Huge dilemma for simoncp

Jaded · June 2007

BBC to fund C4 Digital switchover

So simon, do you stop watching C4 because it is inappropriately funded, or start watching the BBC because something good is being done with the money? [:D]

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

rustychisel · June 2007

You turn off the telly and go to the kitchen to stir the lentil curry.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm only escaping to here because the office is having a conniption

painter · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

BBC to fund C4 Digital switchover

So simon, do you stop watching C4 because it is inappropriately funded, or start watching the BBC because something good is being done with the money? [:D]

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The BBC doesn't fund anything. It uses to poll-tax cash given to it by unwilling customers like me. I'm funding C4 digital swithover whether I like it or not.

simoncp · June 2007

I like this article, especially this bit -

"The only answer is full and immediate abolition. The BBC should be taken off air. Its employees should be sacked and its buildings sold off. All its internal records should be destroyed. All its copyrights should be thrown into the public domain.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr052.htm

As I'm a reasonable and kind person, all I want is the BBC to do what it does by selling to willing customers only. I wouldn't care a bit about all the dodgy news and brain-rotting trash that the BBC pumps out if I didn't have to pay for it. I regard my forced BBC subscription as a government surcharge on my voluntary Sky Sports subscription, which the government then uses to provide me with news fit for a dim teenager, Eastenders, Casualty and œ120,000 per weeks worth of Jonathan Ross. Why the government thinks I need such rubbish I don't know.

papercorn2000 · June 2007

Don't forget the excellent but dull nature programmes.

So, any news on the unbiased and totally reliable news source?

CNN maybe?
Sky news?

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

Davs1 · June 2007

The thought of the BBC having to carry commercials appals me.

Has no-one on here ever watched "independant" TV.

I had a friend who worked for a commercial radio station once. He was told they only existed in order to bring an audience to advertisers in the cheapest way possible.

If it ain't fixed, it's broken

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davs1

. He was told they only existed in order to bring an audience to advertisers in the cheapest way possible.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Had he not worked this out for himself before he started work? [:0]

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp
[
As I'm a reasonable and kind person, ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That being the case, do you not think that the money you are forced to pay for the BBC is worth it in terms of the external services it provides? For all its failings, many around the world are given access to information or at least a different viewpoint they would not otherwise be able to because of the BBC. I myself have now had 10 years' free access to the world service!
Having a state-financed system also helps to ensure that the commercial stations just might find it a tad harder to 'compete' standards down to the most dumbed-down programs only.
I would have thought that the outragious levels of council tax, whereby you pay vastly more for services I suspect you rarely if ever use, would be worth more ire.

Davs1 · June 2007

He was only 16 at the time

If it ain't fixed, it's broken

ankev1 · June 2007

IMO the BBC wastes the license money which it is given because it chases ratings. The whole point about being state funded is that ratings are not an issue, thus it is free to produce the highest quality programmes which will not necessarily enjoy mass popularity. It was the production of quality which gained BBC its reputation in the first place. As it currently stands there is relatively little to justify the license fee. This situation could easily be reversed if the corporation saw its role as being to provide an island of quality in the sea of broadcasting mush as opposed to wallowing itself in said mush. Oh, and it should get rid of its political bias and pursue objectivity as far as possible.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

IMO the BBC wastes the license money which it is given because it chases ratings. The whole point about being state funded is that ratings are not an issue, thus it is free to produce the highest quality programmes which will not necessarily enjoy mass popularity. It was the production of quality which gained BBC its reputation in the first place. As it currently stands there is relatively little to justify the license fee. This situation could easily be reversed if the corporation saw its role as being to provide an island of quality in the sea of broadcasting mush as opposed to wallowing itself in said mush. Oh, and it should get rid of its political bias and pursue objectivity as far as possible.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought all was achievable until I read the last sentence.

ankev1 · June 2007

I reckon it would only take a few high profile sackings to concentrate minds.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

I reckon it would only take a few high profile sackings to concentrate minds.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The main problem is that they only select people in their own image.

ankev1 · June 2007

You're almost certainly right there. They are probably very complacent and in sore need of some radical new blood. I would love to have the job of head of news for about a year. I reckon it would only take the issuing of some very clear orders and a couple of sacrificial examples to get round to producing TV news which is fit for intelligent adults.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

I would love to have the job of head of news for about a year. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hmmm........ex soldier, grammar school educated, non Oxbridge, doesn't live in London.........odds of about a million to one against.

ankev1 · June 2007

Yep, which is why I'm sitting here, mildly bored and wondering whether to wander around taking a few photos or go for a bike ride or just say "sod it all" and go to the pub for a couple.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

I would have thought that the outragious levels of council tax, whereby you pay vastly more for services I suspect you rarely if ever use, would be worth more ire.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I get services in return for my council tax, and though many of those services could be provided more efficiently by private contractors, at least I do need and use the council's services, as they are essential services like education, police, the fire brigade, refuse collection and street lighting. Why I have pay the government for the BBC beats me. It provides absolutely nothing of an essential nature, and most of its products are pure trash. Just look at the BBC TV and radio listings to see that this is true.

I pay money to run the BBC in return for permission from the government to watch Sky Sports. That's ridiculous.

Kestevan · June 2007

Simple answer. Dont buy a licence.

I've never had one, always refused to pay for something I dont want.

If you do decide to take this tack, make sure you know, and are willing to fight to enforce your rights as a "law breaker" once the enforcement agent from Capita turns up......

1. They can't give the impression that they have a access right without a search warrant to enter any part of your property. They also can't threaten you with a search warrant application to gain access or compliance with a statement.
2. They can't force you to answer any questions with the threat of prosecution for non compliance
3. If you are cautioned, and you say "I want to obtain legal advice". The Officer MUST STOP the interview. Even if this is before he asked for your name. Do not sign anything, even if they ask you to confirm you want legal advice. They will ask you for confirmation of your name and a contact telephone number; do not give this out, if you can record this on your mobile phone.
4. When officers visit they must only approach your door with the letterbox from the normal method of access. He CAN'T go round the back of your house or look through your letter box or windows. If this happens and you can complain, the BBC get a copy of all complaints. Officers don't get many complaints, but if they do it takes them out of circulation for 2-3 hours whilst the manager investigates.. This breaches privacy guidelines. The BBC require all complaints to be investigated within 24 hours and a copy of the report sent to them
5. They can't caution you if you are under 17, drunk, doped up, mentally disabled, blind, deaf without a TVL interpreter.
6. They can't conduct an interview if you live at the address and are under 25 and live with your parents or relations.
7. If you are partially dressed they must ask you to be dressed for the interview.
8. Do not believe them if they say don't worry if this is your first offence they will not prosecute you.
9. They can only caution outside face to face from a ground floor door or window. If you speak to them over an intercom then you cannot be cautioned
10. If you find a TVL Officer in the communal part of your property ask him to leave immediately.
11. If you film a TVL Officer they have strict guidelines to health and safety. They are not only told to leave the property but also to leave the general area which messes up their visits for the day.
12. Officers can only complete 3 separate visits to your property, these have to be done on the same day. The reason for this is to stop visit selection and hoarding. If you get visits on different days close together then question this and complain.
13. If you have to complain do so in writing, never give your correct name or other contact details because they will end up on the LASSY database. Insist on a written reply.
14. If you tell them it's inconvenient to speak to them and they refuse to leave get your camera out.
15. If you receive a missed visit "Sorry we missed you card" and it has anything other than Date/Time/VPN - An occupiers name, this is against BBC guidelines, some officers have been know to write we will get a warrant on these, If you get one complain!

Why is it uphill BOTH ways?

Davs1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

I would have thought that the outragious levels of council tax, whereby you pay vastly more for services I suspect you rarely if ever use, would be worth more ire.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I get services in return for my council tax, and though many of those services could be provided more efficiently by private contractors, at least I do need and use the council's services, as they are essential services like education, police, the fire brigade, refuse collection and street lighting. Why I have pay the government for the BBC beats me. It provides absolutely nothing of an essential nature, and most of its products are pure trash. Just look at the BBC TV and radio listings to see that this is true.

I pay money to run the BBC in return for permission from the government to watch Sky Sports. That's ridiculous.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your argument is spurious Simon, a fact of which I am sure you are aware. You are prepared to pay a lot more for Sky, who's programmes are demonstrably of a lower quality than the BBC, include advertising and contain "news" programmes that are much more biased than the BBC. I realise you will now argue that you have a "choice" about whether to pay for Sky, but the fact is that Rupert Murdoch is in a great position to carry out a subtle and not so subtle campaign to make his second rate TV service sound like it is indespensible and good value for money when it is obviously neither.

Whilst I would agree that the BBC, or TV in general, provides nothing of an essential nature, I feel that I would be considerably less well informed, and less entertained if it did not exit in it's current format.

The bottom line is that you obviously watch it, as evidenced by yor random outburst about Panorama a few weeks ago, so you should buy a TV licence. I also suspect that when you want to watch some genuinely entertaining TV or a thought provoking documentary that you yurn to the BBC first, but I am also convinced you will deny this.

If it ain't fixed, it's broken

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davs1

contain "news" programmes that are much more biased than the BBC.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How do they manage this?

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davs1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

I would have thought that the outragious levels of council tax, whereby you pay vastly more for services I suspect you rarely if ever use, would be worth more ire.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I get services in return for my council tax, and though many of those services could be provided more efficiently by private contractors, at least I do need and use the council's services, as they are essential services like education, police, the fire brigade, refuse collection and street lighting. Why I have pay the government for the BBC beats me. It provides absolutely nothing of an essential nature, and most of its products are pure trash. Just look at the BBC TV and radio listings to see that this is true.

I pay money to run the BBC in return for permission from the government to watch Sky Sports. That's ridiculous.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your argument is spurious Simon, a fact of which I am sure you are aware. You are prepared to pay a lot more for Sky, who's programmes are demonstrably of a lower quality than the BBC, include advertising and contain "news" programmes that are much more biased than the BBC. I realise you will now argue that you have a "choice" about whether to pay for Sky, but the fact is that Rupert Murdoch is in a great position to carry out a subtle and not so subtle campaign to make his second rate TV service sound like it is indespensible and good value for money when it is obviously neither.

Whilst I would agree that the BBC, or TV in general, provides nothing of an essential nature, I feel that I would be considerably less well informed, and less entertained if it did not exit in it's current format.

The bottom line is that you obviously watch it, as evidenced by yor random outburst about Panorama a few weeks ago, so you should buy a TV licence. I also suspect that when you want to watch some genuinely entertaining TV or a thought provoking documentary that you yurn to the BBC first, but I am also convinced you will deny this.

If it ain't fixed, it's broken
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The price Sky ask is very reasonable to me. I want what they sell. I do not want what the BBC sells. I pay for the BBC to stop the government fining me and giving me a criminal record for watching Sky.

The bottom line is not that I watch the BBC. I watch the BBC because I am forced to subscribe. If subscription was voluntary I wouldn't subscribe or watch. The government and the BBC know this is true of many millions of us, which is why the forced subscription system is retained.

As for Sky TV being of 'demonstrably' lower quality than the BBC, I disagree. Sky football coverage, which is why subscribe, is of a far higher quality (and quantity) than the BBC's coverage.

As for BBC news, that's for kiddies and the mentally challenged. You are welcome to it.

Simon L2 · June 2007

the BBC is the biggest brand name this country has got. It's the best television service in the world. And the fact that they commission programmes from Mrs L2's company has not clouded my judgement one little bit - but I'm sure that, should I ask, she will raise a glass to the ingrates of this forum when she sips (yeah, right) champagne in a corporate hospitality tent beside centre court next week (she's hoping for rain, because tennis is pretty damn dull). Surely there can be no finer use for simoncp's license money?

Simon L2 · June 2007

sorry - I missed the 'hard-earned' in front of license money. Pip, pip!

papercorn2000 · June 2007

Will it be very expensive champagne? And will she thoughtlessly discard most of it?
[:D]

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

Simon L2 · June 2007

I think we should insist on it being expensive champagne, and that she discard all of it, by pouring it over some SWP card-carrying commissioning editor who sends his kids to Roedean - and then send the drycleaning bill to simoncp.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

the BBC is the biggest brand name this country has got. It's the best television service in the world. And the fact that they commission programmes from Mrs L2's company has not clouded my judgement one little bit - but I'm sure that, should I ask, she will raise a glass to the ingrates of this forum when she sips (yeah, right) champagne in a corporate hospitality tent beside centre court next week (she's hoping for rain, because tennis is pretty damn dull). Surely there can be no finer use for simoncp's license money?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why should I worry about a few paltry quid's worth of champagne for your wife wehn I'm helping to pay Jonathan Ross œ120,000 each and every week so he can ask if people w*nk when thinking about ex-politicians? Why does the BBC need corporate hospitality at all? Commercial companies would soon slash corporate hospitality budgets to zero if everyone was forced to buy 100% of their products by the government. What would be the point of it?

By the way, I'd rather the BBC gave all it's money to your wife every year, to spend as she sees fit. That way the BBC wouldn't be able to rot the brains of the population with the best TV in the world, including celebrity dancing, Eastenders, the lottery show, Casualty and other such pearls.

ransos · June 2007

I wonder what percentage of the population support paying a licence fee for the advert-free BBC? I suspect it would be the majority, in which case SimonCP should just accept the will of the people. I also find it ironic that he quotes examples of supposed poor quality programmes on the BBC, given the utter tosh that is the majority of satellite & cable broadcasting.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I wonder what percentage of the population support paying a licence fee for the advert-free BBC? I suspect it would be the majority, in which case SimonCP should just accept the will of the people. I also find it ironic that he quotes examples of supposed poor quality programmes on the BBC, given the utter tosh that is the majority of satellite & cable broadcasting.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Utter tosh on the commercial channels is no excuse for the government demanding that we pay their broadcaster to make even more utter tosh before we are allowed to watch the commercial utter tosh. Ransos, you watch your government TV and lap up your government news. That celebrity dancing has gone to your brain, so perhaps the least I can do is chip in for your mind-numbing entertainment, but please don't tell me who shot or sh*gged who on Eastenders. I don't need to know.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I wonder what percentage of the population support paying a licence fee for the advert-free BBC? I suspect it would be the majority, in which case SimonCP should just accept the will of the people. I also find it ironic that he quotes examples of supposed poor quality programmes on the BBC, given the utter tosh that is the majority of satellite & cable broadcasting.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Utter tosh on the commercial channels is no excuse for the government demanding that we pay their broadcaster to make even more utter tosh before we are allowed to watch the commercial utter tosh. Ransos, you watch your government TV and lap up your government news. That celebrity dancing has gone to your brain, so perhaps the least I can do is chip in for your mind-numbing entertainment, but please don't tell me who shot or sh*gged who on Eastenders. I don't need to know.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear, you do seem to be very angry. It's not good for you, you know.

You also seem to know what TV programmes I watch, and also know that I have been brainwashed by a state conspiracy. Of course you retain the moral authority with your wonderfully unbiased news sources that you continue to refuse to share with us. And of course overlook the criticism that the government regularly makes of the BBC which it perceives to be biased against them. And you seem to be prepared to overlook the very obvious influence that Mr Murdoch has over popular opinion.

You may believe that the BBC makes utter tosh, but I suspect that more people believe that the BBC makes some high quality programmes that would never be commissioned by a commercial station. Perhaps you should find something else to be angry at, or dream up another conspiracy theory for the rest of us to laugh at. Oh hang on, I've just noticed your thread about Wimbledon...

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I wonder what percentage of the population support paying a licence fee for the advert-free BBC? I suspect it would be the majority, in which case SimonCP should just accept the will of the people. I also find it ironic that he quotes examples of supposed poor quality programmes on the BBC, given the utter tosh that is the majority of satellite & cable broadcasting.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Utter tosh on the commercial channels is no excuse for the government demanding that we pay their broadcaster to make even more utter tosh before we are allowed to watch the commercial utter tosh. Ransos, you watch your government TV and lap up your government news. That celebrity dancing has gone to your brain, so perhaps the least I can do is chip in for your mind-numbing entertainment, but please don't tell me who shot or sh*gged who on Eastenders. I don't need to know.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear, you do seem to be very angry. It's not good for you, you know.

You also seem to know what TV programmes I watch, and also know that I have been brainwashed by a state conspiracy. Of course you retain the moral authority with your wonderfully unbiased news sources that you continue to refuse to share with us. And of course overlook the criticism that the government regularly makes of the BBC which it perceives to be biased against them. And you seem to be prepared to overlook the very obvious influence that Mr Murdoch has over popular opinion.

You may believe that the BBC makes utter tosh, but I suspect that more people believe that the BBC makes some high quality programmes that would never be commissioned by a commercial station. Perhaps you should find something else to be angry at, or dream up another conspiracy theory for the rest of us to laugh at. Oh hang on, I've just noticed your thread about Wimbledon...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You seem very fond of the word conspiracy. The BBC does make utter tosh. Most of what it makes is utter tosh. Mr Murdoch enables me to view football matches from a distance in return for cash, and charges me nothing to view them if I don't want to. The BBC charges everyone to watch Wimbledon from a distance whether they are interested in tennis or not.

And you are correct. I do have moral authority over all those who have been rendered imbeciles by the drivel on the BBC. I also have a moral duty to tell you that paying the government for Eastenders, Casualty, the lottery show and all the rest of the trash they use your cash to make is not a good idea.

Do you w*nk when you think of the BBC and its wonderful programmes? I know you wo't mind me asking such a vulgar question - it's the type of question the BBC regards as high quality entertainment from a man they pay œ120,000 per week.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I wonder what percentage of the population support paying a licence fee for the advert-free BBC? I suspect it would be the majority, in which case SimonCP should just accept the will of the people. I also find it ironic that he quotes examples of supposed poor quality programmes on the BBC, given the utter tosh that is the majority of satellite & cable broadcasting.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Utter tosh on the commercial channels is no excuse for the government demanding that we pay their broadcaster to make even more utter tosh before we are allowed to watch the commercial utter tosh. Ransos, you watch your government TV and lap up your government news. That celebrity dancing has gone to your brain, so perhaps the least I can do is chip in for your mind-numbing entertainment, but please don't tell me who shot or sh*gged who on Eastenders. I don't need to know.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear, you do seem to be very angry. It's not good for you, you know.

You also seem to know what TV programmes I watch, and also know that I have been brainwashed by a state conspiracy. Of course you retain the moral authority with your wonderfully unbiased news sources that you continue to refuse to share with us. And of course overlook the criticism that the government regularly makes of the BBC which it perceives to be biased against them. And you seem to be prepared to overlook the very obvious influence that Mr Murdoch has over popular opinion.

You may believe that the BBC makes utter tosh, but I suspect that more people believe that the BBC makes some high quality programmes that would never be commissioned by a commercial station. Perhaps you should find something else to be angry at, or dream up another conspiracy theory for the rest of us to laugh at. Oh hang on, I've just noticed your thread about Wimbledon...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You seem very fond of the word conspiracy. The BBC does make utter tosh. Most of what it makes is utter tosh. Mr Murdoch enables me to view football matches from a distance in return for cash, and charges me nothing to view them if I don't want to. The BBC charges everyone to watch Wimbledon from a distance whether they are interested in tennis or not.

And you are correct. I do have moral authority over all those who have been rendered imbeciles by the drivel on the BBC. I also have a moral duty to tell you that paying the government for Eastenders, Casualty, the lottery show and all the rest of the trash they use your cash to make is not a good idea.

Do you w*nk when you think of the BBC and its wonderful programmes? I know you wo't mind me asking such a vulgar question - it's the type of question the BBC regards as high quality entertainment from a man they pay œ120,000 per week.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It is a continuing irony that you accuse others of which you are so clearly guilty yourself. You seem to find a conspiracy theory lurking in every corner, usually related to your favourite canards regarding the government, the bbc, environmentalists and socialists. You were at it again today regarding Wimbledon, and have been made to look very foolish by doing so. Not that you need anyone's help to look foolish of course.

It might be more entertaining, had you a little more wit and a little less cynicism.

It is also ironic that you deride the BBC for its putative vulgarity, yet you are happy to descend to that level yourself. It displays breathtaking hypocrisy on your part.

I can only assume that you watch programmes other than football on your beloved Sky. I fear that this is so, as your confused and demented ramblings indicate a thoroughly addled mind.

Huge dilemma for simoncp

Comments

Categories