Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm also a bit peeved at the rubbish we have to pay for. Why? It's unbelievable value for what is paid. Why do we still have to pay,by law ,for something most people simply dont want and dont need these days Because the vast majority of the populace realise what excellent value it is, and enjoy it's output. Iv'e personnaly never watched Eastenders but believe this is the only programme that cannot be seen on any other channel. Unless of course you include BBC2/3/4/HD/all the radio and their website. News -sports-documentries-films etc etc can all be seen without been forced to purchase the licence fee. For more though. F1 being a perfect example, on Sky it's more expensive, and that's just one program. Scrap it,there are adverts currently been shown on BBC every hour for their own channels,this just a way to use up airtime,this is what we are forced to pay for:rant: You're right, it is a rant, with very little substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yep I'm disgusted that they churn out crap like Eastenders.. not sure if the whole corp warrants scrapping for that though. I still can't figure out what all the kerfuffle is about, the BBC run a story.. for which they had a witness, they don't name anybody in said story.. but because the interweb is having it's usual dose of the unsubstantiated McCarthy's about something or other they get the blame.. seems like convenient 'noise' to wash over something else if you ask me.. It seems libel/defamation law covers this scenario - you don't need to name someone to libel them, merely provide sufficient information for them to be identified. In the age of the world wide web its not hard to type "tory 1980's aide paedo" into google and find all sorts of websites, including ones naming the person who may now sue them. The BBC lawyers should have advised this to the program and recommended not to broadcast it? However it seems (according to ST) since one of the non-BBC people involved in the news piece had tweeted they would reveal the name, they felt they had no choice but to broadcast or get accused of covering another scandal up which everyone now knew they had information on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDINNERS Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Why? It's unbelievable value for what is p Because the vast majority of the populace realise what excellent value it is, and enjoy it's output. Unless of course you include BBC2/3/4/HD/all the radio and their website. For more though. F1 being a perfect example, on Sky it's more expensive, and that's just one program. You're right, it is a rant, with very little substance. as stated in my original post,all these programmes are available on other channels. Please explain why we are forced to purchase a licence fee ,which supports only the BBC. If people dont want to watch or listen to BBC they shouldn't have to pay for the service Its robbery, but legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I assume you're in agreement with the e-petition? What biased programming is the bbeb guilty of? If you search for the name of the petition starter, he appears to have stood for UKIP in council elections - so probably something to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The BBC is a grade A organisation. Can you imagine any other network broadcasting a 30 minute documentary on it's own failings so soon after an event like BBC did with the panorama programme 'Jimmy Savile - What the BBC Knew' a few weeks ago? As broadcasting organisations go it really doesn't get more open than that. Can you imagine ITV or SKY doing that? Or even channel 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The BBC is a grade A organisation. Can you imagine any other network broadcasting a 30 minute documentary on it's own failings so soon after an event like BBC did with the panorama programme 'Jimmy Savile - What the BBC Knew' a few weeks ago? As broadcasting organisations go it really doesn't get more open than that. Can you imagine ITV or SKY doing that? Or even channel 4? I'm not aware that any of those other broadcasters are accused of facilitating decades of child abuse. Or indeed falsely accusing innocent people of being child abusers without any evidence. Perhaps if the BBC didn't keep making such a hash of things it wouldn't need to run so many "Panorama investigates Newnights investigation into the 6 o'clock News" type mea culpa shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm not aware that any of those other broadcasters are accused of facilitating decades of child abuse. I'm not aware that (apart from you) accusing them of "facilitating" child sex abuse, or even simply abuse. Or indeed falsely accusing innocent people of being child abusers without any evidence. No evidence apart from a witness statement, true Perhaps if the BBC didn't keep making such a hash of things it wouldn't need to run so many "Panorama investigates Newnights investigation into the 6 o'clock News" type mea culpa shows. How many "mea culpa" shows has it run? What other organisation investigates itself so publicly and quickly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Is it not a state run broadcasting company, I am sure there are people who think it Is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm not aware that any of those other broadcasters are accused of facilitating decades of child abuse. Or indeed falsely accusing innocent people of being child abusers without any evidence.My point was based on a hypothetical, as I'm sure you knew but chose to ignore. Do you think that, were it ITV who Saville had worked for, that they would have run a documentary like that so close to the event? Do you think they'd run a documentary like that even a few years afterwards? I don't, it would never get made. In fact I can't think of any other broadcasting organisation in the world that would do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 as stated in my original post,all these programmes are available on other channels. Please explain why we are forced to purchase a licence fee ,which supports only the BBC. If people dont want to watch or listen to BBC they shouldn't have to pay for the service Its robbery, but legal Because without the licence fee there would have been no infrastructre in place to send and receive television signals. Because without the licence fee the upkeep and maintenance of said broadcast and recieving equipment would not happen and there would be no tv. Because without the licence fee the commercial channels would not provide any news output, as under their public service charter, as they ALL take a cut from it. Because without the licence fee there would be no bbc local radio, specialist services i.e. AD and subtitling, no online or iplayer services. Because without the licence fee FREEVIEW and all other digital terrestrial services would not exist. Yep, Licence payer monies go into this as well. Because without the licence fee half of the digital channels (inc SKY) would not actually have any contents to go to air with. Look how many ex-bbc productions are currently rebroadcast all over sky and cable television. For the final time THE LICENCE FEE IS FOR MORE THAN JUST BBC TELEVISION!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.