Of course it backs up what you say. You are only ever interested in backing up what YOU say. You NEVER take on board any comment or suggestion anyone else ever says. If you said the BBC was made of chocolate you would find something to back that up. If you said the BBC Director General was married to a giraffe you would find something to back it up.
But, even what you post is not FACT, it is speculation derived from a variety of different "experts". But speculation does not make fact does it? I could speculate that the BBC will still be here in 100 years, doesn't make it fact though does it?
The poll you keep referring to is not FACT. It is from last year. It is telling how you totally ignore, or just don't like, the latest yougov poll which suggests the opposite to your outdated poll. So, you don't post facts do you?
from The Economist. A far right wing newspaper which fully supports the neocon agenda.
"But the outrage is out of proportion to the sins of the BBC. Take a step back, and the BBC is not broken. I would argue it is the best broadcaster in the world: and thus on the rather short list of British things that are the best in the world .......
.........The BBC is an odd institution. Its resources do make it an unfair competitor for commercial news organisations. But it does not cost very much, in the grand scheme of things. And if it vanished, nothing else like it would take its place. And the world and Britain would be a poorer place for it."
from the guardian, which some claim is slightly left wing:
"As Grade put it: “You wouldn’t invent a hereditary monarchy today, you wouldn’t invent the House of Lords, you wouldn’t invent the BBC in a dynamic market. You either believe in it or you don’t. You can’t intellectually – in a modern sense with a modern mindset – justify it. But it is part of what makes this country different from anywhere else in the world. And you either believe in the BBC or you don’t: the BBC is essentially an idea.” .......
......... Without the BBC we would be poorer in spirit. We would know less about the world: our cultural, musical and political lives would be diminished; our curiosity neither so piqued nor so sated. It threads itself through our lives, and I can barely imagine my days starting without the weather app and the Today programme, and ending with the Proms, The World Tonight or – yes – a cop drama.
Those who love it expect much from it: we expect more from it. We cheer it on, but we urge it to do better. We still believe. We do not wish to see it stumble. We do not wish to hear its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar."
But there are numerous bookshops, lots of online bookshops, Amazon etc. So I'm afraid I do have point.
I said Free to use Libraries not book shops.
Also if you feel that strongly about Libraries should be closed, then fair enough. But start a thread in the relevant forum section please as this thread is discussion about the frivolous entertainment service called the BBC.
No it is not an essential service. Noone in my immediate family watches the BBC or much television for that matter and there has been no negative impact on our lives whatsoever.
Please confirm whether I am worse off through not watching television and in particular the BBC? If I was a parent would you report me to social services for not allowing them access to an essential service? Would this constitute abuse/neglect?
from The Economist. A far right wing newspaper which fully supports the neocon agenda.
"But the outrage is out of proportion to the sins of the BBC. Take a step back, and the BBC is not broken. I would argue it is the best broadcaster in the world: and thus on the rather short list of British things that are the best in the world .......
.........The BBC is an odd institution. Its resources do make it an unfair competitor for commercial news organisations. But it does not cost very much, in the grand scheme of things. And if it vanished, nothing else like it would take its place. And the world and Britain would be a poorer place for it."
For the first time ever, I find myself agreeing with a right-wing mouth piece (apart from the 'unfair competitor for commercial news organisations' bit). I hope I'm not on the turn.
Right...accept that the licence fee is the most favored method of funding the Beeb.
It is, I've never disputed that, merely saying support for the tvl in its current state is slowly dwindling, even the BBC acknowledge this, precisely why it needs modernising.
from The Economist. A far right wing newspaper which fully supports the neocon agenda.
"But the outrage is out of proportion to the sins of the BBC. Take a step back, and the BBC is not broken. I would argue it is the best broadcaster in the world: and thus on the rather short list of British things that are the best in the world .......
.........The BBC is an odd institution. Its resources do make it an unfair competitor for commercial news organisations. But it does not cost very much, in the grand scheme of things. And if it vanished, nothing else like it would take its place. And the world and Britain would be a poorer place for it."
from the guardian, which some claim is slightly left wing:
"As Grade put it: “You wouldn’t invent a hereditary monarchy today, you wouldn’t invent the House of Lords, you wouldn’t invent the BBC in a dynamic market. You either believe in it or you don’t. You can’t intellectually – in a modern sense with a modern mindset – justify it. But it is part of what makes this country different from anywhere else in the world. And you either believe in the BBC or you don’t: the BBC is essentially an idea.” .......
......... Without the BBC we would be poorer in spirit. We would know less about the world: our cultural, musical and political lives would be diminished; our curiosity neither so piqued nor so sated. It threads itself through our lives, and I can barely imagine my days starting without the weather app and the Today programme, and ending with the Proms, The World Tonight or – yes – a cop drama.
Those who love it expect much from it: we expect more from it. We cheer it on, but we urge it to do better. We still believe. We do not wish to see it stumble. We do not wish to hear its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar."
BIB...isn't that beautiful. It sums things up nicely for me too.
It does come down to values actually. You either believe in a fairer more equal society / a society which benefits the many and not the few or you don't.
BBC TV is cheaper per minute than ITV but more per hour ...
And the fact that the market will not fill the gap for any content without a large increase in charges...
And that the BBC is just over 20% of the market in cash but a lot lot more interms of Chet and almost universality used
Well if you feel that strongly about Libraries should be closed, then fair enough. But start a thread in the relevant forum section please as this thread is discussion about the frivolous entertainment service called the BBC.
I don't. Libraries just like the BBC are important public services. Something of an argument that is lost on the likes of you.
Oh and why don't you stop making endless bloody threads about the licence fee? This thread is about the slimming down of the BBC not a debate on the licence fee so stop acting as if you are the forum police.
No it is not an essential service. Noone in my immediate family watches the BBC or much television for that matter and there has been no negative impact on our lives whatsoever.
Please confirm whether I am worse off through not watching television and in particular the BBC? If I was a parent would you report me to social services for not allowing them access to an essential service? Would this constitute abuse/neglect?
...but life isn't all about you though is it. I believe we should all contribute to all/and many public services (public services being well funded) regardless of whether/how often we access said services. Public services are about society, bringing the country together, binding us together via a common interest, collective benefit, society not self...know what I mean? It's about our values...British values.
What I express is facts. Television (especially the BBC) and Radio is an essential service.
Humans have been around for 200,000 years and done fine without the BBC. So just one tiny island having BBC for less than 95 years, makes no difference either way.
Even if it did, what do you plan to do, force people to sit in front of a television and make them select BBC1. Just imagine that, "Hey get off that Playstation 4 and come and watch Mrs. Browns boys and Mr. Khan with the rest of the Family and get educated by quality BBC programming".
It's not going to happen. So its pointless us forking out nearly £4 billion, every year for life for it.
“There is a deepening global tilt towards news focused or aggregated around a world view: political Islam, evangelical Christianity, nationalism, patriotism and so on. While these are very different and varied phenomena, in such communities of interest shared values become a new brand loyalty.
“Al Jazeera in Arabic sees itself as serving an audience that is conservative and Muslim. For the station and its audience, common religious assumptions give a sense of belonging which can bleed into shared views on political, economic and especially cultural questions.
“Similarly, Fox News articulates a very specific view of what it is to be an American.
“In this polarised world, modern or universal rights - political, human, gender or sexual rights - or concepts of openness and democracy become deeply polarising.” The report included a statistic that only 55 per cent of Chinese respondents and 31 per cent of Russian respondents agreed that gay men and women “should be able to lead their lives as they like”.
I don't. Libraries just like the BBC are important public services. Something of an argument that is lost on the likes of you.
Oh and why don't you stop making endless bloody threads about the licence fee? This thread is about the slimming down of the BBC not a debate on the licence fee so stop acting as if you are the forum police.
the bbc is not important it is oversized biased leftwing propaganda
Oh and why don't you stop making endless bloody threads about the licence fee? This thread is about the slimming down of the BBC not a debate on the licence fee so stop acting as if you are the forum police.
I don't think i've ever started a thread about the Licence fee and the post you quoted doesn't mention the TV Licence and in this thread I didn't even post anything about the licence fee until post 120 and that was a reply to ASH who mentioned the TV Licence and I simply corrected a mistake he made.
Two points...why would they not start charging if they thought it was financially beneficial? They won't all the time the licence fee remains. Furthermore, why would (for example) ITV contribute to a platform which supported it's rivals?
Because most people wouldn't pay (besides those who had already signed up for Sky, other FTA channels would emerge, and ITV, Four and Five would become a shadow of their current selves.
People who want to watch ITV, 4 and 5 are watching them now. People who aren't watching them now won't start to watch them (if there was no Beeb).
Only lunatics watch only BBC to the complete exclusion of other channels. Believe it or not there are people working at ITV, Four and Five capable of making quality programming. And if there were no BBC, many of the wonderful, creative people currently working there would very likely be employed by the commercial channels, who would benefit from their expertise. It's not the BBC that magically creates the programming, it's the people who work there.
BBC TV is cheaper per minute than ITV but more per hour ...
And the fact that the market will not fill the gap for any content without a large increase in charges...
And that the BBC is just over 20% of the market in cash but a lot lot more interms of Chet and almost universality used
It's a fascinating (but sobering) read isn't it. I spent hours reading and digesting the document. One of the most interesting facts was that the BBC only provides 22% of content on television yet it produces the most original content, has the highest audience reach and share to boot making it, as you say, the cheapest (but most varied) UK content.
Humans have been around for 200,000 years and done fine without the BBC. So just one tiny island having BBC for less than 95 years, makes no difference either way.
Even if it did, what do you plan to do, force people to sit in front of a television and make them select BBC1. Just imagine that, "Hey get off that Playstation 4 and come and watch Mrs. Browns boys and Mr. Khan with the rest of the Family and get educated by quality BBC programming".
It's not going to happen. So its pointless us forking out nearly £4 billion, every year for life for it.
Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous and pretty typical of aggressive anti BBC types. There are many things the human race survived without which are now considered essential public services. If public funding broadcasting is so ridiculous why do most other countries also have public funded broadcasting?
Comments
Doesn't change the fact only about half of Britons support it, the rest don't, hardly a tiny minority.
But thats not the case like it is with the BBC.
Half of those polled...
*Bangs head on wall due to the sheer lack of braincells on this forum at the moment*
So who were they polling if not Britons. .....
Be my guest, go knock yourself out..........
Of course it backs up what you say. You are only ever interested in backing up what YOU say. You NEVER take on board any comment or suggestion anyone else ever says. If you said the BBC was made of chocolate you would find something to back that up. If you said the BBC Director General was married to a giraffe you would find something to back it up.
But, even what you post is not FACT, it is speculation derived from a variety of different "experts". But speculation does not make fact does it? I could speculate that the BBC will still be here in 100 years, doesn't make it fact though does it?
The poll you keep referring to is not FACT. It is from last year. It is telling how you totally ignore, or just don't like, the latest yougov poll which suggests the opposite to your outdated poll. So, you don't post facts do you?
"But the outrage is out of proportion to the sins of the BBC. Take a step back, and the BBC is not broken. I would argue it is the best broadcaster in the world: and thus on the rather short list of British things that are the best in the world .......
.........The BBC is an odd institution. Its resources do make it an unfair competitor for commercial news organisations. But it does not cost very much, in the grand scheme of things. And if it vanished, nothing else like it would take its place. And the world and Britain would be a poorer place for it."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2010/07/bashing_bbc
from the guardian, which some claim is slightly left wing:
"As Grade put it: “You wouldn’t invent a hereditary monarchy today, you wouldn’t invent the House of Lords, you wouldn’t invent the BBC in a dynamic market. You either believe in it or you don’t. You can’t intellectually – in a modern sense with a modern mindset – justify it. But it is part of what makes this country different from anywhere else in the world. And you either believe in the BBC or you don’t: the BBC is essentially an idea.” .......
......... Without the BBC we would be poorer in spirit. We would know less about the world: our cultural, musical and political lives would be diminished; our curiosity neither so piqued nor so sated. It threads itself through our lives, and I can barely imagine my days starting without the weather app and the Today programme, and ending with the Proms, The World Tonight or – yes – a cop drama.
Those who love it expect much from it: we expect more from it. We cheer it on, but we urge it to do better. We still believe. We do not wish to see it stumble. We do not wish to hear its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/20/-sp-bbc-report-future-charter-renewal
Right...accept that the licence fee is the most favored method of funding the Beeb.
Also if you feel that strongly about Libraries should be closed, then fair enough. But start a thread in the relevant forum section please as this thread is discussion about the frivolous entertainment service called the BBC.
Please confirm whether I am worse off through not watching television and in particular the BBC? If I was a parent would you report me to social services for not allowing them access to an essential service? Would this constitute abuse/neglect?
For the first time ever, I find myself agreeing with a right-wing mouth piece (apart from the 'unfair competitor for commercial news organisations' bit). I hope I'm not on the turn.
It is, I've never disputed that, merely saying support for the tvl in its current state is slowly dwindling, even the BBC acknowledge this, precisely why it needs modernising.
BIB...isn't that beautiful. It sums things up nicely for me too.
It does come down to values actually. You either believe in a fairer more equal society / a society which benefits the many and not the few or you don't.
All should read ^^^^ Barwise and Piccard....
BBC TV is cheaper per minute than ITV but more per hour ...
And the fact that the market will not fill the gap for any content without a large increase in charges...
And that the BBC is just over 20% of the market in cash but a lot lot more interms of Chet and almost universality used
And on overheads ... look at what PWC say. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/bbc_report_pwc_update_overheads_efficiency_review.pdf
The BBC is almost at the quartile with only 7.6 % general overheads ....
Government department and large charities are 11.2%
Oh and why don't you stop making endless bloody threads about the licence fee? This thread is about the slimming down of the BBC not a debate on the licence fee so stop acting as if you are the forum police.
...but life isn't all about you though is it. I believe we should all contribute to all/and many public services (public services being well funded) regardless of whether/how often we access said services. Public services are about society, bringing the country together, binding us together via a common interest, collective benefit, society not self...know what I mean? It's about our values...British values.
Even if it did, what do you plan to do, force people to sit in front of a television and make them select BBC1. Just imagine that, "Hey get off that Playstation 4 and come and watch Mrs. Browns boys and Mr. Khan with the rest of the Family and get educated by quality BBC programming".
It's not going to happen. So its pointless us forking out nearly £4 billion, every year for life for it.
“There is a deepening global tilt towards news focused or aggregated around a world view: political Islam, evangelical Christianity, nationalism, patriotism and so on. While these are very different and varied phenomena, in such communities of interest shared values become a new brand loyalty.
“Al Jazeera in Arabic sees itself as serving an audience that is conservative and Muslim. For the station and its audience, common religious assumptions give a sense of belonging which can bleed into shared views on political, economic and especially cultural questions.
“Similarly, Fox News articulates a very specific view of what it is to be an American.
“In this polarised world, modern or universal rights - political, human, gender or sexual rights - or concepts of openness and democracy become deeply polarising.” The report included a statistic that only 55 per cent of Chinese respondents and 31 per cent of Russian respondents agreed that gay men and women “should be able to lead their lives as they like”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11374765/BBC-World-Service-under-threat-from-Al-Jazeera-and-nationalist-news.html
the bbc is not important it is oversized biased leftwing propaganda
No need to apologise though Peter, I forgive you.
Because most people wouldn't pay (besides those who had already signed up for Sky, other FTA channels would emerge, and ITV, Four and Five would become a shadow of their current selves.
Only lunatics watch only BBC to the complete exclusion of other channels. Believe it or not there are people working at ITV, Four and Five capable of making quality programming. And if there were no BBC, many of the wonderful, creative people currently working there would very likely be employed by the commercial channels, who would benefit from their expertise. It's not the BBC that magically creates the programming, it's the people who work there.
It's a fascinating (but sobering) read isn't it. I spent hours reading and digesting the document. One of the most interesting facts was that the BBC only provides 22% of content on television yet it produces the most original content, has the highest audience reach and share to boot making it, as you say, the cheapest (but most varied) UK content.
examples ?