BBC Scaremongering again

[Phil Pascoe]

I hear and understand with what you are saying, which if I read right is: "if i don't use the service, regardless value, why should I pay for it?"
From my limited understanding, there is the choice not to use it and therefor not to pay for it by simply telling them you don't watch live tv.

That is exactly the point. If you watch live TV other than the BBC you still need a BBC licence. The BBC licence might have been perfectly fair when the BBC was the only channel, but that was decades ago.

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

I think it shows Sky have absolutely no idea what to do. McDonalds don't sell cars to promote drive thru? National Trust selling shoes, and only allowing those with their shoes in?

Are Sky preventing customers from using 3rd party displays, or preventing their telly from viewing other content sources?

 

[flying haggis]

At a couple of quid a week, its pretty decent value ...

Not if you are forced to pay it when you wish to watch something else, it isn't.

bit like being forced to buy a copy of the times when you only wanted the daily express (other "newspapers" are available)

 

[flying haggis]

It wouldn't make the slightest difference if funded by govt. with no licence scheme but a tax rise instead; it's already controlled by govt, with an associated particular form of taxation.

except that if the bbc was govt funded directly you can be sure that the amount of money they were given would NEVER be enough in their eyes and would be a lot lot more than they get now from the outdated licence fee

 

[Jacob]

except that if the bbc was govt funded directly you can be sure that the amount of money they were given would NEVER be enough in their eyes and would be a lot lot more than they get now from the outdated licence fee

It is already funded directly. See previous post. "Hypothecated" just means a tax collected to match the cost of a service. It all goes into the Consolidated Fund and comes out of it again, it doesn't go into a separate biscuit tin and it's all controlled by government.

 

[southendwoodworker]

That is exactly the point. If you watch live TV other than the BBC you still need a BBC licence. The BBC licence might have been perfectly fair when the BBC was the only channel, but that was decades ago.

Genuine question: does the bbc licence fund infrastructure that the other providers use to deliver the signal to you? If so, the licence seems fair, if not, I understand your perspective.

 

[Droogs]

The Licence is NOT for permission to watch the BBC but for permission to OPERATE a device capable of receiving broadcast transmissions by what ever means from a transmittiing station operating according to a prepublished schedule. If something is published to be broadcast at 8pm from sky/bbc/Euronews/R1/CapitalFM etc and you use a device to observe that broadcast as it is transmitted then you require a licence. If all you do is use hulu/netflix/nowtv on demand services you do not require a licence.

 

[Cordy]

With all the hype in the media about possible shortages over the festive season resulting in panic buying,

I suggest that it might be a good idea for men to bring their Christmas shopping forward to the 23rd December

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Genuine question: does the bbc licence fund infrastructure that the other providers use to deliver the signal to you? If so, the licence seems fair, if not, I understand your perspective.

"Alongside the BBC Charter is an agreement between the BBC and the government under which the government agrees to pay to the BBC out of money provided by Parliament sums up to an amount equal to the net licence revenue. In return, the BBC agrees to do a number of things including not spending the money on a TV, radio or online service which is wholly or partly funded by advertisements, subscription, sponsorship, pay-per-view or any other alternative means of finance.
In other words, at the heart of the funding arrangements for the BBC, there is a deal. The BBC gets the proceeds of the licence fee and in return it agrees not to compete with other broadcasters for funding from advertising or subscription.
If there were no such deal and, say, the BBC took advertising, the balance of supply and demand in the sale of advertising airtime would change. Prices would fall and the revenue of ITV, Channel Four and other advertising-funded broadcasters would also fall - that was the lesson taught by the Peacock Report in 1986 on financing the BBC.
Peacock showed that if the BBC were to take advertising, an increase in the volume of television advertising would lead to a decline in advertising expenditure and losses for ITV."

 

[Trainee neophyte]

What offends me most about the BBC is the outright lying. They are merely a propaganda outlet for the UK government, which wouldn't be quite so bad except that the UK government is an insane, warmongering monster (I don't mean Boris, who couldn't find his arris with both hands and and map, but the entire "establishment" that exists to profit from war.

Example du jour: I watched the BBC world news bulletin about Lebanon and the sniper chaos, and it was reasonably clear that Hezbolla was responsible, if not directly accused (fog of war and all that). I do a bit of reading, and quickly discover that it was actually a right wing Christian group responsible, diametrically opposed to Hezbolla. Also not mentioned it's that insane Empire Viceroy, Victoria Newland, just happened to be in the country - obviously handing out her trademark cookies and snipers just the way she did in the Ukraine. Clearly purely coincidental and not worth reporting.

That was just yesterday's offering - standard slanted, propaganda fare; business as usual. An MP stabbing today - I wonder what slanted reporting, ommissions and outright lies will be part of the coverage? Even worse, they could be entirely factual and honest, and I wouldn't believe a word of it because their credibility is in shreds.

 

[Jacob]

What offends me most about the BBC is the outright lying. They are merely a propaganda outlet for the UK government, which wouldn't be quite so bad except that the UK government is an insane, warmongering monster (I don't mean Boris, who couldn't find his arris with both hands and and map, but the entire "establishment" that exists to profit from war.

Example du jour: I watched the BBC world news bulletin about Lebanon and the sniper chaos, and it was reasonably clear that Hezbolla was responsible, if not directly accused (fog of war and all that). I do a bit of reading, and quickly discover that it was actually a right wing Christian group responsible, diametrically opposed to Hezbolla.

How do you know that is true? (I've no opinion either way)

Also not mentioned it's that insane Empire Viceroy, Victoria Newland, just happened to be in the country - obviously handing out her trademark cookies and snipers just the way she did in the Ukraine. Clearly purely coincidental and not worth reporting.

But that would be another story?

That was just yesterday's offering - standard slanted, propaganda fare; business as usual. An MP stabbing today - I wonder what slanted reporting, ommissions and outright lies will be part of the coverage? Even worse, they could be entirely factual and honest, and I wouldn't believe a word of it because their credibility is in shreds.

They have an establishment bias - Laura Kuenssberg being number one - Corbyn would never get a fair hearing. But otherwise generally fairly neutral, in a boring and unsatisfactory way.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

How do you know that is true? (I've no opinion either way)

And there's the rub: do we believe Aunt Beeb because she tells us repeatedly she is right and honest and fair and impartial, or do we believe other, foreign news services who are therefore untrustworthy by defininition but have diametrically opposite imformation? Or do you try and apply logic: why did Hezbolla kill their own protestors? How do they gain from that?

But that would be another story

It would be integral to the current "story": Ukrainian protestors killed by snipers, Lebanese protestors killed by snipers, and the connecting link is Victoria Newland - government change using violence and murder, as practiced by US "special" agencies. By the way, I tell stories to children, and they often contain fantastical, made up events. Give me provable, verifiable facts over opinion and "stories" any day.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I wonder why the BBC hasn't said that the murderer (alleged, but they're not looking for anyone else) of Sir David Amess is Somalian? They are rather choosy, aren't they? If he were a British, white, heterosexual middle aged male they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

[Jacob]

I wonder why the BBC hasn't said that the murderer (alleged, but they're not looking for anyone else) of Sir David Amess is Somalian? They are rather choosy, aren't they? If he were a British, white, heterosexual middle aged male they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Other way around I think.
Find an evil-doing black person, muslim, Romanian, traveller, immigrant, unemployed mother on benefits, etc and the tendency is to shout it from the roof tops that these people are evil.
But in fact in general terrorism in UK and USA is a far more serious threat coming from the white right-wing nutter fringe.
The BBC has to be a bit discrete in order not to over-excite the right-wing loons.
In any case it's too soon to start the blame game.
Amess seemed a very harmless, well meaning and amiable chap (for a tory) and it's a very sad event.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I could have written your reply for you and saved you the bother.

 

[Jacob]

I could have written your reply for you and saved you the bother.

Similarly with Jo Cox - you could blame the BNP etc for their influence on unstable minds but you wouldn't collectively blame the people of Kilmarnock. The slow-burning hatred that led Thomas Mair to murder Jo Cox
Hope that helps.

 

[doctor Bob]

Whatever happened, whoever did it, it's an absolute tragedy. It really stopped me in my tracks today, he was just doing his job, apparently he was quite good at it, well liked and a good family man. Whatever your politics, it's irrelevant, a man was killed doing his job. I think the level of threat is understandable in the forces or police but an MP, it now seems like a very dangerous job given the 3-4 previous attacks.

 

[woodieallen]

Similarly with Jo Cox - you could blame the BNP etc for their influence on unstable minds but you wouldn't collectively blame the people of Kilmarnock. The slow-burning hatred that led Thomas Mair to murder Jo Cox
Hope that helps.

Oh. come on, Jacob.. A Guardian article ? That's simply bias but in a different direction.

Talking about the bias of broadcasters, if you really want to see bias then look no further than the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling folk at Channel 4 News.

 

[Jacob]

Oh. come on, Jacob.. A Guardian article ? That's simply bias but in a different direction.

Fairy factual I thought

Talking about the bias of broadcasters, if you really want to see bias then look no further than the hand-wringing, virtue-signalling folk at Channel 4 News.

So the right don't like C4news?
Good to know, I always thought C4news was fairly intelligent.
Being accused of "virtue signalling" is a commendation - it means they are irritating the right people.
I guess that's why they are being privatised.

 

[woodieallen]

Fairy factual I thought.....

Whether or not it is factual is dictated by ones own predisposition to accept whether it is or is not fact.

That you like Channel 4 only shows that 'confirmation bias' is alive and kicking !