O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
I suspect Farron sees all sex outside marriage as a sin, but I think that his attitudes to gay marriage (like most of the country) have substantially moved on. He is more socially conservative than most, and this combined with his modest background may well chime well with a lot of the public. I can see why Labour have turned on him so quickly. He is quite a threat.
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
Gladstone was both a Christian and a Liberal. And his faith was not incidental, but very much at the heart of his politics.
Somehow, I doubt if Farron is aiming to turn the UK into a theocracy.
Looks like a well meaning gesture, though I cannot think of any country where this is done.
Fast food restaurants already do it. Wander into McDonalds or Burger King and you might be pleasantly surprised that their unhealthy food is better than you think, and the healthy options less so (presumably because of things like salad dressing, and natural sugars in fruit).
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if e want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
What utter bollox.. Should we tell you what cinemas we go to, what DVD's we hire so that you can make a complete picture of how you can show your contempt for those who don't do things they way you think they should. Murdoch has done the country a great service, his Sky plus box it the antidote to all adverts and trailers.. and can store 80 hrs of programmes. We would be lost without it.
I take it you have shares in his companies...
That's just your prejudice coming to the fore. As it happens I don't have shares in Rupe's businesses, but its none of your business even if I did..
Unless we are discussing the future of one of his competitors. We ought to play by Parliamentary rules.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content Subscription does not work for radio at all Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed You have no funding solution for the world service Most people happily pay the licence fee
Last point - you have to pay the licence fee whether you watch BBC or not. That is unfair. If your assertion is correct then you should be content to allow people to choose. If you're not it suggests your statement may be less true than you think.
If the BBC has to fund free access to those with someone of 75+ in house then Murdoch should be forced to do the same.
It shouldn't. Moving to subscription will allow over 75s to choose whether they want to watch the BBC (or some package of it) and pay for it, the same as anyone else. The whole debate about free licences is another example of how anachronistic that regime is.
If politics means that there has to be some exemption for those born before 1940 or whenever, so as not to 'disadvantage' those currently receiving free licences, so be it. It would be far from ideal but those political barriers shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of necessary reform.
The BBC can either change now in a controlled and thought-through way now or change in a panicky and ill thought-through way in a few years' time. Personally I'd choose the first option but the BBC seems intent on the second. Dumb.
True, and sounds awfully like the conversations on Greece in recent weeks.
Much better to understand that something is failing and deal with that in a constructive manner, than to realise too late and have the failure occur chaotically.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content Subscription does not work for radio at all Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed You have no funding solution for the world service Most people happily pay the licence fee
Last point - you have to pay the licence fee whether you watch BBC or not. That is unfair. If your assertion is correct then you should be content to allow people to choose. If you're not it suggests your statement may be less true than you think.
People can choose already, indeed there is more choice than ever before. But most people pay it, because they are happy with what they get and have other more pressing problems to solve.
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
No worries.
Mr Murdoch has provided my children with virtually every single Disney and Pixar movie ever made - at the click of a button.
It's a bit vulgar compared with the mere four channels of my childhood, but you can't argue with its appeal.
Looks like a well meaning gesture, though I cannot think of any country where this is done.
That would be absolutely fine for McDonalds or JD Wetherspoons, and a complete nightmare for the average pub where the chef makes the menu himself. The idea sounds like one of those EU regulations that look great in principle but in practice results in huge barriers to entry.
Looks like a well meaning gesture, though I cannot think of any country where this is done.
That would be absolutely fine for McDonalds or JD Wetherspoons, and a complete nightmare for the average pub where the chef makes the menu himself. The idea sounds like one of those EU regulations that look great in principle but in practice results in huge barriers to entry.
And indeed are designed to do so. Regulation facilitating the concentration of capital
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
No worries.
Mr Murdoch has provided my children with virtually every single Disney and Pixar movie ever made - at the click of a button.
It's a bit vulgar compared with the mere four channels of my childhood, but you can't argue with its appeal.
How much of their viewing is of the BBC kids channels? If it is like my grand-children it will be a large proportion.
Will there be a debate in the Commons about the UK being forced to give a billion to Greece, or is the mother of all parliaments considered too unimportant to discuss this sort of thing? Only places like the German parliament need to vote it through.
LOL, biggest misnomer ever, those toothless halfwits fold every time they are called on to make a real decision. Now we have the nasty party just hiding things and not even bothering with having parliamentary discussions. Germans show up our lack of democracy.
Just because we see faults in the BBC, that doesn't make us Murdoch fans. I have Freeview and there's plenty of choice there.
I hardly ever watch BBC channels now as I've little interest in cooking or reality shows. BBC4 occasionally shows the odd snippet but they're few and far between.
I'd probably miss the news but Sky isn't bad at that.
"No one's worried about the £140 subscription?" I am.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content Subscription does not work for radio at all Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed You have no funding solution for the world service Most people happily pay the licence fee
Last point - you have to pay the licence fee whether you watch BBC or not. That is unfair. If your assertion is correct then you should be content to allow people to choose. If you're not it suggests your statement may be less true than you think.
People can choose already, indeed there is more choice than ever before. But most people pay it, because they are happy with what they get and have other more pressing problems to solve.
No that is not true. The law requires a licence to watch television whether you watch BBC output or not. If your assertion is correct why do you wish to retain the compulsory licence fee. Let's see how happy people are to pay it without the threat of prosecution. What are you so afraid of?
Just because we see faults in the BBC, that doesn't make us Murdoch fans. I have Freeview and there's plenty of choice there.
I hardly ever watch BBC channels now as I've little interest in cooking or reality shows. BBC4 occasionally shows the odd snippet but they're few and far between.
I'd probably miss the news but Sky isn't bad at that.
"No one's worried about the £140 subscription?" I am.
All I did was to thank those who owned up to subscribing to a Sky package.
I am however amused by all the free-marketeers who don't want the BBC to be sold off in open competition.
CBeebies is especially popular. Kids TV with no ads is a winner. It's also hugely innovative. For example, no BBC kids TV, No Aardman. No Aardman, not Wallace and Gromit. :-(
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
I don't subscribe to Sky - thankfully it is not compulsory upon threat of prosecution. Why should the BBC if it is really so popular operate in the same way? You are defending the indefensible so I think your motives must be seriously open to question.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content Subscription does not work for radio at all Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed You have no funding solution for the world service Most people happily pay the licence fee
Last point - you have to pay the licence fee whether you watch BBC or not. That is unfair. If your assertion is correct then you should be content to allow people to choose. If you're not it suggests your statement may be less true than you think.
People can choose already, indeed there is more choice than ever before. But most people pay it, because they are happy with what they get and have other more pressing problems to solve.
No that is not true. The law requires a licence to watch television whether you watch BBC output or not. If your assertion is correct why do you wish to retain the compulsory licence fee. Let's see how happy people are to pay it without the threat of prosecution. What are you so afraid of?
Will actually it is true. You need to a licence to watch live broadcasts, not TV. Most online video products are not live. So there is more choice than ever. And most people do pay it quite happily. It ain't broke so lets not fix it.
I find sitting through more than about 45 mins of TV without a break gives me ants-in-my-pants. I rarely watch movies at all without a break and find myself looking at the countdown clock on BBC shows.
Adverts don't bother me at all - I either do something else for a few mins or FFW over the annoying ones as I timeshift. Don't see the issue about them myself. If I was that fagged, I could pay £3.99 and watch ITV entirely advert free.
I wouldn't mind adverts on the BBC. I like advert breaks. It means I don't have to wait too long if I want to go and get a mug of tea or some chocolate biscuits or do a pee or pick my teeth or whatever I want to do when I'm watching TV and suddenly realise that I want to do something and don't want to wait for an hour before the programme finishes.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
No worries.
Mr Murdoch has provided my children with virtually every single Disney and Pixar movie ever made - at the click of a button.
It's a bit vulgar compared with the mere four channels of my childhood, but you can't argue with its appeal.
How much of their viewing is of the BBC kids channels? If it is like my grand-children it will be a large proportion.
A lot. Especially when they were really young. In the Night Garden, Gigglebiz, Everything's Rosie were watched every day. That Justin Fletcher who does Mr Tumble should be knighted. He has the kids transfixed.
Ps - like I said earlier down the thread, I'd leave the BBC alone. I have a lot of time for Cameron but I'd have more time if he let go of minor issues like BBC licensing and fox hunting. Just concentrate on the big stuff - for instance the massive increase in mental health problems. They'd do well to put Norman Lamb in charge of dealing with what is a massive looming crisis (there is a 36 year old woman in hospital with my Dad with early onset Alzheimers. Frightening)
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content Subscription does not work for radio at all Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed You have no funding solution for the world service Most people happily pay the licence fee
Last point - you have to pay the licence fee whether you watch BBC or not. That is unfair. If your assertion is correct then you should be content to allow people to choose. If you're not it suggests your statement may be less true than you think.
People can choose already, indeed there is more choice than ever before. But most people pay it, because they are happy with what they get and have other more pressing problems to solve.
No that is not true. The law requires a licence to watch television whether you watch BBC output or not. If your assertion is correct why do you wish to retain the compulsory licence fee. Let's see how happy people are to pay it without the threat of prosecution. What are you so afraid of?
Will actually it is true. You need to a licence to watch live broadcasts, not TV. Most online video products are not live. So there is more choice than ever. And most people do pay it quite happily. It ain't broke so lets not fix it.
So why should people who watch live TV have to pay a licence fee if they do not wish to watch the BBC? Your argument is nonsense and you know it. Don't forget that many in rural areas do not have the on-line option to stream or download TV except at considerable extra expense. And if the people are so happy to pay why is it compulsory? This seems to be a question you do not wish to address.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content
Examples? I'd argue, for example, that every sport that has moved from the BBC has had its coverage improved. But sport is special case as the funding that other channels are prepared to put in has enabled that.
No it doesn't, which is why the adverts route has to be an option. If the BBC wants to cross-subsidise radio from its TV income stream then that's its choice (within competition law) but then in essence, that's only the same as is the case now. The same is true of its website.
Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters
It would certainly have an effect on advertising income, although I'd question 'seriously damage'. But that's the nature of the market and it's better to have all operating on something of a level playing field than to try to artificially 'balance' the market via a regressive tax and constraints on output. Good quality and popular programming will have no problem gaining advertising income. Like I say in the intro, improving the quality of output from the Beeb will drive it up in the commercial sector too.
The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed
Citation needed. Actually, its the media which have changed. That's what's driving the need to change the regulatory, funding and governance of the BBC. But the anachronism of a major player being owned and funded by the state is distorting and unhelpful.
You have no funding solution for the world service
It's the same as radio. The Beeb can cross-subsidise if it wants. Alternatively, if it wants to put out Spanish-language programmes then perhaps Spanish advertisers might pay. In any case, we should be asking whether the World Service is still needed in its current form or whether that's another legacy of the past that's outlived its time with the coming of near-universal internet access.
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
I don't subscribe to Sky - thankfully it is not compulsory upon threat of prosecution. Why should the BBC if it is really so popular operate in the same way? You are defending the indefensible so I think your motives must be seriously open to question.
Eh? What do you think I am defending? I haven't expressed an opinion on how the Beeb should be funded. Please try not to foster on others views they haven't expressed.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
You missed out baby-eating - poor quality trolling.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
They do have a mandate. They were up- front about these things, before the election.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
I blame Cameron. By announcing that he won't contest the next election he has caused his Cabinet to frame everything in terms of how it will play with the Party membership.
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
I don't subscribe to Sky - thankfully it is not compulsory upon threat of prosecution. Why should the BBC if it is really so popular operate in the same way? You are defending the indefensible so I think your motives must be seriously open to question.
Eh? What do you think I am defending? I haven't expressed an opinion on how the Beeb should be funded. Please try not to foster on others views they haven't expressed.
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
I don't subscribe to Sky - thankfully it is not compulsory upon threat of prosecution. Why should the BBC if it is really so popular operate in the same way? You are defending the indefensible so I think your motives must be seriously open to question.
Eh? What do you think I am defending? I haven't expressed an opinion on how the Beeb should be funded. Please try not to foster on others views they haven't expressed.
It reminds me of a court case when the defence brings up an issue and the prosecution responds with something they don't like. Then the judge says - well you started it.
O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
I suspect Farron sees all sex outside marriage as a sin, but I think that his attitudes to gay marriage (like most of the country) have substantially moved on. He is more socially conservative than most, and this combined with his modest background may well chime well with a lot of the public. I can see why Labour have turned on him so quickly. He is quite a threat.
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
Farron talks in moral terms about political decisions. Why should his morality not therefore be examined?
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
You really need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
All those saying that they are personally happy to pay the licence fee and deem it good value for themselves and using this argument to support the licence fee are rather missing the point. That statement is only of value for those prescribing a subscription model - that is, that the value of the BBC channels is great enough that they (and by inference, others) would pay for access).
The point is whether those who do not want access on those terms, who would not choose to pay if there was an option, who don't see it as value but are compelled to pay in order to support those who do like it ... should continue to be compelled to pay.
Only if the BBC can be demonstrated conclusively to be a positive externality to all of those people and that the licence fee is the only way to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons involving loss of that externality (and that that loss would be greater than the value gained by those not subscribing by the return of their freedom to spend their money as they choose) should the licence fee be retained. Otherwise, compulsion is illiberal. It can only be justified if it averts a "negative freedom".
Josias "Also, what exactly is meant by a 'subscription model' ? The phrase could cover a multitude of methods and systems: e.g. do you pay for the entire BBC, or for individual packages of channels (as per Sky). And who pays for all the new STBs that would be needed? Edit: and what about Freeview?
In an era of smart TV and Internet, we will soon have 80% access for picture broadcasts. Radio can mainly be advertising supported with possibly a small fund for one r4 channel. But it needs will on the part of the BBC.
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content Subscription does not work for radio at all Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed You have no funding solution for the world service Most people happily pay the licence fee
Last point - you have to pay the licence fee whether you watch BBC or not. That is unfair. If your assertion is correct then you should be content to allow people to choose. If you're not it suggests your statement may be less true than you think.
People can choose already, indeed there is more choice than ever before. But most people pay it, because they are happy with what they get and have other more pressing problems to solve.
The 'more pressing problems' is precisely why people do pay the licence fee: it's complicated to not do so and extremely easy to simply let a direct debit run on. For now. But technology is changing very rapidly and who's to say that a TV-tuner-based funding model wouldn't be completely obsolete within ten years?
Clearly it would be lovely to wrestle on this all day, but the sun is shining. The discussion is moot anyway. The Tories can and will do what the they want.
The arguments presented here are merely a pretext to a policy with other objectives. The principle one is to weaken the BBC. It is has various motivations.
1) To exert an ideological preference for privately owned media over a very successful public corporation. 2) To correct a perceived political bias in the BBC (thereby bringing it into line the the balanced Mail, Sun and Guardian)
And quite possibly...
3) To deliver for Uncle Rupe 4) To payback Blue Peter for not showing David Cameron's drawing when he was 8 years old.
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
OT: This Jenny Tonge "Fifty Girls taken away for FGM" report worries me. We have:
1 - A group of families on an aeroplane, going somewhere. It is just normal for groups of immigrant families to travel home en bloc or charter a plane together. Fpr not-ricj people it is cheaper. 2 - One of the most terminally self-publicising members of the HoL happens to see them. 3 - Said Baroness has no firm evidence about their reasons for travel, yet somehow discovers their purpose. 4 - Baroness Tonge seems to have given this to the media as well as to the police, though it may be a leak. The interests of the assumed victims are not served by a media splash. 5 - The reports have ascribed the firm purpose of FGM to the trip, without a shred of evidence. No "may have been". No "suspected". Pure speculation quoted as fact.
eg the BBC, which is the subject of this thread, asserts Baroness Tonge's assumption as fact:
(On topic: if we have to spill 5bn a year on a media operation, can't it at least be a competent one that doesn't make things up?)
6 - Compare Tonge's behaviour with that of Holly Lynch, the MP who was travelling with her.
To me this doesn't seem much better than "There's a group of black men in the Street over there. They are in a group, they are men, and they are black. Better report it to the coppers."
Compare Tonge's behaviour to that of MP Holly Lynch who was with her.
This is an important issue, but there's a hell of a self-interested hysterical bandwagon attached.
The history of this area is, for example:
1 - '70,000 unregistered Vietnamese trafficked possible sexworkers in nailbars'. Turned out to be fiction. 2 - Repeated massive exaggeration of people trafficking figures by the police. See Operatin Pentameter. 3 - Poppy Project made untrue claims about a link between lapdance clubs and rape. Used to justify chanegs to licensing law.
There's no end to it.
The victims of this will be the innocent families hot by an out-of-control campaign. I wonder if many families are going to broken up because of scare stories? Let's hop
BBC does not stifle innovation it promotes it in technology, people and content < nonsense. When any single broadcaster is handed £5bn a year it stifles competition.
Subscription does not work for radio at all < so commercialise it by sponsorship or advertising/cross subsidise it from other offerings as brand extension. BBC radio advertises BBC TV shows
Advertising on the BBC would seriously damage commercial broadcasters <<i> if that was the case, they wouldn't be pushing for reform of the TVLF. The market expands to fill the pie space.
The relationship with govt has worked well, it is the Tories not the BBC that have changed you mean Labour HMGs?
You have no funding solution for the world service < why not, its not insumountable to fix this tiny fraction of £5bn of spending.
The broadcaster should generate income from advertising rather than relying on taxes or higher licence fee funds, the findings suggest. There is also substantial support for replacing the licence fee with a subscription charge which is paid only by those wanting to view BBC programmes.
The results, from a survey of more than 2,000 people by ComRes, come as ministers and BBC executives prepare for the government’s review of the broadcaster’s charter in 2016.
The new Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, has indicated he is prepared to be radical in reconsidering the BBC’s funding. He told the Telegraph in May that many families find the current £145.50 licence fee “a lot of money” to pay each year.
The poll, commissioned by the Whitehouse Consultancy media analysts, found 51 per cent would support the idea of abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself. They backed the move even if it led to advertisements during programmes, a cut in the number of original programmes the BBC produces the abolition of the BBC’s “public service” broadcast duty.
A third of those questioned in the poll supported the idea of abolishing the licence fee in favour of a subscription model.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
You really need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
Why? That article has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I don't deny that England's political sense of gravity has shifted rightwards- on welfare, size of the state, immigration. But, on issues such as the BBC, fox hunting, union reform, human rights- these are just ideological, fuelled by a swivel eyed zealotry and contrary to public opinion.
I can cope with the Tories being in power on economic grounds, it is these narrow, sectional, ideological interests that have little public support that I find rather dispiriting.
It reminds me of a court case when the defence brings up an issue and the prosecution responds with something they don't like. Then the judge says - well you started it.
O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
I suspect Farron sees all sex outside marriage as a sin, but I think that his attitudes to gay marriage (like most of the country) have substantially moved on. He is more socially conservative than most, and this combined with his modest background may well chime well with a lot of the public. I can see why Labour have turned on him so quickly. He is quite a threat.
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
Farron talks in moral terms about political decisions. Why should his morality not therefore be examined?
Farron has that holier than thou mentality of much of the left wing. Being pure of heart seems to equate with the far left only. Peter Watts may have written something about this?
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow.
Tara Conlan Wednesday 19 November 2014 "Javid said the issue would be looked at after the next general election as part of the regular review of the BBC’s charter - which happens every ten years. On Wednesday Javid replied by letter, saying: “On the wider issues of the licence fee, and the future of the BBC’s funding, I have been clear that no options should be ‘off the table’ - but that the right time to consider these questions is as part of the charter review. “The government has said that the charter review will not be starting in advance of the election in 2015.” http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-licence-fee-change-charter-renewal-sajid-javid
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Worst case the licence fee should be fixed at current level forever. Let them self fund going forward and we will see how popular they are. Might help get shot of layers of parasites and focus them on not paying non-entities fortunes. BBC Scotland is crap , we pay 10% of the licence fees and get 3% spent on Scotland , daylight robbery and dire service. We get little Scottish news , odd 5 minutes after 30 minutes from London , no Scottish football , just crap from England and abroad. Shut the beggars down and give us a decent service
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if we want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
I don't subscribe to Sky - thankfully it is not compulsory upon threat of prosecution. Why should the BBC if it is really so popular operate in the same way? You are defending the indefensible so I think your motives must be seriously open to question.
Eh? What do you think I am defending? I haven't expressed an opinion on how the Beeb should be funded. Please try not to foster on others views they haven't expressed.
Yet you are perfectly happy to ascribe a whole raft of, inevitably bad, character traits to anyone who has the temerity to be to the right of any opinion you may hold.
I don't subscribe to Sky and get FreeSat using a Humax 1Tb box - I think I've got about 300hrs recorded on there!
I pay for Netflix and Amazon, have also paid for access to CBS and a few others in the USA. I don't watch more than about 4hrs of BBC4 a week - and I wouldn't miss it if I didn't.
The BBC model is broken for the huge numbers of TV watchers like me, and increasingly so.
My thanks to those Peebies who, on this thread, disclosed that they subscribe to Sky. I think if e want to talk about the BBC we should all disclose interests. (My view of Murdoch is I think well known to all of you.)
What utter bollox.. Should we tell you what cinemas we go to, what DVD's we hire so that you can make a complete picture of how you can show your contempt for those who don't do things they way you think they should. Murdoch has done the country a great service, his Sky plus box it the antidote to all adverts and trailers.. and can store 80 hrs of programmes. We would be lost without it.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice.
What David proposes is very sensible. The major problem with it is that it would in no way deliver what other media companies want - a BBC with which they do not have to compete.
The poll, commissioned by the Whitehouse Consultancy media analysts, found 51 per cent would support the idea of abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself. They backed the move even if it led to advertisements during programmes, a cut in the number of original programmes the BBC produces the abolition of the BBC’s “public service” broadcast duty.
Lots of fun googling the Whitehouse Consultancy and the man behind it. Too much of an open goal to repost.
I used to spend a lot of time at the gym and since I rarely watched BBC TV at all - I was gobsmacked by the adverts/length of screen idents etc that appeared when it was on. It filled as much time as it did on ITV or others.
It was very noticeable because the sound was turned off and repetitive.
O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
I suspect Farron sees all sex outside marriage as a sin, but I think that his attitudes to gay marriage (like most of the country) have substantially moved on. He is more socially conservative than most, and this combined with his modest background may well chime well with a lot of the public. I can see why Labour have turned on him so quickly. He is quite a threat.
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
Gladstone was both a Christian and a Liberal. And his faith was not incidental, but very much at the heart of his politics.
Somehow, I doubt if Farron is aiming to turn the UK into a theocracy.
I see no contradiction or danger in someone believing one thing but defending the right of others to believe something else. That is the liberal stance. That is what Farron is doing.
If the BBC has to fund free access to those with someone of 75+ in house then Murdoch should be forced to do the same.
This is a Gordon Brown welfare handout. One that the BBC were happy to do when the tax payer funded it. Now if the tax payer had funded free sky access to homes with a 75+ person then we would have a level playing field.
PS I declare that a circa 90 year old relative has just started a sub for a sports package to watch tour de france. Ironic for an old socialist who donated £300+ this year from his meagre pension to the Labour party....
O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
I suspect Farron sees all sex outside marriage as a sin, but I think that his attitudes to gay marriage (like most of the country) have substantially moved on. He is more socially conservative than most, and this combined with his modest background may well chime well with a lot of the public. I can see why Labour have turned on him so quickly. He is quite a threat.
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
Gladstone was both a Christian and a Liberal. And his faith was not incidental, but very much at the heart of his politics.
Somehow, I doubt if Farron is aiming to turn the UK into a theocracy.
I see no contradiction or danger in someone believing one thing but defending the right of others to believe something else. That is the liberal stance. That is what Farron is doing.
Bang on. What you think in private is your own affair. As long as you do not seek to impose or inflict your views on others, there's no problem.
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
At the moment, no, but how long would it really take to provide that technology to every home that wanted it? I doubt there'd be any great new technology that required developing given that other broadcasters use it and I suspect it couldn't be done before the end of next year so a new Charter would be needed on that basis. However, I don't see why it couldn't be completed within the decade and probably by 2018.
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
At the moment, no, but how long would it really take to provide that technology to every home that wanted it? I doubt there'd be any great new technology that required developing given that other broadcasters use it and I suspect it couldn't be done before the end of next year so a new Charter would be needed on that basis. However, I don't see why it couldn't be completed within the decade and probably by 2018.
It's all eminently doable if there is a will to do it. I'd love to see your solution adopted. I fear it will not be. Too many people would have far too much to lose.
If the BBC has to fund free access to those with someone of 75+ in house then Murdoch should be forced to do the same.
This is a Gordon Brown welfare handout. One that the BBC were happy to do when the tax payer funded it. Now if the tax payer had funded free sky access to homes with a 75+ person then we would have a level playing field.
PS I declare that a circa 90 year old relative has just started a sub for a sports package to watch tour de france. Ironic for an old socialist who donated £300+ this year from his meagre pension to the Labour party....
TDF is free to view on ITV3 or 4, isn't it? Eurosport also has a lot of cycling - the Giro and Vuelta, for sure. not sure about the TDF though.
O/T, I'd noit realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
I wonder if most LibDem voters knew that and are OK with it? On the upside there is certainly an audience for it in the hard evangelical community which I'd think would not normally vote LibDem.
I suspect Farron sees all sex outside marriage as a sin, but I think that his attitudes to gay marriage (like most of the country) have substantially moved on. He is more socially conservative than most, and this combined with his modest background may well chime well with a lot of the public. I can see why Labour have turned on him so quickly. He is quite a threat.
It is noticeable that his personal beliefs have come in for such open criticism. When do we hear of muslim politicians being queried in this way?
Gladstone was both a Christian and a Liberal. And his faith was not incidental, but very much at the heart of his politics.
Somehow, I doubt if Farron is aiming to turn the UK into a theocracy.
I see no contradiction or danger in someone believing one thing but defending the right of others to believe something else. That is the liberal stance. That is what Farron is doing.
He is your typical liberal, more faces than the town clock
I had missed the illiberal smearing that Farron engaged with over the SNP. "There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay. He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them". http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
At the moment, no, but how long would it really take to provide that technology to every home that wanted it? I doubt there'd be any great new technology that required developing given that other broadcasters use it and I suspect it couldn't be done before the end of next year so a new Charter would be needed on that basis. However, I don't see why it couldn't be completed within the decade and probably by 2018.
It doesn't seem there is will to do it then, even from this government, especially since Whittingdale has said there is a commitment to the licence fee for at least another five years.
If the BBC has to fund free access to those with someone of 75+ in house then Murdoch should be forced to do the same.
This is a Gordon Brown welfare handout. One that the BBC were happy to do when the tax payer funded it. Now if the tax payer had funded free sky access to homes with a 75+ person then we would have a level playing field.
PS I declare that a circa 90 year old relative has just started a sub for a sports package to watch tour de france. Ironic for an old socialist who donated £300+ this year from his meagre pension to the Labour party....
TDF is free to view on ITV3 or 4, isn't it? Eurosport also has a lot of cycling - the Giro and Vuelta, for sure. not sure about the TDF though.
He is 90 and assures me that he needs it. I will check on next visit. But he must rank as a major donor in that southern seat!
I think the BBC needs a transition period of 5yrs - it's going to have a big impact on how they market themselves, their offerings/pricing models to other broadcasters, the tech/billing systems [its all outsourced right now], contracts with third parties/production companies et al.
We need to be done by 2020ish. I think that's what HMG has in mind too - hence the BBC owning the 75+ exemption. The march of Netflix etc will be forcing the consumer market by then to a pip-squeaking extent.
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
At the moment, no, but how long would it really take to provide that technology to every home that wanted it? I doubt there'd be any great new technology that required developing given that other broadcasters use it and I suspect it couldn't be done before the end of next year so a new Charter would be needed on that basis. However, I don't see why it couldn't be completed within the decade and probably by 2018.
It doesn't seem there is will to do it then, even from this government, especially since Whittingdale has said there is a commitment to the licence fee for at least another five years.
OT: This Jenny Tonge "Fifty Girls taken away for FGM" report worries me. We have:
1 - A group of families on an aeroplane, going somewhere. It is just normal for groups of immigrant families to travel home en bloc or charter a plane together. Fpr not-ricj people it is cheaper. 2 - One of the most terminally self-publicising members of the HoL happens to see them. 3 - Said Baroness has no firm evidence about their reasons for travel, yet somehow discovers their purpose. 4 - Baroness Tonge seems to have given this to the media as well as to the police, though it may be a leak. The interests of the assumed victims are not served by a media splash. 5 - The reports have ascribed the firm purpose of FGM to the trip, without a shred of evidence. No "may have been". No "suspected". Pure speculation quoted as fact.
eg the BBC, which is the subject of this thread, asserts Baroness Tonge's assumption as fact:
(On topic: if we have to spill 5bn a year on a media operation, can't it at least be a competent one that doesn't make things up?)
6 - Compare Tonge's behaviour with that of Holly Lynch, the MP who was travelling with her.
To me this doesn't seem much better than "There's a group of black men in the Street over there. They are in a group, they are men, and they are black. Better report it to the coppers."
Compare Tonge's behaviour to that of MP Holly Lynch who was with her.
This is an important issue, but there's a hell of a self-interested hysterical bandwagon attached.
The history of this area is, for example:
1 - '70,000 unregistered Vietnamese trafficked possible sexworkers in nailbars'. Turned out to be fiction. 2 - Repeated massive exaggeration of people trafficking figures by the police. See Operatin Pentameter. 3 - Poppy Project made untrue claims about a link between lapdance clubs and rape. Used to justify chanegs to licensing law.
There's no end to it.
The victims of this will be the innocent families hot by an out-of-control campaign. I wonder if many families are going to broken up because of scare stories? Let's hop
I said absolutely the same thing as you two threads back - I thought the BBC piece was dreadful journalism. The Daily Mail surprisingly did a much better job (something like "Fears over 50 children...." rather than the stark claim that just because 50 children were seen going on a flight with their parents at the start of the summer holidays they were automatically all getting FGM).
SeanT ripped me a new hole over it because I refused to jump on the outrage train.
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
I'm sure I recall Channel 5 having an army of technicians who had to come into your home and change your telly settings when it was first launched.
Channel 5.
So Channel 5 could do something at start-up that the mighty Beeb can't do eh? The Beeb could put a box in every household if it turned its mind to it. It just doesn't want to even think those nasty thoughts.
ICYMI - hopefully they won't be there for non-payment of TVLFs
Prisoners who work hard for qualifications while behind bars could be allowed to leave prison early under an “earned release” scheme, the justice secretary, Michael Gove, will suggest.
In his first major speech on prisons policy, Gove is due to say that more can be done to provide the right incentives for prisoners to learn, as well as calling for prison staff to give a higher priority to the education of those behind bars.
The justice secretary has asked his department look at how a system of earned release could operate in detail. It is likely to apply to most of the 86,000 prisoners who are serving fixed-term sentences and are currently automatically released when they reach the halfway point.
I think the BBC needs a transition period of 5yrs - it's going to have a big impact on how they market themselves, their offerings/pricing models to other broadcasters, the tech/billing systems [its all outsourced right now], contracts with third parties/production companies et al.
We need to be done by 2020ish. I think that's what HMG has in mind too - hence the BBC owning the 75+ exemption. The march of Netflix etc will be forcing the consumer market by then to a pip-squeaking extent.
As an aside, I do not think Netflix makes a profit. Now, it may be that like Amazon, this paints a false picture owing to reinvestment for expansion, but we might perhaps just pause before taking Netflix as a model.
ICYMI - hopefully they won't be there for non-payment of TVLFs
Prisoners who work hard for qualifications while behind bars could be allowed to leave prison early under an “earned release” scheme, the justice secretary, Michael Gove, will suggest.
In his first major speech on prisons policy, Gove is due to say that more can be done to provide the right incentives for prisoners to learn, as well as calling for prison staff to give a higher priority to the education of those behind bars.
The justice secretary has asked his department look at how a system of earned release could operate in detail. It is likely to apply to most of the 86,000 prisoners who are serving fixed-term sentences and are currently automatically released when they reach the halfway point.
Good on Michael Gove. Many Tories have taken on the role of prison reform- Hurd, Aitken etc.. It seems that Gove is putting his considerable intellect and reforming zeal to good purpose.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias".
I think this hits the nail on the head. Many are explicit that this is a primary reason for wanting change, which rather undermines good reasons for changes. Of course, everything political parties propose is spun by opponents as being for some malicious purpose if it is not obviously malevolent in act (if it cannot be portrayed as both), and the Tories in particular face that type of accusation quite often, but on this issue the sense that any proposals will be filtered through the prism of wanting 'payback' has been given substance by many proponents of change.
There is actually an argument to be had about galleries/museums, namely that they're disproportionately clustered in London. A notable and great exception is the Royal Armouries, of course.
However, bricks and mortar sites are very different to the way technological progression is altering consumption of media, whether TV or books or other areas (VR's coming to gaming soon, and augmented reality also). The number of households with TVs will decline because some will simply opt out and go for desktops, laptops and tablets.
The BBC needs to get its funding sorted before it reaches the precipice, otherwise it'll crumble.
Re Somalia, if Tonge had suspicions I'd back her decision to report it to the police, but it is quite possible she was jumping to conclusions - fifty girls going back to their ancestral homeland with their parents at the start of the summer holidays is not in its own right alarming, but if she felt the gender imbalance was unusual or that the atmosphere felt wrong, it wouldn't hurt for the police to do some checking up.
I can even forgive announcing it to the media - we all know politicians love to play at being a good "neighbourhood watchman", and seeking publicity is part of the job (much as I wish it wasn't, that's the nature of politics). FGM is a terrible thing and something that raises awareness has the potential to be a good thing if handled sensitively. I'm not sure this was by the BBC though.
I'd add that (as I pointed out to SeanT) the BBC figures "at risk" figures are well out of date, they're almost a decade old. The most recent research puts a much higher figure of children at risk. But the "at risk" figure is no more and no less (I linked to the research papers two threads back) than a headcount of girls who come from ethnic or cultural backgrounds in which FGM is practised in their native country. The more recent estimates are more sophisticated, as they attempt to establish how many Nigerians, Somalis and Iraqis (those are the three main group) are in the UK who came here via another country first (a first scan of the figures wouldn't show Somalis who came to the UK via the large diaspora in Kenya or the Middle East, say - they'd show up as arriving from Kenya or Yemen) but also whether they come from regions of those countries where FGM is practised (so the British Iraqi estimates are amended by estimating the proportion of British Iraqis of Kurdish descent, since FGM is does not seem to be so prevalent in Kurdistan than in other parts of Iraq). It's a very subtle number-crunching job, but it doesn't by any means tell us how much FGM of British kids is going on.
O/T, I'd not realised that religion was such a big thing for Farron, to the point that he won't say if he things homosexuality is a sin, even though he hedges with polite observations that we're all a bit sinful:
The "X thousand" children at risk basically means "X thousand people of Nigerian/Iraqi/Somali descent", something which is not made clear in the alarmist part of the BBC article (shades of the "forced sex slave trafficking" stories which mangled together Vietnamese nailbar workers and Hungarian working girls who found London businessmen pay better than Budapest ones to achieve more scary statistics, without getting at the root of the genuine but much smaller forced sex worker issue). In that sense, the "X thousand" is not in its own right outrageous or even bad news. All the Nigerians and Iraqis I've known in the UK have been cracking folk, though I don't know any Somalis personally - having a few more of them doesn't seem the end of the world. Indeed if we genuinely cared about these kids, rather than using them to push various political agendas, then it would be much better if the "X thousand" was rather higher: if they're living in the UK rather than back home, it seems much less likely they will be the victim of FGM, and they should certainly have a higher standard of life, longer life expectancy and more economic and personal freedom. But there's not room for everybody in London and we can't have the whole world living here.
If the Somalis jetting off on holiday with their family at the start of summer are anything like the Pakistani kids I know, they'll have a great summer seeing relatives who have been Skype-only for the last 11 months, while missing the creature comforts and freedom they've got accustomed to at home in Britain. I hope, at any rate, that this is the kind of summer the vast majority are going to have. For some it may be a horrific experience, but the idea that every single Somali girl going back home to visit family is automatically going to be an FGM victim seems well wide of the mark. (And if it were true, we'd have to start talking about banning all Somali teenage girls from visiting their ancestral homeland, which seems to be the ultimate conclusion if you follow Tonge's complaint, though quite an illiberal measure for a Lib Dem.)
I don't recall the Tories really publicising their polices on the BBC etc. during the election. It was something they must have kept on the downlow. Either way, given the issues with setting up subscription in the long-term, I imagine that very little changes will actually be made towards funding. The only short-term change which I can see happening realistically, is for the BBC to be part funded by advertising.
Why should there need to be "issues with setting up subscription". Encryption. Decoder box. Card. Other providers do it seemingly adequately (I don't have first hand experience as we only have Freeview). I'd have thought that three years should be an adequate changeover period once a decision's been taken.
I'm going on by what Whittingdale said a few days ago:
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
I'm sure I recall Channel 5 having an army of technicians who had to come into your home and change your telly settings when it was first launched.
Channel 5.
So Channel 5 could do something at start-up that the mighty Beeb can't do eh? The Beeb could put a box in every household if it turned its mind to it. It just doesn't want to even think those nasty thoughts.
The digital switchover involved people getting new STBs within the last five years (actually ending in 2012). Fortunately, many people had already bought them, so the BBC spent only £300 million providing the elderly and disabled with boxes (actually and thankfully a massive underspend). This money came out of the licence fee.
A switchover to a subscription system will involve yet more new boxes. Worse, people with the boxes integrated into the TV will find they are useless.
Then there is the question of which conditional access system to use. Will they share one with (say) Freeview, will it be a bespoke system, or an existing one (e.g. NDS, Cisco, SystemGuard, MediaGuard etc). This will lead to many complexities with the competing broadcast systems.
For instance, if they went with NDS it might be possible to have one box that would allow access to both Sky and BBC products on the same box, either with a combined smartcard or separate ones (if the latter, you would either need to swap cards or have two slots, increasing cost).
It's a crying shame CA was not added to the STB's for the digital switchover.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
You need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
OT does anyone here still use the Google sidebar? I've transferred it 5x and really love the rss feed, notepad, clock and miss the weather thingy that's stopped working. Is there anything like it that's newer?
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
When Osborne talked about the BBC's "imperial ambitions" my heart sank. The BBC brand is unique and should be projected around the globe. A successful global BBC reflects well on the UK as a whole, and reinforces the objectives of "soft power" as much as anything else I can think of.
Of course the Young Tories of the Thatcher era, so extreme that they got banned, should have given us some foresight of the kind of thugs, hooligans and ideologues that would take control of the party. How does the "Hang Mandela" anthem go again?
Is it just coincidence that this 'believing they are doing the right thing' that vile specimens like IDS barrel on with always seem to coincidentally benefit the richest and most powerful in society?
Why? It's a load of carp, as you'd expect from that joke of a site only read by frothing rightist extremists like yourself. I'm not a Labour supporter either, as I have said many times. I think that the evidence that Tories are the avowed enemies of everything decent and civilised about humanity is incontrovertible though.
Ok an idiot without a brain cell. fair enough comrade.
Mr. Tyson, there's an issue with an organisation that has a near monopoly on radio and predominance in TV, as well as online.
I don't want the BBC gutted or abolished, but nor do I want it to have such a privileged position. It also needs to reform funding, because the licence fee is unsustainable in the long term and the sooner that's changed the better for the BBC.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato (after this post), I hope ColinW's Mum returns at some point. She was full of wisdom.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
You need to read this:
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
There is a staggeringly revealing comment made just below the thread header on that page.
"Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance."
I am not quite sure how getting less than 19% of the electorate to vote for them makes Labour 'the party of the masses'.
"The BBC in its present guise is not sustainable - forcing people to pat a licence fee if the do not want the BBC's services is just wrong. The problem the Tories have, though, is that they have allowed the argument to be framed - by the newspapers that back them and by their more swivel eyed supporters - as being about "revenge", "payback" and "bias". They are going to have to work very hard to persuade the public that these are good enough reasons to change things, especially if it ends up meaning higher costs and less choice. "
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
When Osborne talked about the BBC's "imperial ambitions" my heart sank. The BBC brand is unique and should be projected around the globe. A successful global BBC reflects well on the UK as a whole, and reinforces the objectives of "soft power" as much as anything else I can think of.
Of course the Young Tories of the Thatcher era, so extreme that they got banned, should have given us some foresight of the kind of thugs, hooligans and ideologues that would take control of the party. How does the "Hang Mandela" anthem go again?
Having wrested from Westminster a promise of vast new powers for the Scottish Parliament, it has sold itself to Scots as at once the hammer of Westminster, which is plausible, and the aggrieved party to a great betrayal, which is not. To counter this, Mr Cameron needs to alert Scots, perhaps by holding a referendum on further devolution, to a truth they seem ignorant of. Their devolved government will soon have power to raise half its revenues, which will mean a corresponding loss in the subsidy it draws from English taxpayers, and, in turn, probably higher taxes. If they like that, they should rush to independence; if not, they might care tae think again.
Comments
Somehow, I doubt if Farron is aiming to turn the UK into a theocracy.
Unless we are discussing the future of one of his competitors. We ought to play by Parliamentary rules.
If politics means that there has to be some exemption for those born before 1940 or whenever, so as not to 'disadvantage' those currently receiving free licences, so be it. It would be far from ideal but those political barriers shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of necessary reform.
If only the supporters of the BBC who laud it to the skies were not afraid to allow its popularity to be tested in the market. Make the fee optional.
Much better to understand that something is failing and deal with that in a constructive manner, than to realise too late and have the failure occur chaotically.
Never heard of SiriusXM Radio? It makes money every year.
Mr Murdoch has provided my children with virtually every single Disney and Pixar movie ever made - at the click of a button.
It's a bit vulgar compared with the mere four channels of my childhood, but you can't argue with its appeal.
Just because we see faults in the BBC, that doesn't make us Murdoch fans. I have Freeview and there's plenty of choice there.
I hardly ever watch BBC channels now as I've little interest in cooking or reality shows. BBC4 occasionally shows the odd snippet but they're few and far between.
I'd probably miss the news but Sky isn't bad at that.
"No one's worried about the £140 subscription?" I am.
I am however amused by all the free-marketeers who don't want the BBC to be sold off in open competition.
Adverts don't bother me at all - I either do something else for a few mins or FFW over the annoying ones as I timeshift. Don't see the issue about them myself. If I was that fagged, I could pay £3.99 and watch ITV entirely advert free.
The sectional, ideological crusade the Tories have taken without any real mandate and against any public support is really quite sickening- the attack on the BBC, fox hunting, undermining the unions, human rights, evel. It kind of proves that Tories must only converse and listen to Tories- an ideological clique, mutually reinforcing minority and really quite destructive and nasty views.
Ps - like I said earlier down the thread, I'd leave the BBC alone. I have a lot of time for Cameron but I'd have more time if he let go of minor issues like BBC licensing and fox hunting. Just concentrate on the big stuff - for instance the massive increase in mental health problems. They'd do well to put Norman Lamb in charge of dealing with what is a massive looming crisis (there is a 36 year old woman in hospital with my Dad with early onset Alzheimers. Frightening)
Long overdue IMHO.
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
The point is whether those who do not want access on those terms, who would not choose to pay if there was an option, who don't see it as value but are compelled to pay in order to support those who do like it ... should continue to be compelled to pay.
Only if the BBC can be demonstrated conclusively to be a positive externality to all of those people and that the licence fee is the only way to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons involving loss of that externality (and that that loss would be greater than the value gained by those not subscribing by the return of their freedom to spend their money as they choose) should the licence fee be retained. Otherwise, compulsion is illiberal. It can only be justified if it averts a "negative freedom".
The arguments presented here are merely a pretext to a policy with other objectives. The principle one is to weaken the BBC. It is has various motivations.
1) To exert an ideological preference for privately owned media over a very successful public corporation.
2) To correct a perceived political bias in the BBC (thereby bringing it into line the the balanced Mail, Sun and Guardian)
And quite possibly...
3) To deliver for Uncle Rupe
4) To payback Blue Peter for not showing David Cameron's drawing when he was 8 years old.
Have a lovely day.
1 - A group of families on an aeroplane, going somewhere. It is just normal for groups of immigrant families to travel home en bloc or charter a plane together. Fpr not-ricj people it is cheaper.
2 - One of the most terminally self-publicising members of the HoL happens to see them.
3 - Said Baroness has no firm evidence about their reasons for travel, yet somehow discovers their purpose.
4 - Baroness Tonge seems to have given this to the media as well as to the police, though it may be a leak. The interests of the assumed victims are not served by a media splash.
5 - The reports have ascribed the firm purpose of FGM to the trip, without a shred of evidence. No "may have been". No "suspected". Pure speculation quoted as fact.
eg the BBC, which is the subject of this thread, asserts Baroness Tonge's assumption as fact:
"'Fifty girls' taken from UK to Somalia for FGM"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33572428
(On topic: if we have to spill 5bn a year on a media operation, can't it at least be a competent one that doesn't make things up?)
6 - Compare Tonge's behaviour with that of Holly Lynch, the MP who was travelling with her.
To me this doesn't seem much better than "There's a group of black men in the Street over there. They are in a group, they are men, and they are black. Better report it to the coppers."
Compare Tonge's behaviour to that of MP Holly Lynch who was with her.
This is an important issue, but there's a hell of a self-interested hysterical bandwagon attached.
The history of this area is, for example:
1 - '70,000 unregistered Vietnamese trafficked possible sexworkers in nailbars'. Turned out to be fiction.
2 - Repeated massive exaggeration of people trafficking figures by the police. See Operatin Pentameter.
3 - Poppy Project made untrue claims about a link between lapdance clubs and rape. Used to justify chanegs to licensing law.
There's no end to it.
The victims of this will be the innocent families hot by an out-of-control campaign.
I wonder if many families are going to broken up because of scare stories? Let's hop
I can cope with the Tories being in power on economic grounds, it is these narrow, sectional, ideological interests that have little public support that I find rather dispiriting.
“The government has said that the charter review will not be starting in advance of the election in 2015.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-licence-fee-change-charter-renewal-sajid-javid
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33551874
''although he admitted subscription "cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access".
I pay for Netflix and Amazon, have also paid for access to CBS and a few others in the USA. I don't watch more than about 4hrs of BBC4 a week - and I wouldn't miss it if I didn't.
The BBC model is broken for the huge numbers of TV watchers like me, and increasingly so.
What David proposes is very sensible. The major problem with it is that it would in no way deliver what other media companies want - a BBC with which they do not have to compete.
Enjoy your day!
It was very noticeable because the sound was turned off and repetitive.
PS I declare that a circa 90 year old relative has just started a sub for a sports package to watch tour de france. Ironic for an old socialist who donated £300+ this year from his meagre pension to the Labour party....
The concerns you raise seem rather disturbing.
"There is a sense which nationalism which talks about a sense of liberation from the yoke of Westminster and freedom and progress actually ends up becoming a beast, nastier even than the one they were trying to slay.
He added: "Nobody who voted SNP wants to think they are an arrogant, authoritarian illiberal Big Brother entity. It is not something that right-thinking Scottish or British people of any kind would want to have thought of them. But that is who they are and only Liberals will challenge them".
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13415624.Tim_Farron_says_SNP__doing_the_worst_and_darkest_things_that_people_suspect_nationalists_to_be_in_favour_of_/?ref=mr&lp=2
Did Cameron ever say anything similar about the SNP?
We need to be done by 2020ish. I think that's what HMG has in mind too - hence the BBC owning the 75+ exemption. The march of Netflix etc will be forcing the consumer market by then to a pip-squeaking extent.
SeanT ripped me a new hole over it because I refused to jump on the outrage train.
Channel 5.
So Channel 5 could do something at start-up that the mighty Beeb can't do eh? The Beeb could put a box in every household if it turned its mind to it. It just doesn't want to even think those nasty thoughts.
272 staff to the Brazil world cup? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595844/BBC-taking-272-staff-World-Cup-Brazil-equivalent-25-football-teams-DOUBLE-ITV-workers.html
This is a job creation scheme for the Luvvies and their offspring and could not possibly survive without mass taxation.
Good on Michael Gove. Many Tories have taken on the role of prison reform- Hurd, Aitken etc.. It seems that Gove is putting his considerable intellect and reforming zeal to good purpose.
Should we apply the same parochial judgement to museums and art galleries and subsidised theatre? Is it really desirable that we all turn into lobotomised Tory zombies worshiping at the altar of free enterprise?
A niche in the top shelf market I hadn't considered.
Theresa Gorman as the centre fold?
There is actually an argument to be had about galleries/museums, namely that they're disproportionately clustered in London. A notable and great exception is the Royal Armouries, of course.
However, bricks and mortar sites are very different to the way technological progression is altering consumption of media, whether TV or books or other areas (VR's coming to gaming soon, and augmented reality also). The number of households with TVs will decline because some will simply opt out and go for desktops, laptops and tablets.
The BBC needs to get its funding sorted before it reaches the precipice, otherwise it'll crumble.
I can even forgive announcing it to the media - we all know politicians love to play at being a good "neighbourhood watchman", and seeking publicity is part of the job (much as I wish it wasn't, that's the nature of politics). FGM is a terrible thing and something that raises awareness has the potential to be a good thing if handled sensitively. I'm not sure this was by the BBC though.
I'd add that (as I pointed out to SeanT) the BBC figures "at risk" figures are well out of date, they're almost a decade old. The most recent research puts a much higher figure of children at risk. But the "at risk" figure is no more and no less (I linked to the research papers two threads back) than a headcount of girls who come from ethnic or cultural backgrounds in which FGM is practised in their native country. The more recent estimates are more sophisticated, as they attempt to establish how many Nigerians, Somalis and Iraqis (those are the three main group) are in the UK who came here via another country first (a first scan of the figures wouldn't show Somalis who came to the UK via the large diaspora in Kenya or the Middle East, say - they'd show up as arriving from Kenya or Yemen) but also whether they come from regions of those countries where FGM is practised (so the British Iraqi estimates are amended by estimating the proportion of British Iraqis of Kurdish descent, since FGM is does not seem to be so prevalent in Kurdistan than in other parts of Iraq). It's a very subtle number-crunching job, but it doesn't by any means tell us how much FGM of British kids is going on.
If the Somalis jetting off on holiday with their family at the start of summer are anything like the Pakistani kids I know, they'll have a great summer seeing relatives who have been Skype-only for the last 11 months, while missing the creature comforts and freedom they've got accustomed to at home in Britain. I hope, at any rate, that this is the kind of summer the vast majority are going to have. For some it may be a horrific experience, but the idea that every single Somali girl going back home to visit family is automatically going to be an FGM victim seems well wide of the mark. (And if it were true, we'd have to start talking about banning all Somali teenage girls from visiting their ancestral homeland, which seems to be the ultimate conclusion if you follow Tonge's complaint, though quite an illiberal measure for a Lib Dem.)
A switchover to a subscription system will involve yet more new boxes. Worse, people with the boxes integrated into the TV will find they are useless.
Then there is the question of which conditional access system to use. Will they share one with (say) Freeview, will it be a bespoke system, or an existing one (e.g. NDS, Cisco, SystemGuard, MediaGuard etc). This will lead to many complexities with the competing broadcast systems.
For instance, if they went with NDS it might be possible to have one box that would allow access to both Sky and BBC products on the same box, either with a combined smartcard or separate ones (if the latter, you would either need to swap cards or have two slots, increasing cost).
It's a crying shame CA was not added to the STB's for the digital switchover.
It's doable, but not cheap or easy.
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
"We don’t see it, but our arrogance stops us from listening"
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/10/6080/
When Osborne talked about the BBC's "imperial ambitions" my heart sank. The BBC brand is unique and should be projected around the globe. A successful global BBC reflects well on the UK as a whole, and reinforces the objectives of "soft power" as much as anything else I can think of.
Of course the Young Tories of the Thatcher era, so extreme that they got banned, should have given us some foresight of the kind of thugs, hooligans and ideologues that would take control of the party. How does the "Hang Mandela" anthem go again?
I don't want the BBC gutted or abolished, but nor do I want it to have such a privileged position. It also needs to reform funding, because the licence fee is unsustainable in the long term and the sooner that's changed the better for the BBC.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato (after this post), I hope ColinW's Mum returns at some point. She was full of wisdom.
"Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance."
I am not quite sure how getting less than 19% of the electorate to vote for them makes Labour 'the party of the masses'.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21657833-our-outgoing-columnist-reflects-threats-britains-integrity-house-falling
Insightful and useful. In short: grow-a-pair or shut-the-feck-up.