This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Spiderman  Horsham 23 Jan 22 11.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
David Dimbleby has suggested linking the licence fee to your council tax. Whilst I want compulsion abolished I can see some merit in what he is proposing in that the rich pay more than the poor. Of course the counter argument is that when you buy a tin of baked beans the shop doesn't assess your wealth before fixing the price. However it is an argument for reform and it address a key issue the unfairness of a flat tax. The BBC is being Stalinist and so far has just said the licence fee should remain and be raised an argument that is not going to win any friends. An article from the Mail suggesting how the BBC could save money. Can’t argue with much in that article
|
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 23 Jan 22 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I've never understood why they don't simply move the licence fee to general taxation, thus eliminating the enforcement altogether.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 23 Jan 22 1.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
to force people to pay for an indoctrination they disagree with. Has always been a war-crime. It happened 300 years ago in Ireland. Catholic peasants were forced to pay for a prod reverend that they had zero interest in listening to. Mostly they didn't even speak the same language. its the kind of thing you expect in Pol Pot's Cambodia or under ISIS. the BBC is a wart on the @rse of public life. As welcome as pubic lice. Edited by PalazioVecchio (23 Jan 2022 12.49pm) LOL I wish I said that.
One more point |
|
croydon proud  Any european country i fancy! 23 Jan 22 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
David Dimbleby has suggested linking the licence fee to your council tax. Whilst I want compulsion abolished I can see some merit in what he is proposing in that the rich pay more than the poor. Of course the counter argument is that when you buy a tin of baked beans the shop doesn't assess your wealth before fixing the price. However it is an argument for reform and it address a key issue the unfairness of a flat tax. The BBC is being Stalinist and so far has just said the licence fee should remain and be raised an argument that is not going to win any friends. An article from the Mail suggesting how the BBC could save money. I"m still pizzed that the London council tax payer is paying £5 a month for the London olympics- forever more- Im not interested in the olympics so why should I and may like me pay? We also pay for the West Ham ground I imagine- tut tut.
|
|
| croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 23 Jan 22 4.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
to force people to pay for an indoctrination they disagree with. Has always been a war-crime. It happened 300 years ago in Ireland. Catholic peasants were forced to pay for a prod reverend that they had zero interest in listening to. Mostly they didn't even speak the same language. its the kind of thing you expect in Pol Pot's Cambodia or under ISIS. the BBC is a wart on the @rse of public life. As welcome as pubic lice. Edited by PalazioVecchio (23 Jan 2022 12.49pm)
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 23 Jan 22 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by croydon proud
I keep mine next to my leeches and plague rats.
One more point |
|
| croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 23 Jan 22 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I keep mine next to my leeches and plague rats. You are ahead of the game Badger-don"t tell everybody-especially that rat tastes of chicken!
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Jan 22 9.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
I've never understood why they don't simply move the licence fee to general taxation, thus eliminating the enforcement altogether. That would put the BBC at the mercy of government. Keeping it separate ensures their independence and freedom to criticise without fear.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Teddy Eagle  24 Jan 22 9.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That would put the BBC at the mercy of government. Keeping it separate ensures their independence and freedom to criticise without fear. Are ITV or Channel 4 less independent than the BBC?
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Jan 22 9.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It's not just about people's ability to pay. No one should be compelled to fund the BBC when they don't support it regardless of method. Like you say reform should be front and centre....root and branch in my view. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Jan 2022 10.03am) The BBC, alongside the NHS, is the shining light on the hill of Britishness in the modern world. It's what sets us apart, and what is admired by others. Those who fail to recognise that, be proud of them and prepared to support them, don't understand they are our most valuable assets. Throwing either away because they don't suit individual lifestyles, or politics, would be a grave folly and short-sighted in the extreme. Everything evolves. TV no less than anything else. The BBC itself is evolving fast. If something better than the licence can be found, no worries. What is important is that it's core mission and status remains untouched, that it is free of government, or commercial, influence and that we all, barring no-one, pay our share, whether we choose to watch, or not. We are British. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation. We pay for it. The BBC is NOT just another broadcaster. It's the BBC. What it does matters to all of us, whether we approve of it, or not.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Jan 22 9.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Are ITV or Channel 4 less independent than the BBC? ITV certainly is, as it depends on commercial interests. Channel 4 less so as it is publicly owned but also derives its revenue from commercial interests, so potentially less than the BBC.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Jan 22 9.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Doctor Who slumps to new low. According to the media the New Year episode only brought in 3.4m viewers for the BBC's flag ship show in a prime time slot. There has been plenty of media speculation as to who will replace Jodie with various candidates suggested from the alphabet soup. Apparently they are now considering putting the show on hiatus for a few years which i think would be the sensible call. The ratings have plummeted since David Tennant the show should have been canned after Matt Smith but for some reason the BBC hates to cancel shows and sees it as some kind of betrayal. Appointing a women was a desperate attempt at reviving the rating and it did for a few episodes before the decline continued. It is an expensive show to make so it has to have good ratings if they have any sense they will rest it. Personally after a gap I would re-launch it from the start with an origins story about the Doctor on Galifry and how he came to start his adventures. I would also ditch the rainbow alliance it's a kids show they just want monsters. Strange, isn't it? I don't watch Dr Who and never have. The little bits I have stumbled over I find ridiculous. This for me is not something the BBC ought to be doing at all. It's not it's mandate. So far as I can tell it's just expensive escapism which could be left to those chasing ratings and revenue.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Pembroke Bristol 24 Jan 22 10.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Everything evolves. TV no less than anything else. The BBC itself is evolving fast. If something better than the licence can be found, no worries. What is important is that it's core mission and status remains untouched, that it is free of government, or commercial, influence and that we all, barring no-one, pay our share, whether we choose to watch, or not. We are British. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation. We pay for it. The BBC is NOT just another broadcaster. It's the BBC. What it does matters to all of us, whether we approve of it, or not.
Evolution is also allowing people choice. An easier choice of not paying for something they do not use, do not want and logically object to paying for.
|
|
| Teddy Eagle 24 Jan 22 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Doctor Who slumps to new low. According to the media the New Year episode only brought in 3.4m viewers for the BBC's flag ship show in a prime time slot. There has been plenty of media speculation as to who will replace Jodie with various candidates suggested from the alphabet soup. Apparently they are now considering putting the show on hiatus for a few years which i think would be the sensible call. The ratings have plummeted since David Tennant the show should have been canned after Matt Smith but for some reason the BBC hates to cancel shows and sees it as some kind of betrayal. Appointing a women was a desperate attempt at reviving the rating and it did for a few episodes before the decline continued. It is an expensive show to make so it has to have good ratings if they have any sense they will rest it. Personally after a gap I would re-launch it from the start with an origins story about the Doctor on Galifry and how he came to start his adventures. I would also ditch the rainbow alliance it's a kids show they just want monsters. There is a rumour that David Tennant will be returning to replace Jodie Whittaker.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 24 Jan 22 10.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The BBC, alongside the NHS, is the shining light on the hill of Britishness in the modern world. It's what sets us apart, and what is admired by others. Those who fail to recognise that, be proud of them and prepared to support them, don't understand they are our most valuable assets. Throwing either away because they don't suit individual lifestyles, or politics, would be a grave folly and short-sighted in the extreme. Everything evolves. TV no less than anything else. The BBC itself is evolving fast. If something better than the licence can be found, no worries. What is important is that it's core mission and status remains untouched, that it is free of government, or commercial, influence and that we all, barring no-one, pay our share, whether we choose to watch, or not. We are British. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation. We pay for it. The BBC is NOT just another broadcaster. It's the BBC. What it does matters to all of us, whether we approve of it, or not. Yeah it's so good you have to force people to pay for it with the threat of a criminal record if they don't. Admired by who? The luvvies in other countries certainly as the BBC is a money pit for them of course they would like their own version. The World service seems to be admired but that is paid for by the government not he licence fee.
One more point |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.