|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Sept 16, 2010 19:27:19 GMT
I think it's absolute sh!t in fact it makes my blood boil. Apart from the fact 95% of the schedule is utter rubbish (being very generous) anybody with a tv is forced to pay it. I'm happy paying my sky subscription (which sometimes I have to admit doesn't offer a great deal for the money) but the utter turd that is vomited up by "Auntie" is just outrageous.
Anyway, I must stop because I could rant about this daylight robbery all day. I'm so outraged by the whole thing I may even write to watchdog.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 16, 2010 19:36:27 GMT
I think it's absolute sh!t in fact it makes my blood boil. Apart from the fact 95% of the schedule is utter rubbish (being very generous) anybody with a tv is forced to pay it. I'm happy paying my sky subscription (which sometimes I have to admit doesn't offer a great deal for the money) but the utter turd that is vomited up by "Auntie" is just outrageous. Anyway, I must stop because I could rant about this daylight robbery all day. I'm so outraged by the whole thing I may even write to watchdog. I'm with you regarding Sky's fes. I pay £50 a month and it's impossible to argue that's good value for money. However for that I do get top quality TV on channels such as Sky1 and football of course, and all in HD and 5.1 surround sound. The BBC can't even broadcast their flagship programmes such as Eastenders in HD! But the point is we don't have to pay for Sky if we don't want to and thats the crux of this debate...lack of choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Sept 16, 2010 19:37:21 GMT
The BBC is not perfect.
However because it continues to produce ( on the whole) a wide range of good quality programs it keeps the other (its competitors) 'honest'
There's no doubt in my mind that without the BBC the output from the comercial channels would be of a lesser quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 16, 2010 19:45:55 GMT
The BBC is not perfect. However because it continues to produce ( on the whole) a wide range of good quality programs it keeps the other (its competitors) 'honest' There's no doubt in my mind that without the BBC the output from the comercial channels would be of a lesser quality. Surely theyd just compete with each other. THey wont suddenly decide viewing figures are irrelevant. It's about personal choice and freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Sept 16, 2010 19:48:04 GMT
Personally and alot of the views come down to personal taste I would say they do not offer a range of good quality programmes at all. Very occasionally they offer a quality program. But I feel every genre of program on any commercial or sky channel is superior to the BBC. Now I'm not saying every program is because there is alot or crap. And commercial channels will never beat a schedule of car booty, to buy or not to buy, helicopter heroes, cash in the attic followed by a crap evening schedule of eastenders news, watchdog, casualty, booby city, and some 1990 B-movie.
But like I said it's personal taste. But some of the itv dramas channel 4 comedy, sky sports, sky documentaries far outway the scraps BBC pay for or make while they busily line their pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 16, 2010 19:48:18 GMT
The BBC is not perfect. However because it continues to produce ( on the whole) a wide range of good quality programs it keeps the other (its competitors) 'honest' There's no doubt in my mind that without the BBC the output from the comercial channels would be of a lesser quality. I'd be surprised if Sky spent any time and energy admiring what the BBC do. ITV maybe, Sky...I just can't see it. And I don't think 'honest' is a word you can associate with the beeb! But if you disagree please send a text saying "I don't agree" to 0845 123 4567 and I'll announce the winner tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Sept 16, 2010 19:57:11 GMT
Oh it was holby city not booby city in my new post, that's the IPhone for ya. Although Booby city may well be coming to a channel 5 schedule soon
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Sept 16, 2010 21:44:47 GMT
It's not all about BBC 1 though; the licence fee also funds the other BBC TV channels as well as all their radio output (including Jerome and co on RadOx). Many of these require the licence funding to survive, as they cater for minority or very local interests that would not induce advertisers to fork out for airtime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony W on Sept 16, 2010 21:46:15 GMT
I'm with you regarding Sky's fes. I pay £50 a month and it's impossible to argue that's good value for money. However for that I do get top quality TV on channels such as Sky1 and football of course, and all in HD and 5.1 surround sound. The BBC can't even broadcast their flagship programmes such as Eastenders in HD! But the point is we don't have to pay for Sky if we don't want to and thats the crux of this debate...lack of choice. Course, have a look at Sky1's 'highlights' on their own website: 'Must be the music, Lie to Me, House, Fringe, Stargate Universe, My Pet Shame, Glenn Martin DDS, The Middle, Modern Family, All New Vet Adventures, The Simpsons'. Or in other words three reality shows and eight American programmes. They've barely shown anything original and British in the channel's entire history. I appreciate the calls for choice and freedom. I just think people need to appreciate that by commercialising the BBC, you immediately restrict Britain's TV and radio output to what's popular rather than what's good or useful, and in doing so can severely damage the UK's creative industries - one area in which we are still amongst the world leaders...... |
|
|
|
Post by chris1986 on Sept 16, 2010 23:21:06 GMT
In the current climate of cuts and reducing waste how about the BBC reduce their output. Do we really need some of the utter dross shows they have on? They should scrap BBC 3 & 4 and merge them back into one channel whilst reducing the licence fee accordingly. Also why do they need 2 kids channels? Kids are watching too much TV as it is anyway.
The Armed forces, NHS, emergency services and education are all having to make cuts to reduce public spending, why not the BBC?
I'd rather the money went to keeping some extra hospital beds.
|
|
|
|
Post by malcolmnl on Sept 17, 2010 5:10:11 GMT
In the current climate of cuts and reducing waste how about the BBC reduce their output. Do we really need some of the utter dross shows they have on? They should scrap BBC 3 & 4 and merge them back into one channel whilst reducing the licence fee accordingly. Also why do they need 2 kids channels? Kids are watching too much TV as it is anyway. The Armed forces, NHS, emergency services and education are all having to make cuts to reduce public spending, why not the BBC? I'd rather the money went to keeping some extra hospital beds. Not living in the UK I value the BBC very much. I have access to 6 BBC channels and even luckier, no ITV or SKY. I have more than 140 channels on the cable tv system here and most of them are commercial and very low quality, The quality is for me the big difference and well worth every penny. If I lived in the UK I would willingly pay the license fee. But don't think that I get my BBC for free. I have to pay for my cable service at about 25 quid a month. Even though most of the channels are commercial and not my taste I know that a certain amount of that money gets payed to the BBC which I feel fine with. I think the anti=BBC folk should go and live in the USA for a while and try the tv there. You'd soon learn to appreciate the BBC and realise that it should never be made commercial. You just end up with more of the same rubbish. So for me I'm happy with the system tv in house, then pay the fee. Quality first for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 17, 2010 6:51:05 GMT
Boris makes a great point. Get rid of Radio Oxford and Jack FM can take over. Jerome would be happy to transfer Im sure. There are adequate replacements in all areas of life.
Perhaps by Tony W's argument, if we need a standard bearer in every industry, the government should set up a supermarket funded by the taxpayer to keep standards high.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 17, 2010 7:10:43 GMT
I'm with you regarding Sky's fes. I pay £50 a month and it's impossible to argue that's good value for money. However for that I do get top quality TV on channels such as Sky1 and football of course, and all in HD and 5.1 surround sound. The BBC can't even broadcast their flagship programmes such as Eastenders in HD! But the point is we don't have to pay for Sky if we don't want to and thats the crux of this debate...lack of choice. Course, have a look at Sky1's 'highlights' on their own website: 'Must be the music, Lie to Me, House, Fringe, Stargate Universe, My Pet Shame, Glenn Martin DDS, The Middle, Modern Family, All New Vet Adventures, The Simpsons'. Or in other words three reality shows and eight American programmes. They've barely shown anything original and British in the channel's entire history. I appreciate the calls for choice and freedom. I just think people need to appreciate that by commercialising the BBC, you immediately restrict Britain's TV and radio output to what's popular rather than what's good or useful, and in doing so can severely damage the UK's creative industries - one area in which we are still amongst the world leaders...... By listing those shows you've just helped prove my point. Okay so I don't watch all of them but Lie to me, Fringe, House and the Simpsons are perfect examples of TV shows the BBC are incapable of producing even with the TV licence payers money! It boils down to a simple argument over choice. I choose to have a TV and as such I must give £140 effectively directly to the BBC, but I don't watch the BBC or rather I could cope if I didn't. So if I was given the choice I should be given I'd chose to save my money and leave those who want to take advantage of the BBC services to willingly pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Sept 17, 2010 7:22:17 GMT
The BBC is not perfect. However because it continues to produce ( on the whole) a wide range of good quality programs it keeps the other (its competitors) 'honest' There's no doubt in my mind that without the BBC the output from the comercial channels would be of a lesser quality. Surely theyd just compete with each other. THey wont suddenly decide viewing figures are irrelevant. It's about personal choice and freedom.
I'm sure that if the BBC goes commercial in the future then viewing figures will be all that matter, the quality of range of programs on TV and radio as a whole will decline. Ricky, do you work for SKY by any chance ? |
|
|
|
Post by chris1986 on Sept 17, 2010 10:17:19 GMT
In the current climate of cuts and reducing waste how about the BBC reduce their output. Do we really need some of the utter dross shows they have on? They should scrap BBC 3 & 4 and merge them back into one channel whilst reducing the licence fee accordingly. Also why do they need 2 kids channels? Kids are watching too much TV as it is anyway. The Armed forces, NHS, emergency services and education are all having to make cuts to reduce public spending, why not the BBC? I'd rather the money went to keeping some extra hospital beds. Not living in the UK I value the BBC very much. I have access to 6 BBC channels and even luckier, no ITV or SKY. I have more than 140 channels on the cable tv system here and most of them are commercial and very low quality, The quality is for me the big difference and well worth every penny. If I lived in the UK I would willingly pay the license fee. But don't think that I get my BBC for free. I have to pay for my cable service at about 25 quid a month. Even though most of the channels are commercial and not my taste I know that a certain amount of that money gets payed to the BBC which I feel fine with. I think the anti=BBC folk should go and live in the USA for a while and try the tv there. You'd soon learn to appreciate the BBC and realise that it should never be made commercial. You just end up with more of the same rubbish. So for me I'm happy with the system tv in house, then pay the fee. Quality first for me. Not anti-bbc at all We have 9 BBC channels in the UK. BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC HD, CBBC, Ceebeebies, BBC News & BBC Parliament. I really don't see any reason why they couldn't cut that down to a maximum of 7 channels without reducing the quality of service. It is just over extravagant expecting us to fund that big a network with public funds. |
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 17, 2010 11:01:58 GMT
While I've expressed support for the BBC, I would definately agree with cutting the BBC's content and therefore reducing what we pay for it. For example not competing with the commercial channels in terms of wages for the likes of Jonathan Ross and not bothering with soaps and other trash TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 17, 2010 12:42:45 GMT
Surely theyd just compete with each other. THey wont suddenly decide viewing figures are irrelevant. It's about personal choice and freedom.
I'm sure that if the BBC goes commercial in the future then viewing figures will be all that matter, the quality of range of programs on TV and radio as a whole will decline. Ricky, do you work for SKY by any chance ? Yes. Im not mkaing my arguments from a Sky perspective though. Ive held them for some time, and i say that as someone who admires the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by yelloexile on Sept 17, 2010 12:44:40 GMT
I listen to Radio 1, but in no way do I believe that Chris Moyles is worth c. £700,000 per year. The Jonathan Ross contract was also a joke.
The issue for me is when the BBC pay over the odds for 'trashy' programming, which is just a repeat of other channels. The licence fee could be reduced if they stick to what they do best.
Good quality programming also brings in revenue through teh sale of programmes abroad and DVD sales.
How much money has been generated over the years by the likes of;
Blackadder
The Young Ones
The Office
The Life on Earth Series
etc etc.
Quality (and sometimes taking a risk on something new, rather than producing yet another antiques or property programme) can make money.
|
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 17, 2010 13:22:42 GMT
exactly - the likes of Moyles should get no more than 100k a year. Anyone who wants more than that can go to commercial stations and the BBC can find new talent. Moyles might be good at what he does (although I personally can't stand him) but he is easily replaceable. Its a disgrace paying him that much.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteller on Sept 17, 2010 13:41:43 GMT
Why cant the Beeb actually WORK for their money???  get off their arses and get advertising,the licence fee is a joke,i didnt have a licence for years as i refused to buy one,many times they knocked on my door..."have you got a TV set sir?".....no mate not me  .....oh i see....can i come in and check?  ........No mate you can't ....and off they would go ;D also they would park that silly van on my estate and the post office queue would get quite long that week LOL ;D......does anyone know of anyone who has actually got done for no licence through being detected by one of those vans??...i reckon they just park'em up and shit everyone up  ive only got a licence now cos the Mrs bottled it ;D |
|
get off their arses and get advertising,the licence fee is a joke,i didnt have a licence for years as i refused to buy one,many times they knocked on my door..."have you got a TV set sir?".....no mate not me 
.....oh i see....can i come in and check?
........No mate you can't 