I see exactly what other people mean when they talk about you moving the goalposts when the flaws in your arguments are pointed out. You specifically said that licence fee money is being spent on this channel, and when you were corrected you then changed it to claim you were saying the opposite.
I'm amazed you've got the nerve to talk about other people's reading comprehension when you've been so completely taken in by an obvious tabloid bullshit. Shame on the Independent for lowering their standards so much, but even more shame on you for being so gullible and stupid as to believe it.
So as well as getting personal and being insulting, you're not actually going to address any of the points I made in response to you?
According to who? This quote didn't come from the BBC or even from BBC Worldwide. No, the quote you refer to is apparently from an unnamed source who does not appear to speak on behalf of, or represent, the channel in any way.
When will it sink in? This journalist has taken a small bit of publicity material and then constructed an entirely fictional story around it.
Once again, you appear to be a victim of a poor standard of reading comprehension. I've already stated the probable reason the source is unnamed: i.e. that if they were to go on the record and put their name to what they are saying, they would almost certainly lose their job. Companies like the BBC don't like their internal strategies and inner workings to be broadcast to the world.
And, as you imply, the publicity material shown in the article is of note. They appear to have thrown a load of impressive-sounding words onto the page with little or no idea as to what they actually mean. It's like a scene from W1A.
I never said they did. In fact, I said the opposite. That profits from BBC Worldwide are returned to the BBC in the UK to supplement license fee revenue. Improve your reading comprehension if you're going to enter into discussions on a public forum. snip>>
BBC Worldwide, whose profits are wholly returned to the BBC to supplement revenues from the license fee. So where do you think they got the funding to start this channel up? Either way, it's immaterial. My main point that BBC funds are being used to pour fuel of the fire of racism in Polish society stands.
Once again, you appear to be a victim of a poor standard of reading comprehension. I've already stated the probable reason the source is unnamed: i.e. that if they were to go on the record and put their name to what they are saying, they would almost certainly lose their job. Companies like the BBC don't like their internal strategies and inner workings to be broadcast to the world.
And, as you imply, the publicity material shown in the article is of note. They appear to have thrown a load of impressive-sounding words onto the page with little or no idea as to what they actually mean. It's like a scene from W1A.
So to your mind the BBC are intending to stoke racial tensions in Poland and would not want anyone to upset that.
So as well as getting personal and being insulting, you're not actually going to address any of the points I made in response to you?
What points?
You said the licence fee was being spent on this channel. I pointed out that it isn't.
You say that the BBC is "attempting to court a bigoted audience". What makes you think that? The BBC Worldwide publicity makes no mention of trying to do such a thing, nor does anyone else who speaks on their behalf. Your argument is based on the interpretation given by a tabloid journalist who has read a brief publicity blurb.
You mention the fact that the channel will commission a small amount of their own original programming alongside established BBC series. For some reason you seem to think this backs up your argument, but you don't say how. As far as I can see it doesn't change anything - the channel intends to provide programming with a distinctly British flavour, hence the name 'BBC Brit'.
When I pointed out that the references to Ukip in the article were directly attributed to an unnamed source who could be absolutely anybody you asked me for "a source for these baseless claims". The article speaks for itself. The references to Ukip are from an unnamed source. And you talk about other people improving their reading comprehension!!!!!!!!
And then you pointed out that occasionally Ukip does send along another representative apart from Farage. Well, yes, occasionally they do. But more often than not Farage chooses to attend himself. So the main reason he appears on programmes like Question Time more than the leaders of the other parties is because they choose not to go, whereas Farage does. What was that you said about reading comprehension?
Have you noticed that everyone else on this thread thinks the article was a load of crap too. You seem to be on your own.
I was under the assumption that that was the case because profits from Worldwide are usually returned to the BBC rather than re-invested into operations instigated by Worldwide. Clearly I was wrong in this assumption on this occasion. Mea culpa.
So to your mind the BBC are intending to stoke racial tensions in Poland and would not want anyone to upset that.
Not purposefully, no, but that could well be an unintended consequence of the launch of a service whose schedule is built around Top Gear - a programme which doesn't have the most enlightened of audiences, and that is phrasing it diplomatically!
I was under the assumption that that was the case because profits from Worldwide are usually returned to the BBC rather than re-invested into operations instigated by Worldwide. Clearly I was wrong in this assumption on this occasion. Mea culpa.
That still doesn't explain why you said "I never said they did" (get their funding from the licence fee) when you were challenged about it. You did say that and to claim that you didn't is an enormous whopper. You even had the nerve to suggest I needed to improve my reading comprehension.
I was under the assumption that that was the case because profits from Worldwide are usually returned to the BBC rather than re-invested into operations instigated by Worldwide. Clearly I was wrong in this assumption on this occasion. Mea culpa.
Not purposefully, no, but that could well be an unintended consequence of the launch of a service whose schedule is built around Top Gear - a programme which doesn't have the most enlightened of audiences, and that is phrasing it diplomatically!
But the schedule is not built around Top Gear , TG is just one programme that will be on the channel , you are just assuming it from a screenshot in an article where you see it appear a few times.
The points you didn't bother to respond to in your previous post
You said the licence fee was being spent on this channel. I pointed out that it isn't.
Yes, I was incorrectly under this assumption. Sorry for not being flawless. I never realized you were perfect or that such perfection was expected of me. In any case, it was not a difficult assumption to make when this the BBC we are talking about - a broadcaster whose services are usually funded by the license fee.
You say that the BBC is "attempting to court a bigoted audience". What makes you think that?
The fact that the provisional schedules for this service revolve around a programme that has been shown to have a bigoted audience.
The BBC Worldwide publicity makes no mention of trying to do such a thing, nor does anyone else who speaks on their behalf.
Not explicitly, no, but if you read between the lines, that is the impression that comes across.
Your argument is based on the interpretation given by a tabloid journalist who has read a brief publicity blurb.
How many times? The Independent is not and has never been a tabloid! I don't see why I have to keep re-iterating this point. That is why I question the standard of your reading comprehension. The Independent is not the Daily Star or the Daily Mail (and before the pedants get in, yes, I know the Daily Mail is *technically* in the middle market but it is stylistically similar to the tabloids)
You mention the fact that the channel will commission a small amount of their own original programming alongside established BBC series. For some reason you seem to think this backs up your argument, but you don't say how. As far as I can see it doesn't change anything - the channel intends to provide programming with a distinctly British flavour, hence the name 'BBC Brit'.
Because, as far as I am aware, the BBC don't commission series on foreign services without the intention of showing these on one of their channels in the UK as well.
When I pointed out that the references to Ukip in the article were directly attributed to an unnamed source who could be absolutely anybody you asked me for "a source for these baseless claims". The article speaks for itself. The references to Ukip are from an unnamed source. And you talk about other people improving their reading comprehension!!!!!!!!
You speculated that the unnamed source may have blown the whistle because they had a grudge against their employer. That is the baseless claim for which, quite ironically, you have no source. And I talk about people in this thread improving their reading comprehension because I'm finding myself having to make the same points over and over in this thread, where certain posters have made points that I have already refuted.
And then you pointed out that occasionally Ukip does send along another representative apart from Farage. Well, yes, occasionally they do. But more often than not Farage chooses to attend himself. So the main reason he appears on programmes like Question Time more than the leaders of the other parties is because they choose not to go, whereas Farage does. What was that you said about reading comprehension?
No, I didn't say that other members appear "occasionally", I said that I have seen other members appear "on many occassions". So, indeed, what was that I was saying about reading comprehension? Not that it really matters, the fact that, for the past three years in a row Farage has appeared more frequently than any other person is an indisputable fact which no amount of spin will refute.
Have you noticed that everyone else on this thread thinks the article was a load of crap too. You seem to be on your own.
Didn't realise that being in the majority automatically made one right. The fact that none of the posters who have made contradictory points to mine have been able to substantiate their arguements would imply that it is I who is in the right.
And, I ask again, is there any need to get so personal and insulting? Attack my arguements by all means, but I'd rather you refrain from attacking me
BBC Worldwide, whose profits are wholly returned to the BBC to supplement revenues from the license fee. So where do you think they got the funding to start this channel up? Either way, it's immaterial. My main point that BBC funds are being used to pour fuel of the fire of racism in Polish society stands.
The fact that the channel is going to commission its own original programming and has been named BBC Brit are both quite clear indications that the end goal is to launch this channel in the UK at some point in the future.
I love clueless people on internet forums. They're a right laugh. Hint: Read and understand what you have been told. This channel (along with every other international "BBC" branded channel run by BBCWW will never be legally available in the UK.)
Because, as far as I am aware, the BBC don't commission series on foreign services without the intention of showing these on one of their channels in the UK as well.
Correct. The UK, LF-funded BBC doesn't. However, BBC Worldwide can commission what it wants from whoever it wants without reference to the UK, LF-funded operation.
(I really should come on here more often than once a day as my points are made for me before I get here )
But the schedule is not built around Top Gear , TG is just one programme that will be on the channel , you are just assuming it from a screenshot in an article where you see it appear a few times.
The sample schedule in the article I linked to in the OP shows that 10 hours of BBC Brit's weekly primetime schedule will feature Top Gear. If devoting 10 hours of your weekly primetime schedule to one programme doesn't equal building your schedule around that programme, then I don't know what does
I suppose you think BBC Earth will be for the Green Party.
If only! Andrew Neil's rude and abrasive manner with Natalie Bennett on the Sunday Politics last week and the BBC's initial refusal to invite her to the televised election debates demonstrate that they have no truck with the Green Party!
As it isn't LF-funded and won't even be available in the UK then that argument falls at the first hurdle.
No they really aren't.
I'm not quite sure why you've even brought this up. I already admitted that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. That has no bearing on the rest of my arguement
I love clueless people on internet forums. They're a right laugh. Hint: Read and understand what you have been told. This channel (along with every other international "BBC" branded channel run by BBCWW will never be legally available in the UK.
So do I. ;-) Whether the BBC intend to launch this service in the UK* or not is irrelevant. They're still launching it somewhere.
*On a side note, do you seriously believe that, if this channel is a ratings success in other territories, that the BBC won't wish to replicate that success and launch a similar service here, possibly via UKTV?
Yes, I was incorrectly under this assumption. Sorry for not being flawless. I never realized you were perfect or that such perfection was expected of me. In any case, it was not a difficult assumption to make when this the BBC we are talking about - a broadcaster whose services are usually funded by the license fee.
I don't object to people making mistakes, but I do object when they lie afterwards and pretend they never said something when they did.
The fact that the provisional schedules for this service revolve around a programme that has been shown to have a bigoted audience.
Entirely your subjective viewpoint. Top Gear is an extremely popular programme and is shown around the world. Your argument is based on your personal opinion, not on fact.
How many times? The Independent is not and has never been a tabloid! I don't see why I have to keep re-iterating this point. That is why I question the standard of your reading comprehension. The Independent is not the Daily Star or the Daily Mail (and before the pedants get in, yes, I know the Daily Mail is *technically* in the middle market but it is stylistically similar to the tabloids)
Oh dear, oh dear. The Independent is a tabloid and no amount of stamping your feet is going to change that fact. I wonder, do you actually know what "tabloid" means? I suspect you don't... (and this is why you question my reading comprehension?)
Because, as far as I am aware, the BBC don't commission series on foreign services without the intention of showing these on one of their channels in the UK as well.
What do you base this on? BBC Worldwide's international channels make plenty of programmes that are never shown in the UK. Even parts of their website aren't accessible to UK viewers for copyright/contractual reasons.
You speculated that the unnamed source may have blown the whistle because they had a grudge against their employer. That is the baseless claim for which, quite ironically, you have no source. And I talk about people in this thread improving their reading comprehension because I'm finding myself having to make the same points over and over in this thread, where certain posters have made points that I have already refuted.
My post made it perfectly clear I was speculating and this was one possible scenario. That's the difference between us - when you speculate you don't make that clear.
No, I didn't say that other members appear "occasionally", I said that I have seen other members appear "on many occassions". So, indeed, what was that I was saying about reading comprehension? Not that it really matters, the fact that, for the past three years in a row Farage has appeared more frequently than any other person is an indisputable fact which no amount of spin will refute.
I'm simply pointing out that there's a perfectly legitimate reason for it. You're ignoring that fact and making out it happens because the BBC is biased, but the reason has nothing to do with the BBC.
And, I ask again, is there any need to get so personal and insulting? Attack my arguements by all means, but I'd rather you refrain from attacking me
You've got a nerve saying that after you repeatedly said I had trouble with reading comprehension just because I was pointing out the flaws in your argument.
I'm not quite sure why you've even brought this up. I already admitted that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. That has no bearing on the rest of my arguement.
Sorry. Yes. Quoting and posting as I read and didn't edit that bit out.
Whether the BBC intend to launch this service in the UK* or not is irrelevant. They're still launching it somewhere.
Ahh! There go the goal-posts; again!
*On a side note, do you seriously believe that, if this channel is a ratings success in other territories, that the BBC won't wish to replicate that success and launch a similar service here, possibly via UKTV?
Yes. As in yes, I do believe that can guarantee that they won't.
Am I missing something here? This is my simplistic understanding of things:
1) The BBC is our national broadcaster funded by the licence fee. It makes a lot of programmes popular with its domestic audience.
2) The BBC realises that the programmes that they make may also have commercial value.
3) BBC Worldwide exists as a commercial entity to make money by broadcasting programmes made by the BBC and other broadcasters and production companies.
4) In addition to selling their programmes for rebroadcast by other British commercial channels, BBC Worldwide own or part own their own commercial channels which show several programmes that are deemed to have commercial value. In the UK, these channels are part of the UKTV portfolio of channels, such as Gold, Dave, Drama, Alibi, Watch, etc. Each of these channels has a particular focus, and is aimed at a particular demographic. Dave happens to be the channel aimed at a male audience in their twenties to forties. It shows a lot of Top Gear.
5) BBC Worldwide also understand that their programmes could have commercial value in international markets. As well as selling the rights to these programmes to foreign TV broadcasters, they also own or part own commercial channels in those countries, such as BBC America in America, BBC Canada in Canada, BBC First and BBC UKTV in Australia and New Zealand are some of them.
7) BBC Worldwide choose to use the BBC brand in the naming of their channels intended for foreign audiences, as it is a brand known worldwide and associated with quality British programming. Their channels don't just show BBC programmes though. They show programmes made by/for ITV, Channel 4, etc.
8) BBC Worldwide have chosen to launch a small portfolio of channels in foreign countries, each targeting particular demographics. One demographic is foreign men in their twenties to forties. They have chosen to name this channel BBC Brit.
9) By a bizarre coincidence, foreign men in their twenties to forties have similar interests to British men in their twenties to forties.
9) BBC Brit is a channel that BBC Worldwide have created to cater for a similar audience to Dave in the UK. It therefore shows similar programmes to Dave including Top Gear.
10) BBC Brit is NOT a British channel. It is NOT intended for a British audience and it will NEVER be broadcast in Britain. It is a channel that uses the BBC branding and broadcasts BBC programmes, amongst programmes by other broadcasters, in foreign countries. As it is a foreign channel, to cater more for its audience, it will also commission and broadcast programmes specifically for that country. In a similar way, BBC America shows a lot of American programmes. In fact, from midday to midnight on BBC America, there are twelve hours of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
11) The Independent have got hold of an apparently disgruntled but smug "anonymous independent producer" who doesn't particularly like the look of BBC Brit. He tries to put the channel down, and the way it was marketed, and makes digs at Guardian readers, people who drink in Walkabout, and people who watch Top Gear. He makes a bizarre assertion that BBC Worldwide have created the channel for the type of person who might vote UKIP. From just that comment, the Independent have come up with a sensationalist headline saying that the BBC have created a UKIP channel. They haven't. BBC Worldwide have just created a channel for men in their twenties to forties, showing programmes that they think that men in their twenties to forties would like. Nothing more, nothing less. It works here in the UK with Dave. And as men are men regardless of where they live, it's possible a channel with a similar format will work in other countries.
The BBC aren't even allowed to launch a commercial channel with BBC in the title under the current charter, which is why none of the other UKTV channels have "BBC" in the title.
And the BBC Worldwide channels in other territories commission stacks of content that isn't aired in the UK, because it's irrelevant.
I don't object to people making mistakes, but I do object when they lie afterwards and pretend they never said something when they did.
I didn't lie! I said "I never said they did" in response to you saying "BBC Worldwide does not receive ANY income from the BBC or from the licence fee." which was something I never claimed. I mistakenly claimed that BBC Brit would receive license fee funds, I did not claim that BBC Worldwide received license fee funds. That is a mistake which I have acknowledged and apologised for. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you should read my posts a little more carefully. And, once again, I politely request that you attack my arguements, not me personally. Otherwise I will have no other option than to report you to the moderators.
Entirely your subjective viewpoint. Top Gear is an extremely popular programme and is shown around the world. Your argument is based on your personal opinion, not on fact.
Not subjective and not just my opinion. There is a link in the article I linked to which demonstrates that Ukip voters are, when questioned, most likely to claim that the famously bigoted Jeremy Clarkson has made a positive contribution to political debate in Britain. Another slice of empirical data for you.
So again this is just how you have personally chosen to interpret it. In fact it's another baseless claim which you cannot substantiate.
Well, yes, it's all about interpretation. Just because my interpretation differs from yours, doesn't mean mine is wrong and yours is right.
Oh dear, oh dear. The Independent is a tabloid and no amount of stamping your feet is going to change that fact. I wonder, do you actually know what "tabloid" means? I suspect you don't... (and this is why you question my reading comprehension?)
I don't have to stamp my feet and I know exactly what a tabloid is and the Independent isn't one. The physical version of the Independent is, nowadays, published in a size similar to that of a tabloid (it is actually slightly taller). In newspapers, this format is called a "compact" format. But The Independent still has the journalistic standards that it had in its broadsheet past and markets itself as such. But seeing as this article appears in the online version of the Independent and did not appear in yesterday's physical version of the Independent, this is irrelevant. I was merely correcting you on a point of fact (there is a pattern emerging here...).
What do you base this on? BBCC Worldwide's international channels make plenty of programmes that are never shown in the UK. Even parts of their website aren't accessible to UK viewers for copyright/contractual reasons.
I'm not aware of any programmes that have aired on BBC Worldwide's international channels that haven't since aired on the BBC's services in the UK, seeing as the BBC is a British broadcaster and all that. But I stand to be corrected if I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I have already demonstrated.
My post made it perfectly clear I was speculating and this was one possible scenario. That's the difference between us - when you speculate you don't make that clear.
Exactly. You were speculating that the unnamed source had a grudge. In the exact same manner that the unnamed source speculated that the BBC's target audience for this new service are people who possess the same values as Ukip.
I'm simply pointing out that there's a perfectly legitimate reason for it. You're ignoring that fact and making out it happens because the BBC is biased, but the reason has nothing to do with the BBC.
Well, I don't think it's a perfectly legitimate reason. Ukip are still a minor party and should be treated as such by the BBC's current affairs and political programmes until such time that they are a major party.
You've got a nerve saying that after you repeatedly said I had trouble with reading comprehension just because I was pointing out the flaws in your argument.
I wasn't the one calling someone pathetic because they dare to use empirical data to prove me wrong. And, as I've already said (pattern emerging here), the only reason I, admittedly quite bluntly, told you that you should improve your reading comprehension is because I'm finding myself having to make the same points to you over and over and over again, which means you're either very forgetful or you're not reading my initial posts properly before replying.
So do I. ;-) Whether the BBC intend to launch this service in the UK* or not is irrelevant. They're still launching it somewhere.
*On a side note, do you seriously believe that, if this channel is a ratings success in other territories, that the BBC won't wish to replicate that success and launch a similar service here, possibly via UKTV?
Err, you mean Dave???? Because that is exactly what this channels sounds like.
A channel operated by BBC Worldwide showing mainly BBC programming, the only difference being that BBC WW are not allowed to use BBC branding in the UK.
Err, you mean Dave???? Because that is exactly what this channels sounds like.
A channel operated by BBC Worldwide showing mainly BBC programming, the only difference being that BBC WW are not allowed to use BBC branding in the UK.
BBC Brit does seem a similar service to Dave on the surface but Dave doesn't rely on Top Gear anywhere near so much. All showings of Top Gear on Dave air prior to 9pm and it does not feature in Dave's post-9pm, primetime schedule
I didn't lie! I said "I never said they did" in response to you saying "BBC Worldwide does not receive ANY income from the BBC or from the licence fee." which was something I never claimed. I mistakenly claimed that BBC Brit would receive license fee funds, I did not claim that BBC Worldwide received license fee funds.
Except you DID, although not directly.
You claimed that Licence Fee money would be spent on this channel, when it won't.
This channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC itself.
BBC Worldwide IS NOT ALLOWED to receive ANY Licence Fee money.
That is a mistake which I have acknowledged and apologised for. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you should read my posts a little more carefully. And, once again, I politely request that you attack my arguements, not me personally. Otherwise I will have no other option than to report you to the moderators.
You're arguments are flawed because of your lack of understanding. People have tried to correct you numerous time yet you don't want to listen.
That is not an attack.
Not subjective and not just my opinion. There is a link in the article I linked to which demonstrates that Ukip voters are, when questioned, most likely to claim that the famously bigoted Jeremy Clarkson has made a positive contribution to political debate in Britain. Another slice of empirical data for you.
You clearly aren't aware that Top Gear is already massively popular in Poland.
Hell there is a massive Stig statue just been put up over there.
Quite why you keep bring UKIP I do not know. It has nothing to do with this story at all other than being the opinion of the 'unnamed source'.
I'm not aware of any programmes that have aired on BBC Worldwide's international channels that haven't since aired on the BBC's services in the UK, seeing as the BBC is a British broadcaster and all that. But I stand to be corrected if I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I have already demonstrated.
You have jumped to the wrong conclusion, BBC America's schedule is here: http://www.bbcamerica.com/schedule/
"Star Trek - The Next Generation Season 1" "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares UK - Season 3"...
I wasn't the one calling someone pathetic because they dare to use empirical data to prove me wrong. And, as I've already said (pattern emerging here), the only reason I, admittedly quite bluntly, told you that you should improve your reading comprehension is because I'm finding myself having to make the same points to you over and over and over again, which means you're either very forgetful or you're not reading my initial posts properly before replying.
BBC Brit does seem a similar service to Dave on the surface but Dave doesn't rely on Top Gear anywhere near so much. All showings of Top Gear on Dave air prior to 9pm and it does not feature in Dave's post-9pm, primetime schedule
Your point being? The SAMPLE SCHEDULE doesn't show Top Gear being shown after 9pm either...
The sample schedule in the article I linked to in the OP shows that 10 hours of BBC Brit's weekly primetime schedule will feature Top Gear. If devoting 10 hours of your weekly primetime schedule to one programme doesn't equal building your schedule around that programme, then I don't know what does
If only! Andrew Neil's rude and abrasive manner with Natalie Bennett on the Sunday Politics last week and the BBC's initial refusal to invite her to the televised election debates demonstrate that they have no truck with the Green Party!
So with 168 hours in a week and 10 hours 5.95% of that shchedule on a programme with 94.05% on other things how does that equate to building your schedule around it?
You claimed that Licence Fee money would be spent on this channel, when it won't.
This channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC itself.
BBC Worldwide IS NOT ALLOWED to receive ANY Licence Fee money.
I did not lie and I greatly resent the implication I did. Once again, I shall reiterate for the hard of understanding:
I said "I never said they did" in response to another poster saying "BBC Worldwide does not receive ANY income from the BBC or from the licence fee." which was something I never claimed. I mistakenly claimed that BBC Brit would receive license fee funds*, I did not claim that BBC Worldwide received license fee funds.
I don't see what's so difficult to understand.
*which I have since acknowledged and apologised for.
You're arguments are flawed because of your lack of understanding. People have tried to correct you numerous time yet you don't want to listen.
That is not an attack.
How does calling me "pathetic" and "a right laugh" correct my lack understanding (which I have since acknowledged)? That is most definitely a personal attack as far as I see it. I don't mind people attacking my arguements. This is a discussion forum after all! But I do object to personal attacks like the ones I have identified and both of which came after I had acknowledged my mistake which, in my defence, was an easy mistake to make.
You clearly aren't aware that Top Gear is already massively popular in Poland.
Hell there is a massive Stig statue just been put up over there.
It doesn't really matter if Top Gear is popular in Poland for two reasons:
1. The BBC intend to extend the channels coverage to other territories, not just Poland
2. Popularity of a programme is no excuse for opening a service which broadcasts that programme in primetime for 10 hours a week
And the massive Stig statue in Poland has been erected by the BBC to advertise the launch of BBC Brit!
Quite why you keep bring UKIP I do not know. It has nothing to do with this story at all other than being the opinion of the 'unnamed source'.
Because, as I have already outlined in this thread, Jeremy Clarkson has been speculated to have sympathies with Ukip and, in a recent survey, Ukip voters were the most likely subset of the population to say that Jeremy Clarkson had made a positive contribution to political debate in Britain.
It is YOUR opinion based on the opinion of an 'unnamed source' who could be the god damn cleaner.
If you actually read the article, you'd know the unnamed source was an independent producer who was approached to pitch programme ideas to BBC Brit, so, no, it's not the cleaner.
I still haven't got a clue as to why you think UKIP, a UK Political party, has anything to do with a channel in Poland though...
You don't think there are people living in Poland who have similar views to, or even more extreme views than, those that are commonly held by Ukip supporters?
You have jumped to the wrong conclusion, BBC America's schedule is here: http://www.bbcamerica.com/schedule/
"Star Trek - The Next Generation Season 1" "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares UK - Season 3"...
They are not original commissions. They are syndicated programmes which BBC America have bought the rights to.
This thread is pure Comedy Gold, the OP clearly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about...
Seeing as I have, thus far, refuted all other posters arguements (or unwillingness to even return to explain their initial objection), it would appear that, on the contrary, I'm the only poster in this thread that has a clue what I'm talking about
Your point being? The SAMPLE SCHEDULE doesn't show Top Gear being shown after 9pm either...
I think you'll find it does. There's a three hour block on Mondays (9pm-12am) and new episodes Tuesdays at 9pm. In any case, BBC Brit's primetime schedule appears to run 6pm-12am (1800-2400) according to the sample schedule.
Comments
So as well as getting personal and being insulting, you're not actually going to address any of the points I made in response to you?
Once again, you appear to be a victim of a poor standard of reading comprehension. I've already stated the probable reason the source is unnamed: i.e. that if they were to go on the record and put their name to what they are saying, they would almost certainly lose their job. Companies like the BBC don't like their internal strategies and inner workings to be broadcast to the world.
And, as you imply, the publicity material shown in the article is of note. They appear to have thrown a load of impressive-sounding words onto the page with little or no idea as to what they actually mean. It's like a scene from W1A.
Sorry but you did say that
So to your mind the BBC are intending to stoke racial tensions in Poland and would not want anyone to upset that.
You said the licence fee was being spent on this channel. I pointed out that it isn't.
You say that the BBC is "attempting to court a bigoted audience". What makes you think that? The BBC Worldwide publicity makes no mention of trying to do such a thing, nor does anyone else who speaks on their behalf. Your argument is based on the interpretation given by a tabloid journalist who has read a brief publicity blurb.
You mention the fact that the channel will commission a small amount of their own original programming alongside established BBC series. For some reason you seem to think this backs up your argument, but you don't say how. As far as I can see it doesn't change anything - the channel intends to provide programming with a distinctly British flavour, hence the name 'BBC Brit'.
When I pointed out that the references to Ukip in the article were directly attributed to an unnamed source who could be absolutely anybody you asked me for "a source for these baseless claims". The article speaks for itself. The references to Ukip are from an unnamed source. And you talk about other people improving their reading comprehension!!!!!!!!
And then you pointed out that occasionally Ukip does send along another representative apart from Farage. Well, yes, occasionally they do. But more often than not Farage chooses to attend himself. So the main reason he appears on programmes like Question Time more than the leaders of the other parties is because they choose not to go, whereas Farage does. What was that you said about reading comprehension?
Have you noticed that everyone else on this thread thinks the article was a load of crap too. You seem to be on your own.
I was under the assumption that that was the case because profits from Worldwide are usually returned to the BBC rather than re-invested into operations instigated by Worldwide. Clearly I was wrong in this assumption on this occasion. Mea culpa.
Not purposefully, no, but that could well be an unintended consequence of the launch of a service whose schedule is built around Top Gear - a programme which doesn't have the most enlightened of audiences, and that is phrasing it diplomatically!
But the schedule is not built around Top Gear , TG is just one programme that will be on the channel , you are just assuming it from a screenshot in an article where you see it appear a few times.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:15e6hY2TK4wJ:www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/international/bbc-brit-unveiled-by-worldwide/5065849.article+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldwide/2014/brit-earth-poland
I suppose you think BBC Earth will be for the Green Party.
The points you didn't bother to respond to in your previous post
Yes, I was incorrectly under this assumption. Sorry for not being flawless. I never realized you were perfect or that such perfection was expected of me. In any case, it was not a difficult assumption to make when this the BBC we are talking about - a broadcaster whose services are usually funded by the license fee.
The fact that the provisional schedules for this service revolve around a programme that has been shown to have a bigoted audience.
Not explicitly, no, but if you read between the lines, that is the impression that comes across.
How many times? The Independent is not and has never been a tabloid! I don't see why I have to keep re-iterating this point. That is why I question the standard of your reading comprehension. The Independent is not the Daily Star or the Daily Mail (and before the pedants get in, yes, I know the Daily Mail is *technically* in the middle market but it is stylistically similar to the tabloids)
Because, as far as I am aware, the BBC don't commission series on foreign services without the intention of showing these on one of their channels in the UK as well.
You speculated that the unnamed source may have blown the whistle because they had a grudge against their employer. That is the baseless claim for which, quite ironically, you have no source. And I talk about people in this thread improving their reading comprehension because I'm finding myself having to make the same points over and over in this thread, where certain posters have made points that I have already refuted.
No, I didn't say that other members appear "occasionally", I said that I have seen other members appear "on many occassions". So, indeed, what was that I was saying about reading comprehension? Not that it really matters, the fact that, for the past three years in a row Farage has appeared more frequently than any other person is an indisputable fact which no amount of spin will refute.
Didn't realise that being in the majority automatically made one right. The fact that none of the posters who have made contradictory points to mine have been able to substantiate their arguements would imply that it is I who is in the right.
And, I ask again, is there any need to get so personal and insulting? Attack my arguements by all means, but I'd rather you refrain from attacking me
As it isn't LF-funded and won't even be available in the UK then that argument falls at the first hurdle.
No they really aren't.
I love clueless people on internet forums. They're a right laugh. Hint: Read and understand what you have been told. This channel (along with every other international "BBC" branded channel run by BBCWW will never be legally available in the UK.)
And I can guarantee it won't be you.
Correct. The UK, LF-funded BBC doesn't. However, BBC Worldwide can commission what it wants from whoever it wants without reference to the UK, LF-funded operation.
(I really should come on here more often than once a day as my points are made for me before I get here
The sample schedule in the article I linked to in the OP shows that 10 hours of BBC Brit's weekly primetime schedule will feature Top Gear. If devoting 10 hours of your weekly primetime schedule to one programme doesn't equal building your schedule around that programme, then I don't know what does
If only! Andrew Neil's rude and abrasive manner with Natalie Bennett on the Sunday Politics last week and the BBC's initial refusal to invite her to the televised election debates demonstrate that they have no truck with the Green Party!
I'm not quite sure why you've even brought this up. I already admitted that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. That has no bearing on the rest of my arguement
So do I. ;-)
*On a side note, do you seriously believe that, if this channel is a ratings success in other territories, that the BBC won't wish to replicate that success and launch a similar service here, possibly via UKTV?
Entirely your subjective viewpoint. Top Gear is an extremely popular programme and is shown around the world. Your argument is based on your personal opinion, not on fact.
So again this is just how you have personally chosen to interpret it. In fact it's another baseless claim which you cannot substantiate.
Oh dear, oh dear. The Independent is a tabloid and no amount of stamping your feet is going to change that fact. I wonder, do you actually know what "tabloid" means? I suspect you don't... (and this is why you question my reading comprehension?)
What do you base this on? BBC Worldwide's international channels make plenty of programmes that are never shown in the UK. Even parts of their website aren't accessible to UK viewers for copyright/contractual reasons.
My post made it perfectly clear I was speculating and this was one possible scenario. That's the difference between us - when you speculate you don't make that clear.
I'm simply pointing out that there's a perfectly legitimate reason for it. You're ignoring that fact and making out it happens because the BBC is biased, but the reason has nothing to do with the BBC.
You've got a nerve saying that after you repeatedly said I had trouble with reading comprehension just because I was pointing out the flaws in your argument.
Ahh! There go the goal-posts; again!
Yes. As in yes, I do believe that can guarantee that they won't.
1) The BBC is our national broadcaster funded by the licence fee. It makes a lot of programmes popular with its domestic audience.
2) The BBC realises that the programmes that they make may also have commercial value.
3) BBC Worldwide exists as a commercial entity to make money by broadcasting programmes made by the BBC and other broadcasters and production companies.
4) In addition to selling their programmes for rebroadcast by other British commercial channels, BBC Worldwide own or part own their own commercial channels which show several programmes that are deemed to have commercial value. In the UK, these channels are part of the UKTV portfolio of channels, such as Gold, Dave, Drama, Alibi, Watch, etc. Each of these channels has a particular focus, and is aimed at a particular demographic. Dave happens to be the channel aimed at a male audience in their twenties to forties. It shows a lot of Top Gear.
5) BBC Worldwide also understand that their programmes could have commercial value in international markets. As well as selling the rights to these programmes to foreign TV broadcasters, they also own or part own commercial channels in those countries, such as BBC America in America, BBC Canada in Canada, BBC First and BBC UKTV in Australia and New Zealand are some of them.
7) BBC Worldwide choose to use the BBC brand in the naming of their channels intended for foreign audiences, as it is a brand known worldwide and associated with quality British programming. Their channels don't just show BBC programmes though. They show programmes made by/for ITV, Channel 4, etc.
8) BBC Worldwide have chosen to launch a small portfolio of channels in foreign countries, each targeting particular demographics. One demographic is foreign men in their twenties to forties. They have chosen to name this channel BBC Brit.
9) By a bizarre coincidence, foreign men in their twenties to forties have similar interests to British men in their twenties to forties.
9) BBC Brit is a channel that BBC Worldwide have created to cater for a similar audience to Dave in the UK. It therefore shows similar programmes to Dave including Top Gear.
10) BBC Brit is NOT a British channel. It is NOT intended for a British audience and it will NEVER be broadcast in Britain. It is a channel that uses the BBC branding and broadcasts BBC programmes, amongst programmes by other broadcasters, in foreign countries. As it is a foreign channel, to cater more for its audience, it will also commission and broadcast programmes specifically for that country. In a similar way, BBC America shows a lot of American programmes. In fact, from midday to midnight on BBC America, there are twelve hours of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
11) The Independent have got hold of an apparently disgruntled but smug "anonymous independent producer" who doesn't particularly like the look of BBC Brit. He tries to put the channel down, and the way it was marketed, and makes digs at Guardian readers, people who drink in Walkabout, and people who watch Top Gear. He makes a bizarre assertion that BBC Worldwide have created the channel for the type of person who might vote UKIP. From just that comment, the Independent have come up with a sensationalist headline saying that the BBC have created a UKIP channel. They haven't. BBC Worldwide have just created a channel for men in their twenties to forties, showing programmes that they think that men in their twenties to forties would like. Nothing more, nothing less. It works here in the UK with Dave. And as men are men regardless of where they live, it's possible a channel with a similar format will work in other countries.
It really is no more complex than that.
The BBC aren't even allowed to launch a commercial channel with BBC in the title under the current charter, which is why none of the other UKTV channels have "BBC" in the title.
And the BBC Worldwide channels in other territories commission stacks of content that isn't aired in the UK, because it's irrelevant.
I didn't lie! I said "I never said they did" in response to you saying "BBC Worldwide does not receive ANY income from the BBC or from the licence fee." which was something I never claimed. I mistakenly claimed that BBC Brit would receive license fee funds, I did not claim that BBC Worldwide received license fee funds. That is a mistake which I have acknowledged and apologised for. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you should read my posts a little more carefully. And, once again, I politely request that you attack my arguements, not me personally. Otherwise I will have no other option than to report you to the moderators.
Not subjective and not just my opinion. There is a link in the article I linked to which demonstrates that Ukip voters are, when questioned, most likely to claim that the famously bigoted Jeremy Clarkson has made a positive contribution to political debate in Britain. Another slice of empirical data for you.
Well, yes, it's all about interpretation. Just because my interpretation differs from yours, doesn't mean mine is wrong and yours is right.
I don't have to stamp my feet and I know exactly what a tabloid is and the Independent isn't one. The physical version of the Independent is, nowadays, published in a size similar to that of a tabloid (it is actually slightly taller). In newspapers, this format is called a "compact" format. But The Independent still has the journalistic standards that it had in its broadsheet past and markets itself as such. But seeing as this article appears in the online version of the Independent and did not appear in yesterday's physical version of the Independent, this is irrelevant. I was merely correcting you on a point of fact (there is a pattern emerging here...).
I'm not aware of any programmes that have aired on BBC Worldwide's international channels that haven't since aired on the BBC's services in the UK, seeing as the BBC is a British broadcaster and all that. But I stand to be corrected if I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I have already demonstrated.
Exactly. You were speculating that the unnamed source had a grudge. In the exact same manner that the unnamed source speculated that the BBC's target audience for this new service are people who possess the same values as Ukip.
Well, I don't think it's a perfectly legitimate reason. Ukip are still a minor party and should be treated as such by the BBC's current affairs and political programmes until such time that they are a major party.
I wasn't the one calling someone pathetic because they dare to use empirical data to prove me wrong. And, as I've already said (pattern emerging here), the only reason I, admittedly quite bluntly, told you that you should improve your reading comprehension is because I'm finding myself having to make the same points to you over and over and over again, which means you're either very forgetful or you're not reading my initial posts properly before replying.
Apology accepted. Although I would appreciate it if you weren't so rude in your responses to someone you don't even know
A channel operated by BBC Worldwide showing mainly BBC programming, the only difference being that BBC WW are not allowed to use BBC branding in the UK.
BBC Brit does seem a similar service to Dave on the surface but Dave doesn't rely on Top Gear anywhere near so much. All showings of Top Gear on Dave air prior to 9pm and it does not feature in Dave's post-9pm, primetime schedule
You claimed that Licence Fee money would be spent on this channel, when it won't.
This channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC itself.
BBC Worldwide IS NOT ALLOWED to receive ANY Licence Fee money.
You're arguments are flawed because of your lack of understanding. People have tried to correct you numerous time yet you don't want to listen.
That is not an attack.
You clearly aren't aware that Top Gear is already massively popular in Poland.
Hell there is a massive Stig statue just been put up over there.
Quite why you keep bring UKIP I do not know. It has nothing to do with this story at all other than being the opinion of the 'unnamed source'.
It is YOUR opinion based on the opinion of an 'unnamed source' who could be the god damn cleaner.
I still haven't got a clue as to why you think UKIP, a UK Political party, has anything to do with a channel in Poland though...
You have jumped to the wrong conclusion, BBC America's schedule is here: http://www.bbcamerica.com/schedule/
"Star Trek - The Next Generation Season 1" "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares UK - Season 3"...
It's because you are are not making any sense.
So with 168 hours in a week and 10 hours 5.95% of that shchedule on a programme with 94.05% on other things how does that equate to building your schedule around it?
I did not lie and I greatly resent the implication I did. Once again, I shall reiterate for the hard of understanding:
I said "I never said they did" in response to another poster saying "BBC Worldwide does not receive ANY income from the BBC or from the licence fee." which was something I never claimed. I mistakenly claimed that BBC Brit would receive license fee funds*, I did not claim that BBC Worldwide received license fee funds.
I don't see what's so difficult to understand.
*which I have since acknowledged and apologised for.
How does calling me "pathetic" and "a right laugh" correct my lack understanding (which I have since acknowledged)? That is most definitely a personal attack as far as I see it. I don't mind people attacking my arguements. This is a discussion forum after all! But I do object to personal attacks like the ones I have identified and both of which came after I had acknowledged my mistake which, in my defence, was an easy mistake to make.
It doesn't really matter if Top Gear is popular in Poland for two reasons:
1. The BBC intend to extend the channels coverage to other territories, not just Poland
2. Popularity of a programme is no excuse for opening a service which broadcasts that programme in primetime for 10 hours a week
And the massive Stig statue in Poland has been erected by the BBC to advertise the launch of BBC Brit!
Because, as I have already outlined in this thread, Jeremy Clarkson has been speculated to have sympathies with Ukip and, in a recent survey, Ukip voters were the most likely subset of the population to say that Jeremy Clarkson had made a positive contribution to political debate in Britain.
If you actually read the article, you'd know the unnamed source was an independent producer who was approached to pitch programme ideas to BBC Brit, so, no, it's not the cleaner.
You don't think there are people living in Poland who have similar views to, or even more extreme views than, those that are commonly held by Ukip supporters?
They are not original commissions. They are syndicated programmes which BBC America have bought the rights to.
How do you work that one out?
Seeing as I have, thus far, refuted all other posters arguements (or unwillingness to even return to explain their initial objection), it would appear that, on the contrary, I'm the only poster in this thread that has a clue what I'm talking about
I think you'll find it does. There's a three hour block on Mondays (9pm-12am) and new episodes Tuesdays at 9pm. In any case, BBC Brit's primetime schedule appears to run 6pm-12am (1800-2400) according to the sample schedule.