIP must surely have known how the audience would be selected beforehand?
A mistake for who? Can't England survive without Scotland?
Where is the disdain for free speech in my suggesting that I am glad the BBC exists, as an alternative to LBC and its extreme - right output?
As for your other comment I sometimes try to imagine, as a test of character, what people would have done in Occupied France.
I have few doubts about who Ms Hopkins and her apologists would have sided with.
The UK is become like the USA where the right complain about a left wing biased media when most of the media is right wing biased.
The logical extension of such a policy would be privatisation, that is what the likes of UKIP are all about.
However what does the phrase " a public service broadcaster with an international reach" actually mean?
And 20% of the audience were undecided voters.
A large section of the audience were deliberately chosen because they were undecided voters and didn't know which way they were going to vote. This was so the broadcasters could examine whether they'd been swayed by any of the arguments put forward during the debate.
It would be more accurate to say the audience was about 30% left, 30% right and 40% undecided. As it happens, most of those people didn't seem to appreciate Farage's arguments.
Yes, that is a strange one. A cut to the bone BBC that provides the basics to the UK LF payer (no entertainment mind) but also has an international reach. Maybe Mr. Farage thinks it means people around the world can listen to the shipping broadcast and watch Songs of Praise. Woohoo:D
Which bit of this do you fail to understand and absorb.
I assume you don't have the vote.
You've posted a link to a five-year-old story about the debates before the last General Election. Have I missed something terribly clever and cryptic?
Typical example 2 mins ago. 6 Music News - reported that John Major has spoken about the threat from the SNP, but the clip played was Alistair Darling refuting the accusation.
They have been subtly but noticeably biased through the campaign thus far.
Perhaps one that doesn't let the political leanings of its editors, correspondents, journalists and presenters permeate every aspect of its programme output?
Why is that biased? Maybe the BBC should have reported what Mr. Major had said and then asked another Tory to embellish it.
Is it biased when they ask Mr. Farage, for example, his view on what another party has said?
Except that and the 'international reach' Farage demands would eat up almost all of the £48.50p...not leaving a enough money for TV programmes apart for a small part of Scotland.
Farage wants to return to the days of the epilogue ending the days programming when TV came on-air at teatime. No doubt TV studios will have to revert to black & white and save money by only having 405 lines.
But then if you're going to stop "foreigners" coming here and be entitled to free health care perhaps that should also be extened to those who live here but have never done a day's work in their lives....
Black and white? No, just white. ;-)
It's the same mob doing the same job on the same terms as last time.
Would be a great shame to lose the BBC as a truly national broadcaster. Can't see it happening.
Yes, it could have been the 20% undecided who heckled Farage last week.:D
For a start Sky subscribers spend only 30% of there viewing watching pay channels a large chunk of their viewing is of BBC programmes, If the BBC went subscription it would cost more (encryption, call centres, advertising, boxes don't come free) Sky charges more than a massive £250 a year for just it's entertainment channels NO films or sport.
Only an idiot or a headless chicken would choose to pay far more than they currently pay for something.
Most houses have access to a TV aerial. Not all can get Sky etc and those packages are more expensive than the TV licence. The cheapest Sky one seems to be £258 for 12 months. Virgin is closer to £414. The TV licence is the cheapest option and has no set-up costs.
Strangely I'm told that's what happened, well at least one undecided elector chose to give Farage a verbal bashing.
A great shame for you maybe, but i think a lot of people don't care for it any more, now that we have so many other alternative providers including the internet.
Surely the fairest thing is to make it a subscription channel, then everyone is happy. Those who want it can pay the subscription those who don't watch it can spend their money elsewhere. It's a no brainer