The Impartiality Of The BBC.

[cgksheff]

........

Does IITV disproportionately target women to pay it's marketing costs,

........

 

Yes. If you look at the target audience for ITV advertising you will see that this is so.

[Guest]

and its not free either, which was what was brought up

 

I suppose EVERYTHING is paid by us all indirectly, but that is not the same as a separate fee/tax specifically for ITV enforcably paid by us all.

 

You are risibly trying to claim that we all pay for ITV just like the BBC?

[Car Boot]

Yes. If you look at the target audience for ITV advertising you will see that this is so.

 

I'd have thought the advertisers wanted young, affluent people to sell their cars and alcohol to?

 

Is the target audience for advertising on ITV low income women surviving on benefits? This is the group the BBC targets the most for its income.

[El Cid]

I'd have thought the advertisers wanted young, affluent people to sell their cars and alcohol to?

 

Is the target audience for advertising on ITV low income women surviving on benefits? This is the group the BBC targets the most for its income.

 

There are around two million single parents – they make up a quarter of families with dependent children, 68% of them work.

 

That is a very small audience!

 

https://www.gingerbread.org.uk/policy-campaigns/publications-index/statistics/

[Magilla]

I'd have thought .....

 

And therein lies the problem, and why most of your posts are shown to be, at best, misleading.

 

Most sane people, from reading your posts on here, can plainly see that what you think rarely equates to reality in any given situation.

 

Is this any different, can't be bothered to look but on past performance, probably not.

[I1L2T3]

I suppose EVERYTHING is paid by us all indirectly, but that is not the same as a separate fee/tax specifically for ITV enforcably paid by us all.

 

You are risibly trying to claim that we all pay for ITV just like the BBC?

 

Not just like the BBC, but we all pay for it. Just indirectly because the advertising costs of a product are passed on to consumers in the final price of a product.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2017 at 14:00 ----------

 

you're not a BBC employee by any chance are you?

 

ITV is not directly funded by an enforceable fee like the BBC.

 

I’m not arguing that. Just stating the simple fact that ITV is not free.

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2017 at 14:04 ----------

 

Are you saying that ITV can send large men to my apartment to check if I'm using a product that is advertised on their channel? And then demand money with menaces from me, as the public sector broadcaster the BBC does, if I do?

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2017 at 09:30 ----------

 

 

Does ITV disproportionately target women to pay it's marketing costs, like the BBC?

 

Does ITV threaten people with a home visit, large fine and criminal prosecution if they don't pay it any money? As the BBC does?

 

I’m just correcting your idea that ITV is free.

 

It’s nothing of the sort.

 

ITV has advertising revenue of £3bn a year. That’s £46 a person on average, or £106 per household on average. That £106 will be passed on in the price of practically everything you buy. It’s not free.

[ANGELFIRE1]

So you would like the BBC to regulate the audience to get equal left/right numbers, leave/remain numbers, black/white numbers and male/female numbers - that is not how it works.

 

Did any vote leavers want to go onto QT and say how great things are going - no.

 

 

I think if a TV programme discusses a hot topic the "celebrities" on the panel should reflect some kind of impartiality.

 

For instance, if you make leaving the EU one of the major discussion points, I suggest that a representative panel would be 2 remoaners, 2 leavers and one who maybe has not made their mind up either way.

 

As for the audience, I made no reference to them in my op. But I think the Producers of the show should at least try to get a very diverse group of people, as it does make a better programme.

 

Angel1.

[Car Boot]

And therein lies the problem, and why most of your posts are shown to be, at best, misleading.

 

Most sane people, from reading your posts on here, can plainly see that what you think rarely equates to reality in any given situation.

 

Is this any different, can't be bothered to look but on past performance, probably not.

 

The reality of the BBC is this:

 

The use of criminal law (at the demand of the BBC) unfairly stigmatises those who cannot afford to pay the TV tax. BBC TV licence fee evaders (mostly women) are sent to prison every year for not being able to afford the large fines. The overwhelming majority of prosecutions are brought against women and those on low incomes.

 

The total number of BBC TV licence fee evasion prosecutions brought to court in 2013 was 178,332, which represented 11.5% of all Magistrates’ Court cases in that year.

 

In 2014, 70% of people prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion were women.

 

Why does the BBC dislike women so much?

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2017 at 20:37 ----------

 

So instead you will end up wasting tax payers money by being put up at Her Majesty's pleasure. Somewhat hypocritical don't you think? Of course if you have got rid of your TV, radio and don't watch any online services except for Netflix via a laptop then crack on but somehow I suspect you do a lot of talking about how rubbish the world is, but next to nothing to actually improve it, especially if it's something that inconveniences you like not watching the Beebs excellent dramas.

 

38 people were imprisoned in England and Wales in 2015 after being fined for not being able to afford to pay the BBC TV licence fee.

 

20 of those locked up were women.

 

So 53 per cent of the total number of people sent to prison that year for the crime of being too poor to fund the BBC were women.

 

By comparison, women make up just 4.5 per cent of the prison population.

 

Why does the BBC demand that women are sent to prison if they simply can't afford to pay for its poor quality "excellent dramas"?

Edited December 2, 2017 by Car Boot

[melthebell]

The reality of the BBC is this:

 

The use of criminal law (at the demand of the BBC) unfairly stigmatises those who cannot afford to pay the TV tax. BBC TV licence fee evaders (mostly women) are sent to prison every year for not being able to afford the large fines. The overwhelming majority of prosecutions are brought against women and those on low incomes.

 

The total number of BBC TV licence fee evasion prosecutions brought to court in 2013 was 178,332, which represented 11.5% of all Magistrates’ Court cases in that year.

 

In 2014, 70% of people prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion were women.

 

Why does the BBC dislike women so much?

 

---------- Post added 02-12-2017 at 20:37 ----------

 

 

38 people were imprisoned in England and Wales in 2015 after being fined for not being able to afford to pay the BBC TV licence fee.

 

20 of those locked up were women.

 

So 53 per cent of the total number of people sent to prison that year for the crime of being too poor to fund the BBC were women.

 

By comparison, women make up just 4.5 per cent of the prison population.

 

Why does the BBC demand that women are sent to prison if they simply can't afford to pay for its poor quality "excellent dramas"?

so in 2015 2 extra women were locked up? not a massive ratio really is it?

just means more women were caught, why is that? more women spend time at home maybe, so the tvs on more? so a greater chance of being caught? its not rocket science, must try harder

[Magilla]

Why does the BBC dislike women so much?

 

It doesn't, that is entirely in your weird twisted head.

 

Like all the guff you posted here....

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1517398

 

..pure fantasy.