Ms. Apocalypse, I think it just depends how it's used.
A warning that something may not be suitable for those of a sensitive disposition (regarding drug use, violence, sex etc) is fine. But I've also read of trigger warnings about clapping. And the term 'trigger warning' because it might frighten people who have had bad experiences with guns.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.
Payback time.
And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.
But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.
No, it's supposed to be neutral but provides bias coverage. It rejects any criticism of this despite Robin Aitken, Peter Sissens, John Humpfries and Andrew Marr all confirming it to be true. It's R4 journalists always interrogate public policy from the Left. Question time balance is one tory, with left-wing journalists and comedians to make up the difference. It's failed to hold proper debates and analysis of issues like the EU and mass immigration, and sneers at non-metropolitan values. More than half of the English electorate voted Conservative or UKIP. The BBC don't even begin to see why.
Your obstinate refusal to see there's a problem is the problem. Because you like the soft-left output it generates, you think it's a Conservative party problem.
One thing I can guarantee you is that there will not be less choice, and people will be paying no more money unless they choose to do so. Every day the volume of choice on new dramas, comedies and shows on streaming grows and viewers increasingly customise what they want to watch, and how and when they want to watch it.
You are an analogue corporatist in a diverse digital age.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It brought to mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It would have been easy if the focus was on the criminalisation of almost 200,000 people a year prosecuted for non payment of the licence fee. What is the cost to the millions over the years that have had their life chances blighted by these convictions? The announcement yesterday that this would continue is the most shocking thing and a major blunder by the Govt in falling into that independent review. If the non-BBC media really want the BBC curbed they need to publicise this scandal and the misery of the 30+ families each year who see a family person jailed.
Your concern at the plight of the 30 or more families a year in the UK blighted by the consequences of refusing to pay the TV licence does you great credit. I wonder what your views are on the plight of the thousands of families each year whose lives are blighted by government decisions you support.
If the BBC was convinced it was as marvellous as it says it is then it would be the one pushing to change it's funding structure - so it can expand and compete.
Mr Purnell of course didn't *apply for the job* he was given it without it being advertised!
Eyebrows were also raised over the fact that there was no open recruitment process for Mr Purnell’s job. Sources at the BBC claimed there was no point in such a costly exercise because he was viewed as the ideal candidate for the newly-created job.
... Mr Purnell will receive £295,000 to be the corporation’s director of strategy and digital when he joins next month.
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Your cake is a non-sequitur but wherever it finds the cash, the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its executives, lighting engineers and television cameras. That's how markets work.
No that's not how markets work.
If the BBC has a budget (for instance a cap on wages at the rate of the PM) then it needs to offer jobs and whichever rate it can afford and hire from amongst those who apply for the job at that rate. If you pay too much in the market then you risk getting undercut and going bust because of competition from your competitors and consumer choice. That is how markets work. Giving yourself a blank cheque on force of imprisonment and then writing high numbers "because of the market" is not how markets work.
Do you seriously think that if the job was offered at £125k that James Purnell ex-MP would have turned his nose up and not applied for the job?
The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.
Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.
I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)
That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax
Only saying...
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Does anyone at the BBC earn as much as the Governor of the Bank of England?
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
Ms. Apocalypse, I think it just depends how it's used.
A warning that something may not be suitable for those of a sensitive disposition (regarding drug use, violence, sex etc) is fine. But I've also read of trigger warnings about clapping. And the term 'trigger warning' because it might frighten people who have had bad experiences with guns.
I agree that trigger warnings on clapping as such (I remember reading a 'feminist jazz hands tweet) is going way too far, and those SJW who are like that are, are even among a minority among SJW! That said the PB idea among some that having different politics to them means you don't have a 'real job' is bizarre tbh'.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
Southam is a fanastic poster. I almost always make time to read what he says, and to understand it.
Unfortunately, on the BBC, he talks unadulterated bollocks.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It brought to mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
On topic, i suspect these gains are a bit of a dead cat bounce. The LDs didn't have much further to fall and, in some parts of the country, they're the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives (less often Labour) if you don't fancy UKIP. So, now there's no reason to hate them and, with some centre-left guilt kicking in, they should continue to make modest gains in local authorities.
Best of luck to them.
The anti-Tory Party may well enjoy a revival now that the Tories are properly in power. Many people are beginning to understand just how far the LDs did manage to constrain them; and that could help the LDs get up off the floor. Though it is a long way back to where they were.
I don't think people are beginning to realise that at all - the moves on IHT cuts, EVEL and human rights reform are electorally popular.
However, you are correct that the Tories being in power will tend to galvanise the anti-Tory vote.
Let's see what Farron adds to that.
I get the impression after several years of Miliband/Blair etc we are approaching peak sanctimony, and the public's appetite for being preached to is fading rather fast. I am hopeful that even the SJW types are approaching their zenith and will soon be fading. Certainly my teenage children roll they eyes in disgust at the latest witterings about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings", my elder son has even been heard to say words to the effect of "perhaps they should get a real job then".... that's my boy
My 20-year d nephew is the same. He works at Bentley. I'm v.proud of him.
40% of 18-34 year olds voted either Conservative or UKIP, which is an encouraging number.
They are a very sensible generation. He drinks far less than my generation do, for instance.
What he isn't is a cossetted middle-class graduate, from an urbane Russell Group university, that follows a carefully opinion filtered group of friends on Twitter, and a Guardian reader.
He worked hard for some good a-levels, became an agency worker on the factory line and has now secured an apprenticeship in mechanical vehicle manufacture and design.
He's a Conservative supporter.
Sounds like a very sensible young chap. You're right to be very proud of him.
The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.
Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.
I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)
That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax
Only saying...
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Does anyone at the BBC earn as much as the Governor of the Bank of England?
Suprising given the BoE is just administration whilst the BBC is an economic powerhouse.
Mr Purnell of course didn't *apply for the job* he was given it without it being advertised!
Eyebrows were also raised over the fact that there was no open recruitment process for Mr Purnell’s job. Sources at the BBC claimed there was no point in such a costly exercise because he was viewed as the ideal candidate for the newly-created job.
... Mr Purnell will receive £295,000 to be the corporation’s director of strategy and digital when he joins next month.
If the BBC has a budget (for instance a cap on wages at the rate of the PM) then it needs to offer jobs and whichever rate it can afford and hire from amongst those who apply for the job at that rate. If you pay too much in the market then you risk getting undercut and going bust because of competition from your competitors and consumer choice. That is how markets work. Giving yourself a blank cheque on force of imprisonment and then writing high numbers "because of the market" is not how markets work.
Do you seriously think that if the job was offered at £125k that James Purnell ex-MP would have turned his nose up and not applied for the job?
Oh well that's completely how markets work isn't it. Call up one guy and say "hey do you want to work with us at five times your present wages?" Lucky he said yes isn't it, if he hadn't they might have had to call a second guy.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
The BBC have only themselves to blame for this - their relentless bias against conservatives and conservatism has been going on for years, and they've obstinately refused to listen to criticism, feedback or to reform their corporation. They never will unless forced to do so.
Payback time.
And therein lies the hubris. The BBC is far more popular than the Conservative party. If the results of Tory attacks on the BBC are less choice and more cost, it is not going to be popular. Thus, I fear you are going to end up very disappointed with what happens to the BBC on this government's watch, as the political implications of a full-scale assault become apparent.
But I commend you for your honesty. The BBC does not provide the coverage that conservatives like you feel that it should provide so you wish to destroy it.
No, it's supposed to be neutral but provides bias coverage. It rejects any criticism of this despite Robin Aitken, Peter Sissens, John Humpfries and Andrew Marr all confirming it to be true. It's R4 journalists always interrogate public policy from the Left. Question time balance is one tory, with left-wing journalists and comedians to make up the difference. It's failed to hold proper debates and analysis of issues like the EU and mass immigration, and sneers at non-metropolitan values. More than half of the English electorate voted Conservative or UKIP. The BBC don't even begin to see why.
Your obstinate refusal to see there's a problem is the problem. Because you like the soft-left output it generates, you think it's a Conservative party problem.
One thing I can guarantee you is that there will not be less choice, and people will be paying no more money unless they choose to do so. Every day the volume of choice on new dramas, comedies and shows on streaming grows and viewers increasingly customise what they want to watch, and how and when they want to watch it.
You are an analogue corporatist in a diverse digital age.
Yes, I understand that you believe the BBC is biased because it does not report the news in a way that you approve of. That may, of course, make you biased.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It brought to mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
I certainly thought you were a little smarter :-)
You'll be pleased to know, incidentally (and sort of on topic), that your direct email marketing is reaching me with regularity.
The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.
Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.
I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)
That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax
Only saying...
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Does anyone at the BBC earn as much as the Governor of the Bank of England?
Again, I am sorry you do not understand. The Governor of the Bank of England is paid the market rate, even though his job is taxpayer funded. Why should it be different at the BBC?
Yes, I understand that you believe the BBC is biased because it does not report the news in a way that you approve of. That may, of course, make you biased.
The way to solve that is free choice. You may believe the Grauniad is not biased and you may choose to buy the Grauniad. I may believe the Telegraph is not biased and may chose to buy the Telegraph.
Compelling people by law on threat of imprisonment to pay for the Guardian or Telegraph is not acceptable. Why do I need to pay a TV Poll Tax which goes on totally biased radio that I dislike like Radio 4 when I watch commercial TV and listen to commercial radio?
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It brought to mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
I certainly thought you were a little smarter :-)
You'll be pleased to know, incidentally (and sort of on topic), that your direct email marketing is reaching me with regularity.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
This makes absolutely no sense.
There are dozens of TV channels that broadcast simultaneously. At the same time, plenty of the BBC's existing output are of repeats and old shows.
Dead air is a crime. Broadcasters will fill it with something. That does not mean that broadcast bandwidth is finite and limited. That was partly the case under analogue, it is absolutely not the case for digital. Even schedules themselves are becoming increasingly irrelevant, except for real-time reality shows, news and sport.
If the show is popular, the BBC (or someone else) will broadcast it. And then people will decide if they want to watch it.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
This makes absolutely no sense.
There are dozens of TV channels that broadcast simultaneously. At the same time, plenty of the BBC's existing output are of repeats and old shows.
Dead air is a crime. Broadcasters will fill it with something. That does not mean that broadcast bandwidth is finite and limited. That was partly the case under analogue, it is absolutely not the case for digital. Even schedules themselves are becoming increasingly irrelevant, except for real-time reality shows, news and sport.
If the show is popular, the BBC (or someone else) will broadcast it. And then people will decide if they want to watch it.
It also has to be made. How many of these channels have a budget to make programmes? What incentive does a channel chasing advertising revenue have to take a punt on a show that may not prove immediately popular?
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
Stupid argument, the baskets are not full they are constantly in a state of flux. Plus the BBC wouldn't be shut down if it was commercialised, it would still be running its own free to air channels.
Even so the BBC is already creating plenty that could find a home elsewhere. I couldn't put a fagpaper between Bargain Hunt (BBC) or Dickinson's Real Deal (ITV). Or Eastenders (BBC) or Coronation Street (ITV).
What's the public service imperative that means I need to pay for Bargain Hunt on pain of imprisonment in order to watch something else?
Mr Purnell of course didn't *apply for the job* he was given it without it being advertised!
Eyebrows were also raised over the fact that there was no open recruitment process for Mr Purnell’s job. Sources at the BBC claimed there was no point in such a costly exercise because he was viewed as the ideal candidate for the newly-created job.
... Mr Purnell will receive £295,000 to be the corporation’s director of strategy and digital when he joins next month.
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Your cake is a non-sequitur but wherever it finds the cash, the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its executives, lighting engineers and television cameras. That's how markets work.
No that's not how markets work.
If the BBC has a budget (for instance a cap on wages at the rate of the PM) then it needs to offer jobs and whichever rate it can afford and hire from amongst those who apply for the job at that rate. If you pay too much in the market then you risk getting undercut and going bust because of competition from your competitors and consumer choice. That is how markets work. Giving yourself a blank cheque on force of imprisonment and then writing high numbers "because of the market" is not how markets work.
Do you seriously think that if the job was offered at £125k that James Purnell ex-MP would have turned his nose up and not applied for the job?
In what other organisations would a 300k job simply be handed to someone without any process? That sort of opaque behaviour would trigger a shareholder revolt against the executives in most companies.
I can imagine that being the masthead slogan of a 1980s Daily Mail!
Their sidebar of shame/bikinis proves that it's moved on Speaking of the Mail, back in the early 80s - my boyfriend's parent bought the Mail and I was gobsmacked at how small c conservative it was. Marge Proops IIRC and endless tales of woe from mothers who regretted ever leaving the kitchen sink/apron strings.
It's changed to suit its market - whether one likes that or not.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It brought to mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
Yes, I understand that you believe the BBC is biased because it does not report the news in a way that you approve of. That may, of course, make you biased.
The way to solve that is free choice. You may believe the Grauniad is not biased and you may choose to buy the Grauniad. I may believe the Telegraph is not biased and may chose to buy the Telegraph.
Compelling people by law on threat of imprisonment to pay for the Guardian or Telegraph is not acceptable. Why do I need to pay a TV Poll Tax which goes on totally biased radio that I dislike like Radio 4 when I watch commercial TV and listen to commercial radio?
I believe the Grauniad and the Telegraph are both horribly biased. And I also believe that the licence fee should be scrapped and replaced by a voluntary subscription. If people do not want to pay for BBC programming then it is ridiculous they should be compelled to do so. I also think that the BBC should be freed from having to play politics with whatever government is in power at the time of its charter renewal. I think it would all do the BBC a power of good - but it may not be great news for its competitors.
The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
Reallocating some of the existing BBC ones to commercial broadcasters will do the trick.
The BBC was created and has developed in an era where control of media was a natural monopoly activity or the preserve of an oligarchy. Those days are disappearing fast. The BBC's rationale needs to be rethought accordingly. Mindless small c conservatism is quite misplaced.
Have things really changed that much? In fact, are things not more centralised than ever?
If you look at access to the world's English language media in terms of reach, you could probably get those that control 80% in a small board room.
For the money, I think the BBC should be broadcasting more to a dairy farmer in Netherhampton wick than to a Yak owner in Nepal
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
This makes absolutely no sense.
There are dozens of TV channels that broadcast simultaneously. At the same time, plenty of the BBC's existing output are of repeats and old shows.
Dead air is a crime. Broadcasters will fill it with something. That does not mean that broadcast bandwidth is finite and limited. That was partly the case under analogue, it is absolutely not the case for digital. Even schedules themselves are becoming increasingly irrelevant, except for real-time reality shows, news and sport.
If the show is popular, the BBC (or someone else) will broadcast it. And then people will decide if they want to watch it.
It also has to be made. How many of these channels have a budget to make programmes? What incentive does a channel chasing advertising revenue have to take a punt on a show that may not prove immediately popular?
Yes, it's a wonder how all these freeview channels, Internet channels and subscription channels were ever launched in the first place.
Please: stop, take a break, and have a good think. You're embarassing yourself.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
Stupid argument, the baskets are not full they are constantly in a state of flux. Plus the BBC wouldn't be shut down if it was commercialised, it would still be running its own free to air channels.
Even so the BBC is already creating plenty that could find a home elsewhere. I couldn't put a fagpaper between Bargain Hunt (BBC) or Dickinson's Real Deal (ITV). Or Eastenders (BBC) or Coronation Street (ITV).
What's the public service imperative that means I need to pay for Bargain Hunt on pain of imprisonment in order to watch something else?
I don't watch any of those programmes, but I am pretty sure millions of people would say there was a pretty big difference between East Enders and Coronation Street.
ITV and EVERY OTHER broadcaster drops shows every season. Some US networks drop shows mid-season if the ratings aren't there. They're always looking for new stuff or even sticky old stuff.
They're interested in eyeballs and don't care where they come from.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
Yes, I understand that you believe the BBC is biased because it does not report the news in a way that you approve of. That may, of course, make you biased.
The way to solve that is free choice. You may believe the Grauniad is not biased and you may choose to buy the Grauniad. I may believe the Telegraph is not biased and may chose to buy the Telegraph.
Compelling people by law on threat of imprisonment to pay for the Guardian or Telegraph is not acceptable. Why do I need to pay a TV Poll Tax which goes on totally biased radio that I dislike like Radio 4 when I watch commercial TV and listen to commercial radio?
I believe the Grauniad and the Telegraph are both horribly biased. And I also believe that the licence fee should be scrapped and replaced by a voluntary subscription. If people do not want to pay for BBC programming then it is ridiculous they should be compelled to do so. I also think that the BBC should be freed from having to play politics with whatever government is in power at the time of its charter renewal. I think it would all do the BBC a power of good - but it may not be great news for its competitors.
Well, that's something and encouraging. I can agree with you on that.
The real problem is our dear friends in the government (and those elsewhere in their thrall) see fine British institutions, popular and respected around the world (BBC, NHS etc) and think "why aren't those things making more money for me and my friends"
Yes, I understand that you believe the BBC is biased because it does not report the news in a way that you approve of. That may, of course, make you biased.
The way to solve that is free choice. You may believe the Grauniad is not biased and you may choose to buy the Grauniad. I may believe the Telegraph is not biased and may chose to buy the Telegraph.
Compelling people by law on threat of imprisonment to pay for the Guardian or Telegraph is not acceptable. Why do I need to pay a TV Poll Tax which goes on totally biased radio that I dislike like Radio 4 when I watch commercial TV and listen to commercial radio?
I believe the Grauniad and the Telegraph are both horribly biased. And I also believe that the licence fee should be scrapped and replaced by a voluntary subscription. If people do not want to pay for BBC programming then it is ridiculous they should be compelled to do so. I also think that the BBC should be freed from having to play politics with whatever government is in power at the time of its charter renewal. I think it would all do the BBC a power of good - but it may not be great news for its competitors.
Which I also utterly agree with, but then this issue of competition would be subject to review by Competition Comission/OFCOM etc.
There are areas which the BBC is currently too dominant. For example Radio I would say, in there this is no even comparable commerical network even close to the BBC.
Mr Purnell of course didn't *apply for the job* he was given it without it being advertised!
Eyebrows were also raised over the fact that there was no open recruitment process for Mr Purnell’s job. Sources at the BBC claimed there was no point in such a costly exercise because he was viewed as the ideal candidate for the newly-created job.
... Mr Purnell will receive £295,000 to be the corporation’s director of strategy and digital when he joins next month.
If the BBC has a budget (for instance a cap on wages at the rate of the PM) then it needs to offer jobs and whichever rate it can afford and hire from amongst those who apply for the job at that rate. If you pay too much in the market then you risk getting undercut and going bust because of competition from your competitors and consumer choice. That is how markets work. Giving yourself a blank cheque on force of imprisonment and then writing high numbers "because of the market" is not how markets work.
Do you seriously think that if the job was offered at £125k that James Purnell ex-MP would have turned his nose up and not applied for the job?
Oh well that's completely how markets work isn't it. Call up one guy and say "hey do you want to work with us at five times your present wages?" Lucky he said yes isn't it, if he hadn't they might have had to call a second guy.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
This makes absolutely no sense.
There are dozens of TV channels that broadcast simultaneously. At the same time, plenty of the BBC's existing output are of repeats and old shows.
Dead air is a crime. Broadcasters will fill it with something. That does not mean that broadcast bandwidth is finite and limited. That was partly the case under analogue, it is absolutely not the case for digital. Even schedules themselves are becoming increasingly irrelevant, except for real-time reality shows, news and sport.
If the show is popular, the BBC (or someone else) will broadcast it. And then people will decide if they want to watch it.
It also has to be made. How many of these channels have a budget to make programmes? What incentive does a channel chasing advertising revenue have to take a punt on a show that may not prove immediately popular?
Yes, it's a wonder how all these freeview channels, Internet channels and subscription channels were ever launched in the first place.
Please: stop, take a break, and have a good think. You're embarassing yourself.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
ITV and EVERY OTHER broadcaster drops shows every season. Some US networks drop shows mid-season if the ratings aren't there. They're always looking for new stuff or even sticky old stuff.
They're interested in eyeballs and don't care where they come from.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
All of which restricts viewer choice. It's very simple Plato. I am sorry you cannot understand it.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
@Sean_F I'm unaware of the 40% figure, although I am aware of voting patterns among the 18-24 group (from the MORI post-GE) poll. Even so, it's not necessarily true 40% of young people vote Tory and UKIP, but rather 40% of those who turned out to vote. From MORI, it among 18-24 year olds, 35% voted either Tory or UKIP, but this is from a rather low-turnout of 43%. A vast majority of young people are neither Tory, Labour, LD, or UKIP - although seem to be somewhat sympathetic to the centre-left on a variety of issues.
PB Tories are largely representative of Tories if my experience is anything to go by.
I used to vote for Tony and was rather pleased back then that the BBC was biased in it's output towards my agenda.
I've never felt that about being a Tory. I also worked with the organisation for 3yrs and went from being one of their greatest fans in pre-1996 to be extremely disappointed over the period 2005-now.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
I don't watch any of those programmes, but I am pretty sure millions of people would say there was a pretty big difference between East Enders and Coronation Street.
In the same way as millions of people would say there was a pretty big difference between Man United and Man City but neither are paid for by a poll tax on pain of imprisonment by fans of other clubs.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
No, I never expressed support for the licence fee to continue in my post. I just simply pointed out (using an example from the top of my head), that my age group, who are the forefront of changes in how media content is consumed, still appreciate BBC programming, and do not hate the organization. That was the point I was trying to make.
The real problem is our dear friends in the government (and those elsewhere in their thrall) see fine British institutions, popular and respected around the world (BBC, NHS etc) and think "why aren't those things making more money for me and my friends"
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
BBC lovers similarly need to come up with a reason why people that don't touch any of the BBC's products should pay for them anyway. If the license fee was restricted (not unreasonably) to those that use its services, what would it go up to ?
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
No, I never expressed support for the licence fee to continue in my post. I just simply pointed out (using an example from the top of my head), that my age group, who are the forefront of changes in how media content is consumed, still appreciate BBC programming, and do not hate the organization. That was the point I was trying to make.
I don't hate the BBC, I just don't like how its funded.
I suspect Sherlock and shows like it could find a commercial home in a commercialised BBC like other quality British drama made in the last 12 months like The Missing (ITV) or Game of Thrones (Sky) that were made commercially without imprisonment.
'With only eight MPs at Westminster Farron would dearly love there to be a parliamentary by-election. But who knows when one of those is going to come up? '
Perhaps Alistair Carmichael could do the decent thing and resign?
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
It is because of the BBC that Freeview boxes didn't come with decoder boxes. There was a proposal then to include them as part of the standard which the BBC blocked fearing it could be made subscription based.
The BBC has made its bed and should lie in it. Commercialise like ITV, Channel 4 etc - job done.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
You appreciate Sherlock do you? All three episodes per season? That's great, good for you.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
@Sean_F I'm unaware of the 40% figure, although I am aware of voting patterns among the 18-24 group (from the MORI post-GE) poll. Even so, it's not necessarily true 40% of young people vote Tory and UKIP, but rather 40% of those who turned out to vote. From MORI, it among 18-24 year olds, 35% voted either Tory or UKIP, but this is from a rather low-turnout of 43%. A vast majority of young people are neither Tory, Labour, LD, or UKIP - although seem to be somewhat sympathetic to the centre-left on a variety of issues.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
It brought to mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
ITV and EVERY OTHER broadcaster drops shows every season. Some US networks drop shows mid-season if the ratings aren't there. They're always looking for new stuff or even sticky old stuff.
They're interested in eyeballs and don't care where they come from.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
All of which restricts viewer choice. It's very simple Plato. I am sorry you cannot understand it.
@Sean_F I'm unaware of the 40% figure, although I am aware of voting patterns among the 18-24 group (from the MORI post-GE) poll. Even so, it's not necessarily true 40% of young people vote Tory and UKIP, but rather 40% of those who turned out to vote. From MORI, it among 18-24 year olds, 35% voted either Tory or UKIP, but this is from a rather low-turnout of 43%. A vast majority of young people are neither Tory, Labour, LD, or UKIP - although seem to be somewhat sympathetic to the centre-left on a variety of issues.
I agree, I'm just saying it's not necessarily accurate to cast 40% of all 18-34 year olds as Tories/UKIP. It's more 40% of those who voted.
O/T - after recently being the subject of road rage incident in Devon for not reversing quickly enough into a single track road layby, to allow a pick-up truck driven by a young 20-something smoking man to pass, I find this very disturbing:
"As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules."
Absolutely 100% not true....e.g. BBC3 only operates from 7pm until ~1am, and I think it is showing like 70% repeats.
The idea that all shows need to be on free to air channels is and / or that you need to repeat a show multiple times throughout the week e.g. BBC did it with Top Gear, The Apprentice etc also totally outdated now
Already trialed by the BBC is doing iPlayer only shows or shows which they show first on iPlayer.
The MP's pay rise is typical civil service type crass thinking at a time when other people are going to feel a cut in their income due to the reductions n the over-generous GB tax credits that are not sustainable. However as they have been given for many years and the LDs were against cutting them back, then the backlash could be more severe. The time for the real cuts was in 2010 when the economic crisis was more present in people's minds and so would have been accepted by most people. It just shows why DC should have governed on C&S and not as a coalition with the idealistic LDs.
Will we see a list of MPs who refuse/give back/give away their pay rise and a list of those who keep it. Having to pay for your evening meal is no hardship with the subsidised HoC dining rooms - just means those dinners at the Michelin starred restaurants no longer qualify as expenses.
I read this morning that the Director of strategy at the BBC gets around £300,000 plus perks (probably a Nandos club card ?)
That type of cash dosent grow on trees you know which is probably why they have to put pensioners in jail for non payment of telly tax
Only saying...
All the main parties affect to believe in "the market" yet all get worked up when it means people earn more than the Prime Minister (and possibly even more than the newspaper columnist doing the complaining). If the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its Head of Values, then so be it.
If the BBC raises its money from the market then absolutely it can pay the so-called market rate.
If the BBC wants to tax us on pain of imprisonment then no. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Your cake is a non-sequitur but wherever it finds the cash, the BBC needs to pay the market rate for its executives, lighting engineers and television cameras. That's how markets work.
Lighting engineers and cameras? It hardly has any. Most production has been outsourced, and they're forever scrabbling about trying to find studio space and equipment having foolishly disposed of TVC.
There's never a lack of Executives mind you - thousands of 'em. The market rate should be reduced, there's hardly a shortage of pen pushers at Broadcasting House.
Tbh rather than repeating shows, what the BBC should do is create an archive of episodes which viewers can access on Iplayer. I think that would be very popular, especially with shows like Family Guy.
Tbh rather than repeating shows, what the BBC should do is create an archive of episodes which viewers can access on Iplayer. I think that would be very popular, especially with shows like Family Guy.
I think that would be much easier to do with shows they make (This Week, anyone??) rather than others such as Family Guy. They'd have to pay through the nose to put up an archive of those.
Tbh rather than repeating shows, what the BBC should do is create an archive of episodes which viewers can access on Iplayer. I think that would be very popular, especially with shows like Family Guy.
What like Sky have :-)
I think the argument the BBC has is that with iPlayer they can't control access properly...well if they went to a subscription model that wouldn't be any issue.
It is serious issue though, there is Amazon Instant, Netflix, Sky and BT already offering a massive amount of content, not to say the pirate sites that offer BBC shows in HD within minutes of broadcast.
You can't just stick you head in the sand like the music industry did for far too long.
What is changing very quickly is how we watch television. Drama series are now watched in boxed sets or online in the same way as movies - Nexflix only launched in the UK 3 years ago and has had a huge effect, they are commissioning their own programmes such as House of Cards and are rumoured to be looking at the Top Gear remake with the original presenters.
News and sport are all that people are now watching live, something that the more traditional broadcasters are having to deal with very quickly.
Whatever the BBC Charter renewal that goes through next year, one thing for certain is that the landscape will be very very different 10 years into the future from now. Think that a 10 year old "smart" phone was just about smart enough to check your email (iPhone was launched 8 years ago and the iPad only in 2010).
PB Tories are largely representative of Tories if my experience is anything to go by.
I used to vote for Tony and was rather pleased back then that the BBC was biased in it's output towards my agenda.
I've never felt that about being a Tory. I also worked with the organisation for 3yrs and went from being one of their greatest fans in pre-1996 to be extremely disappointed over the period 2005-now.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
Were the licence fee withdrawn the BBC would cease to exist overnight. They know it, hence the amount of noise being generated over it's future funding.
They should have addressed the realities of moving across to a subscription based service a decade ago, but for whatever reasons chose not to; I suspect it's too late for them now, as others such as Amazon and Google will steal a march in this area with their own plans as entertainment providers.
Tbh rather than repeating shows, what the BBC should do is create an archive of episodes which viewers can access on Iplayer. I think that would be very popular, especially with shows like Family Guy.
ISTR they *were* going to do that; I've no idea if it's still the plan. As a first step, they made available online a list of everything they had.
As an aside, there were several things I wanted to watch from my youth:
"First and last," with Joss Ackland; "The Lorelei" "Looking for Tat"
Mr. Sandpit, I agree. The longer the BBC refuses to acknowledge that technological progress has changed the game the harder a time they'll have adapting.
What is changing very quickly is how we watch television. Drama series are now watched in boxed sets or online in the same way as movies - Nexflix only launched in the UK 3 years ago and has had a huge effect, they are commissioning their own programmes such as House of Cards and are rumoured to be looking at the Top Gear remake with the original presenters.
News and sport are all that people are now watching live, something that the more traditional broadcasters are having to deal with very quickly.
Whatever the BBC Charter renewal that goes through next year, one thing for certain is that the landscape will be very very different 10 years into the future from now. Think that a 10 year old "smart" phone was just about smart enough to check your email (iPhone was launched 8 years ago and the iPad only in 2010).
South Korea are already rolling out 5G that is 1000 times faster than 4G. The technology is there and it is just a matter of time until it spreads across the world.
This twee idea of a tv licence to watch a moving picture box in the corner of your living room is the sort of thing that if it didn't exist I would expect from the most stuck in the past members of UKIP would propose. It is something from a totally different and now irrelevant age.
I presume that channels which beam the same show multiple times a week is to accommodate people like me who timeshift. And in certain primetime slots - there are more than two things I'd like to record/see.
So they're broadcast again on different days/diff times so I can catch them. That's different to *repeats* which are old shows getting another go.
Most of BBC4 is full of both - recentish [last three yrs] repeats multiple broadcasts and new stuff multiple broadcasts - and it's only on air for a few hours a day.
"As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules."
Absolutely 100% not true....e.g. BBC3 only operates from 7pm until ~1am, and I think it is showing like 70% repeats.
The idea that all shows need to be on free to air channels is and / or that you need to repeat a show multiple times throughout the week e.g. BBC did it with Top Gear, The Apprentice etc also totally outdated now
Already trialed by the BBC is doing iPlayer only shows or shows which they show first on iPlayer.
IIRC it's mainly down to rights costs. Of course if the BBC wasn't spending £100m on stuff better done by others, they'd have quite a bit to allot to popular older shows.
Tbh rather than repeating shows, what the BBC should do is create an archive of episodes which viewers can access on Iplayer. I think that would be very popular, especially with shows like Family Guy.
Television isn't the most important thing in my life. I neither love or hate the BBC. In fact, I never think about it, and rarely watch it, or any "live" TV, apart from news and some sport, to be honest. I genuinely could live without the BBC, but fully understand that millions of people probably want to keep it as it is. Let them pay for it. Demanding payment, on pain of imprisonment in this era of unfettered media access is archaic and bloody unfair, given that government of all colours like to trumpet that we should have choices in everything else. Oh, and MP's pay rise-10%. Me-1%. Nice that we're still all in it together!
Are people really proud of relatives because they are, in effect Tories?
I'm pretty certain they wouldn't be the same folk berating dreadful lefties for living in an echo chamber and only wanting to be around people who share their views.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
It is because of the BBC that Freeview boxes didn't come with decoder boxes. There was a proposal then to include them as part of the standard which the BBC blocked fearing it could be made subscription based.
The BBC has made its bed and should lie in it. Commercialise like ITV, Channel 4 etc - job done.
Another problem was which CA system that should be used, and there were cost issues as well.
But the BBC were suffering from a case of not being able to see they were heading towards a concrete wall at 100 MPH. They should have come up with proposals much, much earlier.
ITV and EVERY OTHER broadcaster drops shows every season. Some US networks drop shows mid-season if the ratings aren't there. They're always looking for new stuff or even sticky old stuff.
They're interested in eyeballs and don't care where they come from.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
All of which restricts viewer choice. It's very simple Plato. I am sorry you cannot understand it.
By taking the BBC's right to make "popular" programmes away - as has been mooted - you restrict viewer choice, as those programmes will no longer be made or broadcast; or they will be made and broadcast by other free to air channels, which will then have to drop existing projects and programmes to accommodate them. Thus, viewers have free to air access to fewer programmes than they do at the moment.
I presume that channels which beam the same show multiple times a week is to accommodate people like me who timeshift. And in certain primetime slots - there are more than two things I'd like to record/see.
So they're broadcast again on different days/diff times so I can catch them. That's different to *repeats* which are old shows getting another go.
Most of BBC4 is full of both - recentish [last three yrs] repeats multiple broadcasts and new stuff multiple broadcasts - and it's only on air for a few hours a day.
"As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules."
Absolutely 100% not true....e.g. BBC3 only operates from 7pm until ~1am, and I think it is showing like 70% repeats.
The idea that all shows need to be on free to air channels is and / or that you need to repeat a show multiple times throughout the week e.g. BBC did it with Top Gear, The Apprentice etc also totally outdated now
Already trialed by the BBC is doing iPlayer only shows or shows which they show first on iPlayer.
I can't recall the last time I watched a live programme on BBC1 or BBC2. It was probably Poldark or Jamaica Inn. Most of it is a load of shite.
My wife likes E4 and More4. I (on the very rare occasion I watch live TV) peruse ITV2, Dave, BBC4 and Yesterday more than anything else.
More often than not, I'm not too inspired there either, so head to Amazon Prime where we can watch all sorts of stuff for £80 a year.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I think you would struggle to find any PB thread on which I have defended the current BBC licensing model. I have been entirely consistent in saying it should not be compulsory. If you do not want access to BBC programmes you should not have to pay for them and you should not have access to them.
ITV and EVERY OTHER broadcaster drops shows every season. Some US networks drop shows mid-season if the ratings aren't there. They're always looking for new stuff or even sticky old stuff.
They're interested in eyeballs and don't care where they come from.
BBC haters on PB and in the right wing press are gong to have to come up with a way to convince people that they should pay more for what they get form the BBC or accept less choice. As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules.
I am sorry you did not understand my point. What does ITV drop to show the popular BBC programmes that the BBC should not be making and showing? And in dropping its programming, how does that not restrict existing choice? The point is that with television there are no new free to air baskets to put programmes in - unless, of course, the government is going to propose creating new free to air TV stations. Is it?
All of which restricts viewer choice. It's very simple Plato. I am sorry you cannot understand it.
By taking the BBC's right to make "popular" programmes away - as has been mooted - you restrict viewer choice, as those programmes will no longer be made or broadcast; or they will be made and broadcast by other free to air channels, which will then have to drop existing projects and programmes to accommodate them. Thus, viewers have free to air access to fewer programmes than they do at the moment.
TBH, I think it's the exact opposite. The BBC isn't short of very clever people. What they do suffer from is an unwillingness to change/have a very high opinion of themselves. Which shows itself again and again.
So the change to digital sans encryption wasn't that they didn't see it coming - they did. They obstructed so it kept their market dominating position safe for another decade or so. That's a perfectly reasonable strategy re self-interest - but it doesn't make it right.
Now they're being eaten by the market and throwing up all sorts of bleeding stump nonsense to deflect attention from the core issue. The TVLF is way beyond its sell-by date. It's akin to Home Taping Is Killing Music.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
It is because of the BBC that Freeview boxes didn't come with decoder boxes. There was a proposal then to include them as part of the standard which the BBC blocked fearing it could be made subscription based.
The BBC has made its bed and should lie in it. Commercialise like ITV, Channel 4 etc - job done.
Another problem was which CA system that should be used, and there were cost issues as well.
But the BBC were suffering from a case of not being able to see they were heading towards a concrete wall at 100 MPH. They should have come up with proposals much, much earlier.
On popularity: F1 was one of only two (the other being Wimbledon) sports programmes to hit audience targets, and was more popular than Wimbledon. That didn't stop the BBC giving away half the rights.
Edited for clarity: all the rights, retaining only half a season.
Unlike football, which is festooned with many matches, F1 has one major event every fortnight or so. Losing half the season is like losing half the episodes in a series.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I think you would struggle to find any PB thread on which I have defended the current BBC licensing model. I have been entirely consistent in saying it should not be compulsory. If you do not want access to BBC programmes you should not have to pay for them and you should not have access to them.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't struggle, but I don't have time atm.
ISTR it ended up with you suggesting signals should somehow be blocked from peoples' homes.
I think that would be much easier to do with shows they make (This Week, anyone??) rather than others such as Family Guy. They'd have to pay through the nose to put up an archive of those.
True, as they probably don't have the rights for those. I did see on YouTube though, that they've done something similar like that - at least in regard to shows like Dead Ringers.
I think the argument the BBC has is that with iPlayer they can't control access properly...well if they went to a subscription model that wouldn't be any issue.
It is serious issue though, there is Amazon Instant, Netflix, Sky and BT already offering a massive amount of content, not to say the pirate sites that offer BBC shows in HD within minutes of broadcast.
You can't just stick you head in the sand like the music industry did for far too long.
Yes, the BBC does need to adapt with the times. So long as it modernises I think it'll be okay, there are lots of people out there who like BBC content, and so they'd have an audience to cater to. As for Sky, I have nothing against Sky. In my family, we have SkyHD.
IIRC it's mainly down to rights costs. Of course if the BBC wasn't spending £100m on stuff better done by others, they'd have quite a bit to allot to popular older shows.
I've never seen Family Guy - a cartoon?
It's kind of like an adult comedy show, but in a cartoon format. It's on BBC Two on Sunday nights, if you're interested.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I think you would struggle to find any PB thread on which I have defended the current BBC licensing model. I have been entirely consistent in saying it should not be compulsory. If you do not want access to BBC programmes you should not have to pay for them and you should not have access to them.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't struggle, but I don't have time atm.
ISTR it ended up with you suggesting signals should somehow be blocked from peoples' homes.
You would struggle because I have never supported the current licence fee arrangement. If people do not want to watch or listen to BBC programmes they should not have to pay the licence fee. The corollary of that, of course, is that they should not have access to the programming.
Are people really proud of relatives because they are, in effect Tories?
I'm pretty certain they wouldn't be the same folk berating dreadful lefties for living in an echo chamber and only wanting to be around people who share their views.
I spent 20mins last week looking at the total output of BBC1 and BBC2 using the onscreen menu.
There was one programme on BBC1 that I'd watch maybe, and three on BBC2 maybe. One-ish if really bored on BBC3 and five on BBC4.
I happily watch More4, ITVs various incarnations, C4, Travel, Spike, Tru and Pick for everything else and Sky for news. I have no need for the BBC at all and the docs I do catch on there are all timeshifted.
I presume that channels which beam the same show multiple times a week is to accommodate people like me who timeshift. And in certain primetime slots - there are more than two things I'd like to record/see.
So they're broadcast again on different days/diff times so I can catch them. That's different to *repeats* which are old shows getting another go.
Most of BBC4 is full of both - recentish [last three yrs] repeats multiple broadcasts and new stuff multiple broadcasts - and it's only on air for a few hours a day.
"As I said yesterday, free to air channels already have full schedules."
Absolutely 100% not true....e.g. BBC3 only operates from 7pm until ~1am, and I think it is showing like 70% repeats.
The idea that all shows need to be on free to air channels is and / or that you need to repeat a show multiple times throughout the week e.g. BBC did it with Top Gear, The Apprentice etc also totally outdated now
Already trialed by the BBC is doing iPlayer only shows or shows which they show first on iPlayer.
I can't recall the last time I watched a live programme on BBC1 or BBC2. It was probably Poldark or Jamaica Inn. Most of it is a load of shite.
My wife likes E4 and More4. I (on the very rare occasion I watch live TV) peruse ITV2, Dave, BBC4 and Yesterday more than anything else.
More often than not, I'm not too inspired there either, so head to Amazon Prime where we can watch all sorts of stuff for £80 a year.
I actually agree with Southam on the issue of the BBC. Sure, we are definitely in a modern, digital age, but at least among my peers BBC content is still appreciated - e.g. Sherlock. Certainly, I've not seen anyone who dislikes the BBC to the extent, and degree in which PB Tories do.
It's not about dislike at all - the Beeb has some good shows but you can go to prison for refusing to pay a tax for them whether you watch them or not. There are lots of really good non-BBC shows, some free and many paid for by subscription and you have a choice to pay or do without. The BBC is in the unique position of having the right to demand money in the UK even if you don't want to watch any of their channels. As an idea it is out-dated and ridiculously authoritarian. They are so scared of competition that they will apparently countenance no significant changes to this arrangement.
No, I am not. I am merely disagreeing with you. Most freeview channels do not show original material. I support the BBC moving to a subscription base. It would probably end up saving me a good deal of money.
SO: you have rather changed your tune. In the past we've had discussion where I've pointed out that the BBC licence fee model is unsustainable in the long term, and you've got rather upset about it.
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I think you would struggle to find any PB thread on which I have defended the current BBC licensing model. I have been entirely consistent in saying it should not be compulsory. If you do not want access to BBC programmes you should not have to pay for them and you should not have access to them.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't struggle, but I don't have time atm.
ISTR it ended up with you suggesting signals should somehow be blocked from peoples' homes.
You would struggle because I have never supported the current licence fee arrangement. If people do not want to watch or listen to BBC programmes they should not have to pay the licence fee. The corollary of that, of course, is that they should not have access to the programming.
In the same way you would never vote for Labour with Balls in the cabinet?
Another key electoral challenge facing Farron and the LibDems is Holyrood 2016. Theoretically a revived LibDem party should do well in centre left Scotland, particularly as they are now free of the shackles of the coalition.
It was interesting to note in yesterday's YouGov poll on party distrust ratings among their GE2015 supporters that the LibDems came out worst. In Scotland the LibDems have a major trust issue - Carmichael.
The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15%
If the LibDems are indeed listening to the voters, on this issue they are choosing to ignore them. If the LibDems are serious about ever recovering in Scotland, they need to start walking the talk or they'll likely face virtual extinction in Holyrood 2016 and be lucky if they win a couple of list seats.
I have no idea what any of those shows are. But I do like that you can now get all the On Demand services (Iplayer, 40D etc) on TV now.
As a confirmed lefty, you might like 'Looking for Tat'. It was about a young woman who had ended up on the streets and had been helped out by a woman called Tat. Now the young woman was settled, and she went back to look for Tat.
It was part of a series where the BBC gave cameras (how quaint it is that everyone did not carry one around in their pockets!) to record interesting stories.
It was genuinely moving, as was the sequel by the same lady.
Some people talk to their plants. In Melbourne, they email the trees. This became possible thanks to a decision to map every tree in the city and give it a unique ID number....
About 3,000 emails have been sent to individual trees in the last two years. This didn't start out as an exercise in sentiment, but a hard-headed attempt by Melbourne city council to manage an urban forest in decline - as a result of drought, by 2009 40% of the 77,000 trees in Australia's "garden city" were struggling or dying.
"Many of these trees were in a severe state of decline and we were staring down the barrel of losing up to 50% of our beautiful tree population. That would have fundamentally changed the way that Melbourne looked, the way it performed environmentally, the way people felt about it socially and even economically as well," says councillor Arron Wood, who leads on the environment.
"So what we did is we actually mapped all the trees in the city… In doing so we had to assign each of them an individual tree ID and it was a logical step then to allow our residents to actually interact on a digital platform. And they could email whether a tree was dropping limbs or if it was in a severe state of decline and we could easily locate that tree and come out and intervene."
Another key electoral challenge facing Farron and the LibDems is Holyrood 2016. Theoretically a revived LibDem party should do well in centre left Scotland, particularly as they are now free of the shackles of the coalition.
It was interesting to note in yesterday's YouGov poll on party distrust ratings among their GE2015 supporters that the LibDems came out worst. In Scotland the LibDems have a major trust issue - Carmichael.
The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15%
If the LibDems are indeed listening to the voters, on this issue they are choosing to ignore them. If the LibDems are serious about ever recovering in Scotland, they need to start walking the talk or they'll likely face virtual extinction in Holyrood 2016 and be lucky if they win a couple of list seats.
So was the leak true or not? I'm not sure if I ever heard a conclusive answer on that.
Some people talk to their plants. In Melbourne, they email the trees. This became possible thanks to a decision to map every tree in the city and give it a unique ID number....
About 3,000 emails have been sent to individual trees in the last two years. This didn't start out as an exercise in sentiment, but a hard-headed attempt by Melbourne city council to manage an urban forest in decline - as a result of drought, by 2009 40% of the 77,000 trees in Australia's "garden city" were struggling or dying.
"Many of these trees were in a severe state of decline and we were staring down the barrel of losing up to 50% of our beautiful tree population. That would have fundamentally changed the way that Melbourne looked, the way it performed environmentally, the way people felt about it socially and even economically as well," says councillor Arron Wood, who leads on the environment.
"So what we did is we actually mapped all the trees in the city… In doing so we had to assign each of them an individual tree ID and it was a logical step then to allow our residents to actually interact on a digital platform. And they could email whether a tree was dropping limbs or if it was in a severe state of decline and we could easily locate that tree and come out and intervene."
Another key electoral challenge facing Farron and the LibDems is Holyrood 2016. Theoretically a revived LibDem party should do well in centre left Scotland, particularly as they are now free of the shackles of the coalition.
It was interesting to note in yesterday's YouGov poll on party distrust ratings among their GE2015 supporters that the LibDems came out worst. In Scotland the LibDems have a major trust issue - Carmichael.
The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71% Should not resign: 14% Don’t know: 15%
If the LibDems are indeed listening to the voters, on this issue they are choosing to ignore them. If the LibDems are serious about ever recovering in Scotland, they need to start walking the talk or they'll likely face virtual extinction in Holyrood 2016 and be lucky if they win a couple of list seats.
@felix I definitely agree that it's unreasonable people have to go prison for not paying the licence fee. I guess the BBC, like a lot of organisations has become comfortable in the current arrangement which is why it is reluctant to change.
@JosiasJessop Thank you for that link. I have to go out soon, so I'll try and watch it when I get back in the evening ;-)
If it didn't cost much - I like that idea. I'd hope that residents could donate to keep their trees well maintained too if minded to. Like sponsoring a man-eating tiger in India!
Some people talk to their plants. In Melbourne, they email the trees. This became possible thanks to a decision to map every tree in the city and give it a unique ID number....
About 3,000 emails have been sent to individual trees in the last two years. This didn't start out as an exercise in sentiment, but a hard-headed attempt by Melbourne city council to manage an urban forest in decline - as a result of drought, by 2009 40% of the 77,000 trees in Australia's "garden city" were struggling or dying.
"Many of these trees were in a severe state of decline and we were staring down the barrel of losing up to 50% of our beautiful tree population. That would have fundamentally changed the way that Melbourne looked, the way it performed environmentally, the way people felt about it socially and even economically as well," says councillor Arron Wood, who leads on the environment.
"So what we did is we actually mapped all the trees in the city… In doing so we had to assign each of them an individual tree ID and it was a logical step then to allow our residents to actually interact on a digital platform. And they could email whether a tree was dropping limbs or if it was in a severe state of decline and we could easily locate that tree and come out and intervene."
Comments
A warning that something may not be suitable for those of a sensitive disposition (regarding drug use, violence, sex etc) is fine. But I've also read of trigger warnings about clapping. And the term 'trigger warning' because it might frighten people who have had bad experiences with guns.
Your obstinate refusal to see there's a problem is the problem. Because you like the soft-left output it generates, you think it's a Conservative party problem.
One thing I can guarantee you is that there will not be less choice, and people will be paying no more money unless they choose to do so. Every day the volume of choice on new dramas, comedies and shows on streaming grows and viewers increasingly customise what they want to watch, and how and when they want to watch it.
You are an analogue corporatist in a diverse digital age.
“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print," it says. It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it's as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”
What are they scared of ?
Unfortunately, on the BBC, he talks unadulterated bollocks.
Oh well that's completely how markets work isn't it. Call up one guy and say "hey do you want to work with us at five times your present wages?" Lucky he said yes isn't it, if he hadn't they might have had to call a second guy.
Compelling people by law on threat of imprisonment to pay for the Guardian or Telegraph is not acceptable. Why do I need to pay a TV Poll Tax which goes on totally biased radio that I dislike like Radio 4 when I watch commercial TV and listen to commercial radio?
There are dozens of TV channels that broadcast simultaneously. At the same time, plenty of the BBC's existing output are of repeats and old shows.
Dead air is a crime. Broadcasters will fill it with something. That does not mean that broadcast bandwidth is finite and limited. That was partly the case under analogue, it is absolutely not the case for digital. Even schedules themselves are becoming increasingly irrelevant, except for real-time reality shows, news and sport.
If the show is popular, the BBC (or someone else) will broadcast it. And then people will decide if they want to watch it.
Even so the BBC is already creating plenty that could find a home elsewhere. I couldn't put a fagpaper between Bargain Hunt (BBC) or Dickinson's Real Deal (ITV). Or Eastenders (BBC) or Coronation Street (ITV).
What's the public service imperative that means I need to pay for Bargain Hunt on pain of imprisonment in order to watch something else?
Their sidebar of shame/bikinis proves that it's moved on
It's changed to suit its market - whether one likes that or not.
Please: stop, take a break, and have a good think. You're embarassing yourself.
ITV and EVERY OTHER broadcaster drops shows every season. Some US networks drop shows mid-season if the ratings aren't there. They're always looking for new stuff or even sticky old stuff.
They're interested in eyeballs and don't care where they come from.
There are areas which the BBC is currently too dominant. For example Radio I would say, in there this is no even comparable commerical network even close to the BBC.
Two questions we should ask are:
*) To what degree do we need an organisation with such a privileged position;
*) Does it abuse that position.
I appreciate Game of Thrones as do many of my peers. All ten episodes per season. So does that mean that Sky Atlantic should be funded with a poll tax on pain of imprisonment?
I used to vote for Tony and was rather pleased back then that the BBC was biased in it's output towards my agenda.
I've never felt that about being a Tory. I also worked with the organisation for 3yrs and went from being one of their greatest fans in pre-1996 to be extremely disappointed over the period 2005-now.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/17/earned-release-prisoners-michael-gove-education-learning
Even the BBC are saying that now.
As for subscription model: it'll be hard (impossible?) to do without everyone having to get new decoder boxes, just a few years after the digital switchover forced millions to get new boxes. It'll be very unpopular, and many would not bother if Freeview continued without needing conditional access.
It's a shame the BBC and the government didn't bite the bullet and ensure that the boxes were futureproof back then. But there were a myriad of reasons they did not.
I suspect Sherlock and shows like it could find a commercial home in a commercialised BBC like other quality British drama made in the last 12 months like The Missing (ITV) or Game of Thrones (Sky) that were made commercially without imprisonment.
Perhaps Alistair Carmichael could do the decent thing and resign?
The BBC has made its bed and should lie in it. Commercialise like ITV, Channel 4 etc - job done.
I've rarely seen such absurd whataboutery on PB than this thread.
The BBC today "restricts viewer choice" by not showing something in favour of another. As does every other network.
What point are you making? I'm not convinced even you know now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-33562606
Absolutely 100% not true....e.g. BBC3 only operates from 7pm until ~1am, and I think it is showing like 70% repeats.
The idea that all shows need to be on free to air channels is and / or that you need to repeat a show multiple times throughout the week e.g. BBC did it with Top Gear, The Apprentice etc also totally outdated now
Already trialed by the BBC is doing iPlayer only shows or shows which they show first on iPlayer.
There's never a lack of Executives mind you - thousands of 'em. The market rate should be reduced, there's hardly a shortage of pen pushers at Broadcasting House.
I think the argument the BBC has is that with iPlayer they can't control access properly...well if they went to a subscription model that wouldn't be any issue.
It is serious issue though, there is Amazon Instant, Netflix, Sky and BT already offering a massive amount of content, not to say the pirate sites that offer BBC shows in HD within minutes of broadcast.
You can't just stick you head in the sand like the music industry did for far too long.
Drama series are now watched in boxed sets or online in the same way as movies - Nexflix only launched in the UK 3 years ago and has had a huge effect, they are commissioning their own programmes such as House of Cards and are rumoured to be looking at the Top Gear remake with the original presenters.
News and sport are all that people are now watching live, something that the more traditional broadcasters are having to deal with very quickly.
Whatever the BBC Charter renewal that goes through next year, one thing for certain is that the landscape will be very very different 10 years into the future from now. Think that a 10 year old "smart" phone was just about smart enough to check your email (iPhone was launched 8 years ago and the iPad only in 2010).
They should have addressed the realities of moving across to a subscription based service a decade ago, but for whatever reasons chose not to; I suspect it's too late for them now, as others such as Amazon and Google will steal a march in this area with their own plans as entertainment providers.
As an aside, there were several things I wanted to watch from my youth:
"First and last," with Joss Ackland;
"The Lorelei"
"Looking for Tat"
This twee idea of a tv licence to watch a moving picture box in the corner of your living room is the sort of thing that if it didn't exist I would expect from the most stuck in the past members of UKIP would propose. It is something from a totally different and now irrelevant age.
So they're broadcast again on different days/diff times so I can catch them. That's different to *repeats* which are old shows getting another go.
Most of BBC4 is full of both - recentish [last three yrs] repeats multiple broadcasts and new stuff multiple broadcasts - and it's only on air for a few hours a day.
I've never seen Family Guy - a cartoon?
Demanding payment, on pain of imprisonment in this era of unfettered media access is archaic and bloody unfair, given that government of all colours like to trumpet that we should have choices in everything else.
Oh, and MP's pay rise-10%. Me-1%. Nice that we're still all in it together!
But the BBC were suffering from a case of not being able to see they were heading towards a concrete wall at 100 MPH. They should have come up with proposals much, much earlier.
My wife likes E4 and More4. I (on the very rare occasion I watch live TV) peruse ITV2, Dave, BBC4 and Yesterday more than anything else.
More often than not, I'm not too inspired there either, so head to Amazon Prime where we can watch all sorts of stuff for £80 a year.
So the change to digital sans encryption wasn't that they didn't see it coming - they did. They obstructed so it kept their market dominating position safe for another decade or so. That's a perfectly reasonable strategy re self-interest - but it doesn't make it right.
Now they're being eaten by the market and throwing up all sorts of bleeding stump nonsense to deflect attention from the core issue. The TVLF is way beyond its sell-by date. It's akin to Home Taping Is Killing Music.
Edited for clarity: all the rights, retaining only half a season.
Unlike football, which is festooned with many matches, F1 has one major event every fortnight or so. Losing half the season is like losing half the episodes in a series.
ISTR it ended up with you suggesting signals should somehow be blocked from peoples' homes.
It's not as if there's a shortage of commercial broadcasters to buy stuff that'd appeal to UK audiences.
There was one programme on BBC1 that I'd watch maybe, and three on BBC2 maybe. One-ish if really bored on BBC3 and five on BBC4.
I happily watch More4, ITVs various incarnations, C4, Travel, Spike, Tru and Pick for everything else and Sky for news. I have no need for the BBC at all and the docs I do catch on there are all timeshifted.
I rarely watch any live TV bar news on Sky.
It was interesting to note in yesterday's YouGov poll on party distrust ratings among their GE2015 supporters that the LibDems came out worst. In Scotland the LibDems have a major trust issue - Carmichael.
The recent Scottish ST/WOS Panelbase poll found that an overwhelming majority of voters believe Alistair Carmichael should resign - even 49% of GE2015 LibDem voters thought he should go:
Should resign: 71%
Should not resign: 14%
Don’t know: 15%
If the LibDems are indeed listening to the voters, on this issue they are choosing to ignore them. If the LibDems are serious about ever recovering in Scotland, they need to start walking the talk or they'll likely face virtual extinction in Holyrood 2016 and be lucky if they win a couple of list seats.
It was part of a series where the BBC gave cameras (how quaint it is that everyone did not carry one around in their pockets!) to record interesting stories.
It was genuinely moving, as was the sequel by the same lady.
The reason I mention it? I've found it on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUsKes3eQjE
Some people talk to their plants. In Melbourne, they email the trees. This became possible thanks to a decision to map every tree in the city and give it a unique ID number....
About 3,000 emails have been sent to individual trees in the last two years. This didn't start out as an exercise in sentiment, but a hard-headed attempt by Melbourne city council to manage an urban forest in decline - as a result of drought, by 2009 40% of the 77,000 trees in Australia's "garden city" were struggling or dying.
"Many of these trees were in a severe state of decline and we were staring down the barrel of losing up to 50% of our beautiful tree population. That would have fundamentally changed the way that Melbourne looked, the way it performed environmentally, the way people felt about it socially and even economically as well," says councillor Arron Wood, who leads on the environment.
"So what we did is we actually mapped all the trees in the city… In doing so we had to assign each of them an individual tree ID and it was a logical step then to allow our residents to actually interact on a digital platform. And they could email whether a tree was dropping limbs or if it was in a severe state of decline and we could easily locate that tree and come out and intervene."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33560182
Even with the best will in the world - it surely must be a mountain for them?
I don't follow LD politics nowadays - do they have much of a councilor base in Scotland to build from? Or much Holyrood representation?
@JosiasJessop Thank you for that link. I have to go out soon, so I'll try and watch it when I get back in the evening ;-)