UKIP want the BBC to be 'cut to the bone'

1246712

Comments

  • john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    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?
  • iwearoddsocksiwearoddsocks Posts: 3,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    platelet wrote: »
    The debate is like Scottish independence. It won't go away until it happens.

    Then the debate changes to what a mistake it was

    A mistake for who? Can't England survive without Scotland?
  • tahititahiti Posts: 3,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    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.
  • Mark_Jones9Mark_Jones9 Posts: 12,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    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.
  • Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,189
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nodger wrote: »
    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? :confused:
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    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?

    And 20% of the audience were undecided voters.
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    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.
  • CAMERA OBSCURACAMERA OBSCURA Posts: 8,002
    Forum Member
    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? :confused:



    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.:confused: Maybe Mr. Farage thinks it means people around the world can listen to the shipping broadcast and watch Songs of Praise. Woohoo:D
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    Pat_Smith wrote: »
    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.

    Which bit of this do you fail to understand and absorb.
    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.

    I assume you don't have the vote.
  • Gregory ShapeGregory Shape Posts: 2,595
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    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?
  • trevgotrevgo Posts: 28,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • trunkstertrunkster Posts: 14,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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? :confused:

    Perhaps one that doesn't let the political leanings of its editors, correspondents, journalists and presenters permeate every aspect of its programme output?
  • CAMERA OBSCURACAMERA OBSCURA Posts: 8,002
    Forum Member
    trevgo wrote: »
    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?
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    platelet wrote: »
    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 :D

    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.
  • Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,189
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    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....
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    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.

    Black and white? No, just white. ;-)
  • DadDancerDadDancer Posts: 3,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    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?

    It's the same mob doing the same job on the same terms as last time.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    DadDancer wrote: »
    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.
  • RecordPlayerRecordPlayer Posts: 22,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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?

    Yes, it could have been the 20% undecided who heckled Farage last week.:D
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    DadDancer wrote: »
    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.
  • DianaFireDianaFire Posts: 12,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DadDancer wrote: »
    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.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    Yes, it could have been the 20% undecided who heckled Farage last week.:D

    Strangely I'm told that's what happened, well at least one undecided elector chose to give Farage a verbal bashing.
  • DadDancerDadDancer Posts: 3,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.