a pity this was not done years ago since it just gives,ammunition to beeb haters. The "management for its own sake" system set up by john birt has been self perpetuating, seemingly immortal in a very meme-like way .......
Indeed and we have to pay for these adverts whether we wish to watch the programme or not including Sky which is part paid for by advertising. The BBC model seems much fairer and produces quality programming at a lower cost.
Absolutely right my friend. Your point on Sky...I hadn't realized, but you are right. Pay once indirectly in the shops, but to see anything you have to pay a second time via a sub. Unbelievable.
Facts not propaganda. What you don't like is of course the fact that you can't argue against the facts. You don't like the BBC, I understand that...but what you (and a small number of others) need to understand is the principles of the licence fee, what it provides for the nation, how cuts will only be a negative for the nation and the many negatives for the nation if we had no BBC. The wanton destruction by a few vested interest types of the BBC (and other public services) is unacceptable. Why? No thought is given to what would be lost as a result and that is the most serious thing of all. Do you believe ITV would be as 'good' as it is without the BBC forcing it to turn up to the party?
the bbc has "value beyond calcuation" in fostering writers, actors, technicians, uk arts generally ...... before even mentiong the charter requirements ..
So with the BBC, it's more bang for your buck - ad-free - coupled with the fact that it's available to all.
For you maybe, that's because it's all you watch - For what we watch it simply is not bang for buck, I dare say it works out more than my Sky subscription per programme watched.
I really don't get this argument. FTA commercial channels are the most popular throughout the world, especially where there isn't a dominant ad free public service broadcaster.
To put it simply, my mother loves the Antiques roadshow. If it wasn't there, would she tune into the X-factor result on ITV?
No, because if she wanted to she'd be watching it already.
What's the obsession with own productions? So long as it's enjoyable.
It's all about UK productions, home-grown content...not foreign imports. Think our creative industries...our economy... If you want foreign imports, that's fine. It's right though that those people pay extra to see such content.
It didn't take this thread long to descend into the typical and oft-repeated BBC LF/tax thread where all the same points are made over again (and again, and again, and again .....) and where the original point gets forgotten
as i said before, lets have an opt out tv receiver for the very few who do not want live bbctv ...... they wd still get radio and website free of course ......
bbc management has been absurdly top heavy ever since john birt was parachuted in almost 30 years ago. All chiefs no indians, obsessed with silly fads. Greg dyke did do some "cut the crap" but was removed before he got very far.
The trouble with the whole 'removing the back room staff', those jobs still need to be done by someone.
Will these cuts affect programme quality, I suspect so...sadly. What some don't understand is that high standards are only achieved if you get the money in there as well as the right amount of qualified staff.
... the tory media are spending serious money hammering "license fee is an unfair tax" very hard into peoples' skulls, but their actual intention is to destroy the bbc,
If the BBC goes, ITV, 4 and 5 will all go behind paywalls guaranteed. Why? The BBC makes a big contribution to FTA platforms which it won't do if it's privatized.
Of all the garbage you post, this might be the most egregious. It doesn't even make sense. Surely ITV, 4 and Five would be delighted were the BBC not to exist, they would get millions of potential extra viewers instantly. Why would any of them then start charging for access to their channels and stop being available to half the country?
It's all about UK productions, home-grown content...not foreign imports. Think our creative industries...our economy... If you want foreign imports, that's fine. It's right though that those people pay extra to see such content.
the problem with bbc made content is it is mostly P.C drivel bbc used to make excellent comedy bottom red dwarf black adder we don't see anything like that anymore just leftwing nonsense
So all public services exist via 'extortion' do they?
No other public service has its revenue collected so uniquely or enforced so vigorously than the tvl, that's the distinction that is made and why so many now are against it.
The trouble with the whole 'removing the back room staff', those jobs still need to be done by someone.
Will these cuts affect programme quality, I suspect so...sadly. What some don't understand is that high standards are only achieved if you get the money in there as well as the right amount of qualified staff.
yes u certajnly need all sorts of support services but these are contracted out, rather like nhs using agency nurses .......
The trouble with the whole 'removing the back room staff', those jobs still need to be done by someone.
Will these cuts affect programme quality, I suspect so...sadly. What some don't understand is that high standards are only achieved if you get the money in there as well as the right amount of qualified staff.
I've seen similar in private businesses - if not managed correctly, then errors and poor judgement due to pressure of workload begin to increase.
anyway, the tories are now conducting full scale warfare againt the bbc. Which, ironically, isn't full of,communists, but overpaid managers obsessed with neocon dogma, whuch the tories themselves put there!
Absolutely right my friend. Your point on Sky...I hadn't realized, but you are right. Pay once indirectly in the shops, but to see anything you have to pay a second time via a sub. Unbelievable.
No. What is unbelievable is your utter patronising of posters who say things you agree with. They're regarded as "my friend, mate" and so on. Believe it or not, many people like the BBC. They realise it can attract great names by just being the BBC. But it is unfair to totally disregard the choices millions of us make in order to gain extra viewing choices. I am sure MOST people watch the BBC at least once a week, often more, but for the majority they don't stay religiously tuned to what the corporation provides, simply because they don't see it in the same way as you do.
People pay for Sky because:
a) They like to have a choice of up to 400 channels in order to find something they like: channels range from Science Fiction to Islam Channels - neither of which the BBC provides much coverage on.
b) They show hundreds of films every week, from the latest blockbuster to classics and ALL shown uninterrupted without commercial breaks.
c) Their sports coverage is second to none. Even without Sky, sporting rights would be too expensive for any terrestrial channel to buy, so it gives a service to its customer.
d) It is a distributor of channels that show classic programming from both BBC and ITV - and if shows are a BBC sole production, the BBC benefits financially.
e) It can provide a broadband and phone package in addition to TV packages.
f) It is capable of producing first rate British television and has signed up big names like David Attenborough and Ben Miller - both big names who make shows for the BBC too.
g) Sky Arts is a far superior broadcaster of Arts programming than anything currently on the BBC. Don't get me wrong, but when the BBC do Arts they do it exceptionally well, but it isn't really, very often!
Need I go on?
Yes, the BBC is a great broadcaster, and in my opinion, worth every penny, but Sky is far more than you believe it to be and considering you loathe the very concept of it and have probably ever had it, I really can't see why you believe you have so much authority on it.
the bbc has "value beyond calcuation" in fostering writers, actors, technicians, uk arts generally ...... before even mentiong the charter requirements ..
Absolutely right...but it also supports education...information...contributing to the life of the nation. Look at the impact London 2012 had on the nation? The BBC played a huge part in it's success...bringing the nation / the world together via sport.
No other public service has its revenue collected so uniquely or enforced so vigorously than the tvl, that's the distinction that is made and why so many now are against it.
Yes coming out of general taxation with the amount decided independently would be better but most people against the licence fee would also be against that.
Comments
i think it is just part of ash's script to prove the bbc is superior. most of my favourite things on tv are american made
Absolutely right my friend. Your point on Sky...I hadn't realized, but you are right. Pay once indirectly in the shops, but to see anything you have to pay a second time via a sub. Unbelievable.
And now, thanks to a much higher football deal they will make less homegrown programming.
So all public services exist via 'extortion' do they?
For you maybe, that's because it's all you watch - For what we watch it simply is not bang for buck, I dare say it works out more than my Sky subscription per programme watched.
99% of my tv viewing is America made.Not including news.
To put it simply, my mother loves the Antiques roadshow. If it wasn't there, would she tune into the X-factor result on ITV?
No, because if she wanted to she'd be watching it already.
It's all about UK productions, home-grown content...not foreign imports. Think our creative industries...our economy... If you want foreign imports, that's fine. It's right though that those people pay extra to see such content.
The trouble with the whole 'removing the back room staff', those jobs still need to be done by someone.
Will these cuts affect programme quality, I suspect so...sadly. What some don't understand is that high standards are only achieved if you get the money in there as well as the right amount of qualified staff.
Of all the garbage you post, this might be the most egregious. It doesn't even make sense. Surely ITV, 4 and Five would be delighted were the BBC not to exist, they would get millions of potential extra viewers instantly. Why would any of them then start charging for access to their channels and stop being available to half the country?
the problem with bbc made content is it is mostly P.C drivel bbc used to make excellent comedy bottom red dwarf black adder we don't see anything like that anymore just leftwing nonsense
No other public service has its revenue collected so uniquely or enforced so vigorously than the tvl, that's the distinction that is made and why so many now are against it.
So filling our schedules with American stuff at the expense of our own creative industries is a good thing?
No. What is unbelievable is your utter patronising of posters who say things you agree with. They're regarded as "my friend, mate" and so on. Believe it or not, many people like the BBC. They realise it can attract great names by just being the BBC. But it is unfair to totally disregard the choices millions of us make in order to gain extra viewing choices. I am sure MOST people watch the BBC at least once a week, often more, but for the majority they don't stay religiously tuned to what the corporation provides, simply because they don't see it in the same way as you do.
People pay for Sky because:
a) They like to have a choice of up to 400 channels in order to find something they like: channels range from Science Fiction to Islam Channels - neither of which the BBC provides much coverage on.
b) They show hundreds of films every week, from the latest blockbuster to classics and ALL shown uninterrupted without commercial breaks.
c) Their sports coverage is second to none. Even without Sky, sporting rights would be too expensive for any terrestrial channel to buy, so it gives a service to its customer.
d) It is a distributor of channels that show classic programming from both BBC and ITV - and if shows are a BBC sole production, the BBC benefits financially.
e) It can provide a broadband and phone package in addition to TV packages.
f) It is capable of producing first rate British television and has signed up big names like David Attenborough and Ben Miller - both big names who make shows for the BBC too.
g) Sky Arts is a far superior broadcaster of Arts programming than anything currently on the BBC. Don't get me wrong, but when the BBC do Arts they do it exceptionally well, but it isn't really, very often!
Need I go on?
Yes, the BBC is a great broadcaster, and in my opinion, worth every penny, but Sky is far more than you believe it to be and considering you loathe the very concept of it and have probably ever had it, I really can't see why you believe you have so much authority on it.
Absolutely right...but it also supports education...information...contributing to the life of the nation. Look at the impact London 2012 had on the nation? The BBC played a huge part in it's success...bringing the nation / the world together via sport.
Yes coming out of general taxation with the amount decided independently would be better but most people against the licence fee would also be against that.