Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Huge dilemma for simoncp

2»

Posts

  • simoncpsimoncp Posts: 3,260
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ransos</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by simoncp</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ransos</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by simoncp</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ransos</i>

    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"></font 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"></font 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"></font 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"></font 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 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.


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

    Yet more conspiracy! You do love that word don't you? The BBC is overwhelmingly a peddler of trash. If you don't believe buy a TV listings mag.

    You say that I 'might be more entertaining'. As someone who uses the BBC for entertainment you are hardly in a position to judge. Get back to Eastenders. It's on in a minute. I know that because it's always on.
  • ransosransos Posts: 380
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by simoncp</i>
    Yet more conspiracy! You do love that word don't you? The BBC is overwhelmingly a peddler of trash. If you don't believe buy a TV listings mag.

    You say that I 'might be more entertaining'. As someone who uses the BBC for entertainment you are hardly in a position to judge. Get back to Eastenders. It's on in a minute. I know that because it's always on.

    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Bless you, you never get it do you? There's scarcely a topic you contribute to or start that isn't some conspiracy theory on your part. I invite you or anyone else reading this to search mine and your posts and see who has the obsession with conspiracy. I think you know the answer.

    I'd also ask you to look back through any of my posts and find where I have ever said that I use the BBC for entertainment. I certainly watch it for its documentaries and news magazines, but I have no interest in soaps and the like, but unlike you, I am not obsessed with the fact that they make programmes that others will enjoy. So please do not peddle lies about me on this forum.

    You seem to base your entire appraisal of the BBC on its primetime listings on BBC1, and then rail against its bias towards soaps and popular entertainment programmes. This of course is hardly objective, but objectivity is a quality which you have continually failed to demonstrate on these pages.
  • Simon L2Simon L2 Posts: 2,908
    oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!

    'a few paltry quids worth of champagne!' Were I report these hurtful words to my dear lady wife she'd be most put out. Last time I heard it was œ1300 a ticket. Long live the license fee!
  • simoncpsimoncp Posts: 3,260
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Simon L2</i>

    oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!

    'a few paltry quids worth of champagne!' Were I report these hurtful words to my dear lady wife she'd be most put out. Last time I heard it was œ1300 a ticket. Long live the license fee!
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    As I said, I'd prefer it if the government gave your wife all the œ3 billion from the licence fee so that she can spend it how she likes. I doubt she'd come up with anything as hopeless and damaging to the population as the BBC's products.

    Why would your wife be put out by my words? Do they make the champagne taste any different? The BBC wastes billions of pound per year on rubbish. It's good to see that œ1300, or ten licence fees worth of the money is being used to give a member of the public some booze. That is a far better use than 5 minutes of some trashy TV program. Perhaps what should leave a bad taste in you wife's mouth is that thousands of mainly poor people every year end up with criminal records and fines when they don't contribute to the cost of her chamapgne.

    I can afford all the booze I want from my own wages. If I want champagne I go and buy it. I don't need TV snooper vans and the criminal law system to help me.
  • ransosransos Posts: 380
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by simoncp</i>

    I doubt she'd come up with anything as hopeless and damaging to the population as the BBC's products.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    How would you know? I thought you didn't watch the BBC. In my view, Mr Murdoch's empire is far more damaging to the general population.
  • ransosransos Posts: 380
    Simon is obviously busy watching one of his wonderfully unbiased news sources on Sky (Fox news anyone?), with a box of tissues at his side.
  • marinyorkmarinyork Posts: 271
    Returning to the OP, I have a very serious problem giving money to channel four if they then re-signed their agreements with Sky and remained FTV. If C4 and their remaining encrypted channels were to receive substantial amounts of money and remain FTV on satellite then I think people should get extremely angry with the situation. I know the OP was said jokily but it is actually a big dilemna. I am actually a big fan of channel 4, I think it has been consistently the best run set of channels the last few years.
  • Gary AskwithGary Askwith Posts: 1,835
    Poor simoncp
    Tormented and poked with a stick again [:)]

    [url][/url]http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jdo0012l.jpg[url][/url]




    Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

    Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....
  • elinfootelinfoot Posts: 13
    Isn't the whole point of this thread to get a rise out of SimonCP .You must have known how he'd react (I've read quite a bit of the stuff staring simon&co).

    Anyway the answer is simple .Either don't pay for a licence and don't watch telly or don't pay for a licence and watch telly ( and hope the TV inspector people don't show up). I wonder if its possible to watch cable and satellite on a computer or monitor without getting the bbc channels.Maybe thats a way around??

    I'm off back to the commuting forum to read about everyone's happy smiley commuting experiences and about why commuting is so much fun
  • Uncle MortUncle Mort Posts: 1,124
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by elinfoot</i>

    Anyway the answer is simple .Either don't pay for a licence and don't watch telly or don't pay for a licence and watch telly ( and hope the TV inspector people don't show up). I wonder if its possible to watch cable and satellite on a computer or monitor without getting the bbc channels.Maybe thats a way around??

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

    No, it's not, with a TV licence you're paying for the right to own and operate equipment capable of receiving TV transmissions over whatever format. If you're watching via internet streaming it's a greyer area.

    __________________
    <font size="1">In his mid forties and still unusual</font id="size1">
  • elinfootelinfoot Posts: 13
    Damn it! Oh well ,if the bbc is evil ( I'll forgive them dr who :) ) the only options are to cheat or not bother watching

    I must be really bored if i'm posting in a thread about BBC conspiracys and censored programs on a forum about bikes (?!?!?!???)Its really not that important
    I might go an use up some of my life on a bike ride now instead,sounds much better :)
Sign In or Register to comment.