...all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
To change the subject for the moment: teenage parents were not exceptional until very recently, definitely post World-War 2. Women in their late 20's were described as "older mothers" up until the 90's. Society as it is currently constructed is not the same as it has been constructed throughout most of history.
Margaret Beaufort was married at 12, had a baby at 13, managed to found St John's College Cambridge and be the mother of the King. They don't make them like that any more.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Rubbish, classical music will always survive to some degree but not to the level and extent accessible on R3.
I am also not and never have been a pure free marketeer, on your argument if you cannot afford healthcare in a capitalist free market you should be allowed to die.
The state has a job to intervene where the market does not provide ample provision
"We send £350m each week to the EU.
Let's fund string quartets instead"
I don't think us Leavers would have won with that on the side of a bus.
You might have done a bit better in Islington and Oxford though
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?
No. Which was my point. R3 doesn’t enable access for these icons. Yet Classic FM not only plays music people want to listen to but does experiment with lesser known composers (that’s how I came across Rufinatscha).
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made money on Boris becoming leader.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
If the BBC is to exist, and I really see no reason why it should, then it should surely exist to fund the creation of programmes for which there is insufficient commercial demand.
So, I can see the case for the government to commission the arts or educational content, or Radio 3 or even Radio 4. Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
Commercial news and current affairs is an obvious market failure that the BBC helps address.
The BBC has historically played a key role in developing talent later exploited by other commercial services.
But the current quality of the BBC News service is both unreliable and heavily editorialised.
The former flagship Today Programme has turned its interviews into an apology-trolling abuse platform, and we have had at least two (one was Newsnight - not sure on the other) pieces where the presenter has launched partisan attacks on people taking the feminist stance in the Trans Debate just in the last few days.
Replace the TV licence with a tiny fixed charge on electric bills, problem solved.
LOL.
Why would the number be any different from the License Fee?
Approx 28 million dwellings, which each have an elec bill. TV Licenses currently paid: 26 million.
Average UK Elec Bill is about £725.
So your "tiny fixed charge" is adding ... er .... 20%.
No one will notice that :-) .
So instead of being positive, it will be negative?
Trying to jump-start the punning won't work.
As I said earlier, the TV licence fee loses about 10-20% to admin costs, also it costs money to send 'evaders' to prison.
So UK PLC saves >10-20% if it's paid for from elec bills.
However, ~£125-130 on the elec bill is also regressive.
As I suggested earlier, better to fund it from general taxation. The rich then pay more of their income than the poor but almost everybody pays a share, even those like me who only use R4 and R3.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
His also said it was more likely he would be struck by a meteorite than Macron would become President of France.
(I actually find @HYUFD pretty good on UK politics. But abroad, he suffers from having a view and never changing it, irrespecitve of any evidence. Hence his insistence that Marine Le Pen won the French Presidential election.
I once offered to pay for a poll where we should people clips, chosen by him and I, to see whether people found Biden charismatic. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "No matter what evidence there is, it won't change the fact that Biden is charismatic.")
The contortions to show that Le Pen won by some metric of winning was excruciating.
While I'm fairly ambivalent about the BBC as a whole, I'm less so if the plurality and diversity of opinions were to be reduced or marginalised.
It seems all too often people only want to hear views with which they agree - Echo Chamber TV will no doubt have its adherents but how do the political and democratic processes prosper or even survive if there is no exposure to a wide range of opinions?
Frankly, I'm concerned a Fox News UK would be an unapologetic supporter of the Conservative Party - I think that's wrong just as I would regard a TV channel which unapologetically supported wither Labour or the Lib Dems as wrong.
Yet there seems resistance to mandatory plurality or diversity of opinion while at the same time many shout that not only must we tolerate intolerance but we must be prepared to be offended because there is an inherent right to offend.
"Free Speech" is getting mangled by the political agendas of those seeking to gain advantage from it. We should be a mature and confident enough society to be able to hear diverse opinions but it seems we are struggling with that.
Perhaps it is the notion of the instant rebuttal - person A re-tweets a tweet which makes a jibe about Brexit. Person B (a supporter of Brexit) pipes up to rubbish it and the fire burns on.
Smothering the fire with indifference is a better response than adding the petrol of indignation.
...all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
To change the subject for the moment: teenage parents were not exceptional until very recently, definitely post World-War 2. Women in their late 20's were described as "older mothers" up until the 90's. Society as it is currently constructed is not the same as it has been constructed throughout most of history.
Margaret Beaufort was married at 12, had a baby at 13, managed to found St John's College Cambridge and be the mother of the King. They don't make them like that any more.
Thank God for that. One St John's is more than enough.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made money on Boris becoming leader.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
TBH, failed predictions (where those predictions are certainties, no qualifications whatsoever) followed by a lack of contrition is hardly an unknown characteristic from some posters here.
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
The planet will be fine, it's animal, human and plant life that have problems. According to the graph in your first link it's only the last two values 2018 and 2019 that are the same (and higher than all previous values). If you're correct about the emissions and levels being decoupled then it's really worrying, but the graph shows energy related CO2 emissions, so presumably doesn't include travel, farming, wildfires etc.
...all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
To change the subject for the moment: teenage parents were not exceptional until very recently, definitely post World-War 2. Women in their late 20's were described as "older mothers" up until the 90's. Society as it is currently constructed is not the same as it has been constructed throughout most of history.
Margaret Beaufort was married at 12, had a baby at 13, managed to found St John's College Cambridge and be the mother of the King. They don't make them like that any more.
And it nearly killed her, causing either such gynaecological damage she was incapable of having further children, or such psychological damage it seems to have left her with a strong desire for celibacy (which her then husband, to his eternal credit, both enabled and fully supported) even though her political position made the life of a nun impossible.
...all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
To change the subject for the moment: teenage parents were not exceptional until very recently, definitely post World-War 2. Women in their late 20's were described as "older mothers" up until the 90's. Society as it is currently constructed is not the same as it has been constructed throughout most of history.
Margaret Beaufort was married at 12, had a baby at 13, managed to found St John's College Cambridge and be the mother of the King. They don't make them like that any more.
Thank God for that. One St John's is more than enough.
There is another one, you know...
It used to be said that you could walk from Oxford to Cambridge on land belong to one flavour of St Johns or the other.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You sure were, and so many mockers were sure they knew better
Some of us (ok, me) predicted Conservative MPs would not choose the blue Jeremy Corbyn. They did and now Boris is doing all the things they said Corbyn would do. Purge dissentors; let an unelected Stalinist run Downing Street; shake the magic money tree. Much reverse-ferreting has followed and will follow as Boris continues to plunder Labour's programme.
The clue was there. Boris & JC share the same slogan, a quotation from Pericles: For the many, not the few!
The BBC is far from perfect and needs a lot of reform. But we shouldn't be blind to the fact that it only exists as a successful national institution because of its public ownership and funding. Were it to have been privatised in the 80's it would have been gobbled up by US giants long ago. The Channel 4 model, in national ownership but commercially funded, seems an OK solution.
What are people expecting this "subscription model" to pay for? Just the TV channels? Or the entireity of the BBCs output? Do they foresee the website disappearing behind a paywall? Radio stations being somehow encrypted? These things can all be offered universally now, because payment of the TV licence is near universal. But if they disappeared then it would leave an enormous hole in our national life. People who claim that they shouldn't have to pay the TV licence because they don't consume the BBC product are almost all lying. It's just they take what is there so much for granted that they don't realise it.
BTW I think it generally suits Governments to have a national broadcaster with a mandate for impartiality. Because it can be leaned on to represent the Government case fairly.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made money on Boris becoming leader.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
No I did not ever say that and I challenger you to find a single post from me ever asserting that before continuing to post false statements.
I said Biden would be the best general election option for the Democrats which is not at all the same as saying that he was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination, for which I have been saying Sanders was the likely nominee for some time.
Some of us (ok, me) predicted Conservative MPs would not choose the blue Jeremy Corbyn. They did and now Boris is doing all the things they said Corbyn would do. Purge dissentors; let an unelected Stalinist run Downing Street; shake the magic money tree. Much reverse-ferreting has followed and will follow as Boris continues to plunder Labour's programme.
The clue was there. Boris & JC share the same slogan, a quotation from Pericles: For the many, not the few!
Boris Johnson was a certainty from the night of the ComRes poll on June 12th which showed only he of the Conservative leadership candidates winning an overall majority (395 seats as I recall so a slight letdown in the end).
Those opposed to him both within and without the Conservative Party failed to come up with a coherent plan to combat him and the more they prevaricated, the stronger and more popular he got. It was inevitable.
Even forcing him into an extension only made him more popular - had the WA been agreed before October and the UK proceeded into transition before an election, it might have made Boris's life harder but in the end a GE was the only answer and as soon as the Conservatives pivoted unambiguously to being the Party of LEAVE (as distinct from being the Party of reluctant enforcers of the people's will), the majority was certain.
Had they fought a GE with May as leader and Farage leading a strong Brexit Party we can only conjecture at the outcome but an 80-seat majority wouldn't have happened.
In the end, it's all about having the cards in your hands - bluffing with a weak hand might work sometimes but it won't work every time.
As well as funding, there is also a debate to be had over what is the purpose / remit of the BBC.
Should they expanding their news website into something which includes an online magazine akin to what the likes of the Times or the Guardian produce, should they be getting involved in creating an alternative to raspberry Pi or a new HDR standard or building iphone apps to crowd source video?
Remember at one point they even bought the Lonely Planet.
Should they be allowed to earn ad revenue from putting content on YouTube?
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made money on Boris becoming leader.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
No I did not ever say that and I challenger you to find a single post from me ever asserting that before continuing to post false statements.
I said Biden would be the best general election option for the Democrats which is not at all the same as saying that he was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination, for which I have been saying Sanders was the likely nominee for some time.
So please do not lie
No one would have made money following your predictions in the round. There’s a reason why you don’t bet yourself, after all.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You sure were, and so many mockers were sure they knew better
Some of us (ok, me) predicted Conservative MPs would not choose the blue Jeremy Corbyn. They did and now Boris is doing all the things they said Corbyn would do. Purge dissentors; let an unelected Stalinist run Downing Street; shake the magic money tree. Much reverse-ferreting has followed and will follow as Boris continues to plunder Labour's programme.
The clue was there. Boris & JC share the same slogan, a quotation from Pericles: For the many, not the few!
'All the things Corbyn would do'? Er, no.
On the other hand, if you're right, then there' s no more reason for the Labour Party to exist, so at least there's that...
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one ould win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made mked.
No I did not ever say thve been saying Sanders was the likely nominee for some time.
So please do not lie
No one would have made money following your predictions in the round. There’s a reason why you don’t bet yourself, after all.
Oh really, had they followed my predictions over the past year punters would have made money on Boris becoming PM, Boris winning the GE with a majority, Trudeau being re elected in Canada, Morrison being re elected in Australia and quite possibly on Sanders being the Dem nominee and Trump being re elected to name but a few.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made money on Boris becoming leader.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
No I did not ever say that and I challenger you to find a single post from me ever asserting that before continuing to post false statements.
I said Biden would be the best general election option for the Democrats which is not at all the same as saying that he was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination, for which I have been saying Sanders was the likely nominee for some time.
So please do not lie
No one would have made money following your predictions in the round. There’s a reason why you don’t bet yourself, after all.
Oh really, had they followed my predictions over the past year punters would have made money on Boris becoming PM, Boris winning the GE with a majority, Trudeau being re elected in Canada, Morrison being re elected in Australia and quite possibly on Sanders being the Dem nominee and Trump being re elected to name but a few.
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
Youtube has its own problems though, they’re involved in a row in the US at the moment because they’re trying to censor a speech made by a US Senator on the floor of the Senate.
Governments will have to decide quickly if these companies are platforms or publishers.
(Back to my long-standing comment that the 2020 US elections are going to be a total sh1t-show of fake news, with Facebook and Google making money from the fakery. No matter who wins, those two companies are in trouble).
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
Hang out the bunting, break open the moderately-priced sparkling wine, I agree with Philip Thompson!!
ALL TV and radio should be free to everyone all the time - make it work from advertising or sponsorship or something else.
Hang on...let's think about a subject close to my heart, the sport of kings. I can watch horse racing for free in a betting shop but generally if I want to watch Carlisle and Wolverhampton tomorrow I have to have a subscription for Racing UK for the former and a Sky dish for the latter or go online and pay to view.
Horse racing has sold its output just as every other sport has in the form of media rights. For horse racing, the media rights are sold to the bookmakers so you can watch it for free in a Ladbrokes, Paddy Power or wherever and they are also made available to the broadcasters (though the racecourses own most of Racing UK and Sky owns most of Sky Sports Racing). Both channels have plenty of bookmaker advertising as does ITV Racing (another recipient of media rights).
Presumably the income stream from media rights isn't sufficient in itself so Sky, Racing UK and like channels feel they have to charge us for the privilege - after all, we pay to watch films at a cinema - we would pay if we went to the racecourse so why not pay to watch the event in your living room?
Perhaps this is the economic challenge for the 21st century - free admission to racecourses, free admission to all sporting events, free admission to the cinema. Let the advertising pay, let the betting pay, let the merchandise pay.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Re BBC...what would be the objection to funding a small core set of things i.e. BBC News and the associated website, world service, perhaps some remit to produce some content in various niche areas not economically viable. And do this either directly by the government or perhaps micro sales tax on any device that could receive BBC output.
Then free the rest of the BBC to fund itself however it sees fit, be it subscription or ads or both. No different to how CH4 manages. And if they want to create BBC Sport Channel or whatever, then they are free to do so and compete directly against Sky or BT.
And they already have a commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, that runs ads on their international version of their website, sell programmes around the world, have stakes in other commercial entities.
While it’s really easy for everyone on the Internet to Monday-morning-quarterback these things, that one should probably have been a go-around. The lateral load on the gear probably required a thorough inspection afterwards.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
Mate, I made money on Boris becoming leader.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
No I did not ever say that and I challenger you to find a single post from me ever asserting that before continuing to post false statements.
I said Biden would be the best general election option for the Democrats which is not at all the same as saying that he was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination, for which I have been saying Sanders was the likely nominee for some time.
So please do not lie
No one would have made money following your predictions in the round. There’s a reason why you don’t bet yourself, after all.
Didn’t you predict, on a number of occasions, that Duncan-Smith was a certain loser?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Again dependent on someone having the rights to something of cultural importance and being willing to voluntarily post it on Youtube
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
You pay for Netflix if you watch it. You have to pay the BBC if you watch *any* live TV, even if none of it is BBC.
Ultimately, we can argue about the merits or demerits of the BBCs programmes, but that is the killer punch. It’s totally unsustainable in the modern age of digital streaming. Even if it is morally justifiable for public service broadcasting, it’s not going to last more than another few years and a replacement model needs to be found before implosion happens.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Again dependent on someone having the rights to something of cultural importance and being willing to voluntarily post it on Youtube
If the rights owner doesn't want it preserving then it shouldn't be - and if its out of copyright its a moot issue. How are the BBC obtaining rights that YouTube can't?
You keep banging on about Radio 3. Name one song on Radio 3 that you can't get on YouTube please.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
If the BBC wants to be free to air it can be. And so what if ITV gets it? The last Champions League Final was on YouTube.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
You know BT Sports made the Champions League final available for free, Sky Sports the World Cup cricket final the same. It got them loads of free advertising for their services.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
Why couldn't they? You're sounding paranoid.
Thing is, that could now be streamed on YouTube and almost everyone who wanted to see it could.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
You explained that they could watch it on ITV. Whether that you believe that is morally inferior to the BBC seems to be a different point.
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
You know BT Sports made the Champions League final available for free, Sky Sports the World Cup cricket final the same. It got them loads of free advertising for their services.
But they didn't have to. And the point is that the moment the BBC disappears behind a paywall it would no longer even be able to bid for these "protected" sporting events. There would be no grounds for allowing them to bid for them when others (BT, Sky etc) can't. And we would also at that point cease to have a national broadcaster. You may not care. I don't think that would be a good thing.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
There's always Classic FM
Half of what it plays is film music
Radio Suisse Classic is better. It pumps out proper classical music (not movie scores) on the Internet 24/7 without ads and you can chose to listen to the announcements in French, German or Italian - great preparation for a continental holiday. And they have a separate jazz station for light relief.
I listen to all 3 Radio Suisse stations as the mood takes me. Bliss, no adverts and no inane chit chat.
I never watch anything on TV in realtime as the repetitiveness and the banality of the adverts does my head in, to say nothing of the fact that it takes an hour to watch 45 minutes of content.
I wonder when companies will wake up to the fact that increasingly people are simply bypassing their ads and I wonder what all the commercial stations will do when the advertisers have woken up to the fact and have stopped advertising?
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
Why couldn't they? You're sounding paranoid.
Thing is, that could now be streamed on YouTube and almost everyone who wanted to see it could.
And almost any new TV for years now can broadcast YouTube.
Theoretically yes, no reason some of Youtube's output cannot receive some government subsidy if it is of cultural importance to ensure its continued availability
Shows you don't understand technology in the 21st century.
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
YouTube content is frequently taken down for copyright infringement and is dependent entirely on the whim of who posts what, you of course even have to pay for Netflix albeit via subscription, as indeed you have to for YouTube Music
YouTube content is only taken down for copyright infringement if it infringes copyright. Not an issue if you have the rights to something of cultural importance that you wish to preserve. And its better preserved being available 24/7 on YouTube than in some dusty (or digital) BBC vault that rarely gets accessed.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Netflix offers almost zero locally produced content. Nothing like what the BBC produces across its entire output.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
In what sense do you think the public will give a shit?
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
Why couldn't they? You're sounding paranoid.
Thing is, that could now be streamed on YouTube and almost everyone who wanted to see it could.
And almost any new TV for years now can broadcast YouTube.
Although from personal experience, it’s a right bugger to keep the app updated.
The public won't give a shit if they can't watch the World Cup final? It's a view I suppose?
You know BT Sports made the Champions League final available for free, Sky Sports the World Cup cricket final the same. It got them loads of free advertising for their services.
But they didn't have to. And the point is that the moment the BBC disappears behind a paywall it would no longer even be able to bid for these "protected" sporting events. There would be no grounds for allowing them to bid for them when others (BT, Sky etc) can't. And we would also at that point cease to have a national broadcaster. You may not care. I don't think that would be a good thing.
World Cup Final has to be broadcast free to air, its the law.
If it didn't have to be, it could already be behind a paywall. The BBC is immaterial to that.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You sure were, and so many mockers were sure they knew better
Some of us (ok, me) predicted Conservative MPs would not choose the blue Jeremy Corbyn. They did and now Boris is doing all the things they said Corbyn would do. Purge dissentors; let an unelected Stalinist run Downing Street; shake the magic money tree. Much reverse-ferreting has followed and will follow as Boris continues to plunder Labour's programme.
The clue was there. Boris & JC share the same slogan, a quotation from Pericles: For the many, not the few!
'All the things Corbyn would do'? Er, no.
On the other hand, if you're right, then there' s no more reason for the Labour Party to exist, so at least there's that...
Indeed. If Boris has shot all Labour's foxes, what next?
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You sure were, and so many mockers were sure they knew better
Some of us (ok, me) predicted Conservative MPs would not choose the blue Jeremy Corbyn. They did and now Boris is doing all the things they said Corbyn would do. Purge dissentors; let an unelected Stalinist run Downing Street; shake the magic money tree. Much reverse-ferreting has followed and will follow as Boris continues to plunder Labour's programme.
The clue was there. Boris & JC share the same slogan, a quotation from Pericles: For the many, not the few!
'All the things Corbyn would do'? Er, no.
On the other hand, if you're right, then there' s no more reason for the Labour Party to exist, so at least there's that...
Indeed. If Boris has shot all Labour's foxes, what next?
Well, that would at least solve the desire of his backbenchers to bring back hunting.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
When the BBC jumped the shark, screwed the pooch, went too far and let the mask slip. This will be at some point cited as the final straw.
Like people say when accused of being poltically incorrect - it's a joke, get over it.
But for children’s programming, on Brexit day? It’s almost as if they were being deliberately provocative.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but that sort of stunt plays into the hands of those who want to see the BBC abolished.
Job done. I’ve been ambivalent about the BBC. Despite its flaws, it’s much better than itv and channel 4. But seeing just how much they’ve ramped up their wokeness. Used to listen to radio 5 all the time. Now it’s LBC and podcasts. They do good tv spectacles, but nothing that can’t be done in a commercial basis.
I wouldn’t abolish the license fee. Modify to include any tv, streaming included, but the fess just becomes a commissioning service. Any tv production company can bid for the show.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
That horrible histories will go down in history as the most expensive piece of children’s television ever made. It will be the equivalent of the phone hacking at the news of the world. Its over Frodo. It’s over.
When the BBC jumped the shark, screwed the pooch, went too far and let the mask slip. This will be at some point cited as the final straw.
Like people say when accused of being poltically incorrect - it's a joke, get over it.
But for children’s programming, on Brexit day? It’s almost as if they were being deliberately provocative.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but that sort of stunt plays into the hands of those who want to see the BBC abolished.
Job done. I’ve been ambivalent about the BBC. Despite its flaws, it’s much better than itv and channel 4. But seeing just how much they’ve ramped up their wokeness. Used to listen to radio 5 all the time. Now it’s LBC and podcasts. They do good tv spectacles, but nothing that can’t be done in a commercial basis.
I wouldn’t abolish the license fee. Modify to include any tv, streaming included, but the fess just becomes a commissioning service. Any tv production company can bid for the show.
Nah, scrap the licence fee. They can make a fortune selling international subscriptions, and advertising if they wish. Plus, the massive back catalogue is worth hundreds of millions in ongoing revenue. Not to mention the massive drain of 10% of all magistrates court cases, with a lot of often poor people dragged through the system and criminalised unnecessarily.
I’d give something like 5% of the current BBC budget to DCMS, in a similar way to how PBS works in the US, to commission cultural, religious, educational and ad-free kids programmes that the market wouldn’t otherwise make. Any production company can bid to make these programmes.
At the end of the day, either you believe we should have a national broadcaster or we shouldn't. If we should then it must be available to all, so you have to ask difficult questions about how it should be funded. I don't believe a "subscription model" is compatible with being a national broadcaster. It just becomes another pay tv service to which many or most will not have access. I doubt it would survive. Advertising is possible, but for many lack of advertising is something they like about the BBC. So I think if you ditch the licence fee, then you revert to taxpayer funding. Which is seriously problematic in itself, both for what it means for journalistic and editorial independence from the Government, and, on a basic level, that Conservative governments don't seem to believe in funding the BBC from taxpayers money at all (hence scrapping funding for the World Service, over 75s etc.
Of course if you don't believe in the value of a national broadcaster then you're not going to care. But if you do then there are no easy alternatives to what we currently have. BTW for all the talk about how the licence fee is outdated for modern consumption of media, most people opposed to the licence fee were probably against it 20 years ago or longer.
I do find it strange how some people seem to regard not watching normal TV as some mark of virility.
What do you define as "normal TV"?
Your normal may be different to my normal.
I'm watching Endeavour. It's on ITV right now.
That’s normal.
I'm watching Stargate SG-1 on demand while my wife is watching Love Island.
That's normal too.
Implying that watching Stargate SG-1 is normal.
Hold on, I liked Stargate SG-1!
It's weird, because I am also watching Stargate SG-1... hence why I knew it wasn't normal.
Funny coincidence. Loved it when it was on air but didn't watch it again for a decade or so after Continuum. Started rewatching late last year, currently on Season 4.
At the end of the day, either you believe we should have a national broadcaster or we shouldn't. If we should then it must be available to all, so you have to ask difficult questions about how it should be funded. I don't believe a "subscription model" is compatible with being a national broadcaster. It just becomes another pay tv service to which many or most will not have access. I doubt it would survive. Advertising is possible, but for many lack of advertising is something they like about the BBC. So I think if you ditch the licence fee, then you revert to taxpayer funding. Which is seriously problematic in itself, both for what it means for journalistic and editorial independence from the Government, and, on a basic level, that Conservative governments don't seem to believe in funding the BBC from taxpayers money at all (hence scrapping funding for the World Service, over 75s etc.
Of course if you don't believe in the value of a national broadcaster then you're not going to care. But if you do then there are no easy alternatives to what we currently have. BTW for all the talk about how the licence fee is outdated for modern consumption of media, most people opposed to the licence fee were probably against it 20 years ago or longer.
20 years ago I was at uni. The only way to watch tv was through a set. Begrudgingly part of life. Today’s students and young people are consuming almost all their tv on portable devices other than TVs.
The license fee is like high street business rates, a tax that only makes sense before the internet changed everything.
At the end of the day, either you believe we should have a national broadcaster or we shouldn't. If we should then it must be available to all, so you have to ask difficult questions about how it should be funded. I don't believe a "subscription model" is compatible with being a national broadcaster. It just becomes another pay tv service to which many or most will not have access. I doubt it would survive. Advertising is possible, but for many lack of advertising is something they like about the BBC. So I think if you ditch the licence fee, then you revert to taxpayer funding. Which is seriously problematic in itself, both for what it means for journalistic and editorial independence from the Government, and, on a basic level, that Conservative governments don't seem to believe in funding the BBC from taxpayers money at all (hence scrapping funding for the World Service, over 75s etc.
Of course if you don't believe in the value of a national broadcaster then you're not going to care. But if you do then there are no easy alternatives to what we currently have. BTW for all the talk about how the licence fee is outdated for modern consumption of media, most people opposed to the licence fee were probably against it 20 years ago or longer.
I was in favour 20 years ago. It was arguably necessary 20 years ago. Now its not - and your focus on a "national broadcaster" betrays the problem. We don't need broadcasters in 2020, there are broadcasters aplenty available now.
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.
Comments
And since people are switching from TV sets to other devices it's good to be proactive.
Yo also predicted that Biden was an absolute total lock for the nomination and your total lack of contrition on this and other dead cert predictions is why you are constantly mocked.
The former flagship Today Programme has turned its interviews into an apology-trolling abuse platform, and we have had at least two (one was Newsnight - not sure on the other) pieces where the presenter has launched partisan attacks on people taking the feminist stance in the Trans Debate just in the last few days.
So UK PLC saves >10-20% if it's paid for from elec bills.
However, ~£125-130 on the elec bill is also regressive.
As I suggested earlier, better to fund it from general taxation. The rich then pay more of their income than the poor but almost everybody pays a share, even those like me who only use R4 and R3.
While I'm fairly ambivalent about the BBC as a whole, I'm less so if the plurality and diversity of opinions were to be reduced or marginalised.
It seems all too often people only want to hear views with which they agree - Echo Chamber TV will no doubt have its adherents but how do the political and democratic processes prosper or even survive if there is no exposure to a wide range of opinions?
Frankly, I'm concerned a Fox News UK would be an unapologetic supporter of the Conservative Party - I think that's wrong just as I would regard a TV channel which unapologetically supported wither Labour or the Lib Dems as wrong.
Yet there seems resistance to mandatory plurality or diversity of opinion while at the same time many shout that not only must we tolerate intolerance but we must be prepared to be offended because there is an inherent right to offend.
"Free Speech" is getting mangled by the political agendas of those seeking to gain advantage from it. We should be a mature and confident enough society to be able to hear diverse opinions but it seems we are struggling with that.
Perhaps it is the notion of the instant rebuttal - person A re-tweets a tweet which makes a jibe about Brexit. Person B (a supporter of Brexit) pipes up to rubbish it and the fire burns on.
Smothering the fire with indifference is a better response than adding the petrol of indignation.
According to the graph in your first link it's only the last two values 2018 and 2019 that are the same (and higher than all previous values).
If you're correct about the emissions and levels being decoupled then it's really worrying, but the graph shows energy related CO2 emissions, so presumably doesn't include travel, farming, wildfires etc.
It used to be said that you could walk from Oxford to Cambridge on land belong to one flavour of St Johns or the other.
Edit: not sure why you'd want to, though.
The clue was there. Boris & JC share the same slogan, a quotation from Pericles: For the many, not the few!
BTW I think it generally suits Governments to have a national broadcaster with a mandate for impartiality. Because it can be leaned on to represent the Government case fairly.
I said Biden would be the best general election option for the Democrats which is not at all the same as saying that he was a dead cert for the Democratic nomination, for which I have been saying Sanders was the likely nominee for some time.
So please do not lie
Those opposed to him both within and without the Conservative Party failed to come up with a coherent plan to combat him and the more they prevaricated, the stronger and more popular he got. It was inevitable.
Even forcing him into an extension only made him more popular - had the WA been agreed before October and the UK proceeded into transition before an election, it might have made Boris's life harder but in the end a GE was the only answer and as soon as the Conservatives pivoted unambiguously to being the Party of LEAVE (as distinct from being the Party of reluctant enforcers of the people's will), the majority was certain.
Had they fought a GE with May as leader and Farage leading a strong Brexit Party we can only conjecture at the outcome but an 80-seat majority wouldn't have happened.
In the end, it's all about having the cards in your hands - bluffing with a weak hand might work sometimes but it won't work every time.
Plane struggles to land at Heathrow airport
https://news.sky.com/video/share-11935547
Should they expanding their news website into something which includes an online magazine akin to what the likes of the Times or the Guardian produce, should they be getting involved in creating an alternative to raspberry Pi or a new HDR standard or building iphone apps to crowd source video?
Remember at one point they even bought the Lonely Planet.
Should they be allowed to earn ad revenue from putting content on YouTube?
On the other hand, if you're right, then there' s no more reason for the Labour Party to exist, so at least there's that...
YouTube provides this content without asking for payment. All it takes is for someone to upload it and that is it, no continuous payments required for "continued availability".
Paying for radio stations and TV stations is an obsolete and redundant technology.
I doubt that this rag has a monopoly on ethics,
Governments will have to decide quickly if these companies are platforms or publishers.
(Back to my long-standing comment that the 2020 US elections are going to be a total sh1t-show of fake news, with Facebook and Google making money from the fakery. No matter who wins, those two companies are in trouble).
ALL TV and radio should be free to everyone all the time - make it work from advertising or sponsorship or something else.
Hang on...let's think about a subject close to my heart, the sport of kings. I can watch horse racing for free in a betting shop but generally if I want to watch Carlisle and Wolverhampton tomorrow I have to have a subscription for Racing UK for the former and a Sky dish for the latter or go online and pay to view.
Horse racing has sold its output just as every other sport has in the form of media rights. For horse racing, the media rights are sold to the bookmakers so you can watch it for free in a Ladbrokes, Paddy Power or wherever and they are also made available to the broadcasters (though the racecourses own most of Racing UK and Sky owns most of Sky Sports Racing). Both channels have plenty of bookmaker advertising as does ITV Racing (another recipient of media rights).
Presumably the income stream from media rights isn't sufficient in itself so Sky, Racing UK and like channels feel they have to charge us for the privilege - after all, we pay to watch films at a cinema - we would pay if we went to the racecourse so why not pay to watch the event in your living room?
Perhaps this is the economic challenge for the 21st century - free admission to racecourses, free admission to all sporting events, free admission to the cinema. Let the advertising pay, let the betting pay, let the merchandise pay.
Netflix offers far more content than the BBC and costs less than half the price. But it should be up to you. If you want to pay for it then great! If you wish to pay for the BBC then great! If you wish to pay for them both then great! Free choice, its not a scary prospect.
Then free the rest of the BBC to fund itself however it sees fit, be it subscription or ads or both. No different to how CH4 manages. And if they want to create BBC Sport Channel or whatever, then they are free to do so and compete directly against Sky or BT.
And they already have a commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, that runs ads on their international version of their website, sell programmes around the world, have stakes in other commercial entities.
Ultimately, we can argue about the merits or demerits of the BBCs programmes, but that is the killer punch. It’s totally unsustainable in the modern age of digital streaming. Even if it is morally justifiable for public service broadcasting, it’s not going to last more than another few years and a replacement model needs to be found before implosion happens.
During the ads I catch up on PB.
Both are free.
Anyway I look forward to the BBC going behind a paywall and then England reaching a World Cup final. And the Government announcing that they must make the coverage available to everyone. Or even decide that BBC no longer qualifies as "free to air" and therefore BBC isn't eligible to even show it. ITV gets a monopoly!
You keep banging on about Radio 3. Name one song on Radio 3 that you can't get on YouTube please.
I never watch anything on TV in realtime as the repetitiveness and the banality of the adverts does my head in, to say nothing of the fact that it takes an hour to watch 45 minutes of content.
I wonder when companies will wake up to the fact that increasingly people are simply bypassing their ads and I wonder what all the commercial stations will do when the advertisers have woken up to the fact and have stopped advertising?
If it didn't have to be, it could already be behind a paywall. The BBC is immaterial to that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/noel-edmonds-wrong-say-get-rid-bbc-licence-fee-remove-lose-proms/
When the BBC jumped the shark, screwed the pooch, went too far and let the mask slip. This will be at some point cited as the final straw.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but that sort of stunt plays into the hands of those who want to see the BBC abolished.
Your normal may be different to my normal.
I wouldn’t abolish the license fee. Modify to include any tv, streaming included, but the fess just becomes a commissioning service. Any tv production company can bid for the show.
That’s normal.
That's normal too.
I’d give something like 5% of the current BBC budget to DCMS, in a similar way to how PBS works in the US, to commission cultural, religious, educational and ad-free kids programmes that the market wouldn’t otherwise make. Any production company can bid to make these programmes.
Of course if you don't believe in the value of a national broadcaster then you're not going to care. But if you do then there are no easy alternatives to what we currently have. BTW for all the talk about how the licence fee is outdated for modern consumption of media, most people opposed to the licence fee were probably against it 20 years ago or longer.
The license fee is like high street business rates, a tax that only makes sense before the internet changed everything.
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1229143173584375808?s=20
The focus on broadcasting is the wrong answer to the wrong question. What should matter more is content. The BBC makes a small amount of decent content but then fills time with an abundance of pretty shit content in order to fill up the broadcasting slots.