Home cinema - BBC3 DOGS

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- UK digital tv (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - BBC3 DOGS (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=48746)

Heracles Pollux wrote:
I will not PAY the BBC whilst it places DOG **** on my picture.

Yes, but that's because you are yourself an especially malodorous thieving
piece of ****. For the uninitiated, here is a list (not exhaustive) of
Bollux's previously professed reasons for not paying his licence fee:

1) He's a patriotic Englishman fighting to free the nation from the tyranny
of the BBC - a sort of latter-day resistance fighter.

2) Many of the TV channels use DOGs. He hates DOGs, and he's not paying for
them.

3) He doesn't watch the BBC anyway.

4) He does watch the BBC, but it's mostly crap and he's not paying for it.
And it has DOGs.

5) He only watches recorded TV so he doesn't need a licence.

6) They can't catch him anyway.

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen and
my brain is too much to bear.

A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with the
person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome to
write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject. However
this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of subjects.
As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform their
roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs staff
to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication is
broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can be
briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice

=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins

They really are a charming lot !

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying they
will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people
are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing
this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows the mentality
that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root out
all
the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them up against a
wall, and have them shot.

Luddite
Joe

"Hawkins" wrote in message
...

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen
and my brain is too much to bear.

Its also subliminal advertising so is technically illegal.

A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with
the person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome
to write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject.
However this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint
about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of
subjects. As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform
their roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs
staff to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication
is broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can
be briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

TOSSER

regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice

=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins

They really are a charming lot !

Joe wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote:
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying
they will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough
people are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop
doing this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research
showing that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows
the mentality that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root
out all the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them up
against a wall, and have them shot.

Luddite

A man clearly unfamiliar with the meaning of that epithet...

Either that, or a man whose cerebral faculties have become so atrophied by
years of watching mindless drivel that he has been rendered incapable of
remembering what channel he is watching...

"Hawkins" wrote in message
...

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen
and my brain is too much to bear.

A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with
the person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome
to write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject.
However this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint
about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of
subjects. As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform
their roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs
staff to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication
is broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can
be briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice

=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins

They really are a charming lot !

I've had the same from the Martyn Culling tosser.

The fact that I've complained about the BBC's DOGs for 8 years and the
problem has not been resolved leaves me feeling fully justified in no longer
paying for their services which I do not want nor accept.

**** 'em if that's their attitude to their fee paying customers.

I wish them good luck in dealing with the general public when they lose
their right to use coercion.

Pyriform wrote:

Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously

It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:

"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to ensure
that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC
service." (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news...1/16746.shtml).

HTH

"Time To Burn" writes:

It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:

"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to ensure
that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC
service."

How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which station
is transmitting it.

Anyway, with my DTT box when I change channels the decoder puts both
station and programme information on screen for a few seconds. I
believe that this is normal practice for all digital TV decoders. If
ever I want to check which channel I am watching, I can just look down
slightly and see the channel number displayed on the decoder or press
the 'i' button on the remote which not only shows the channel but also
details of the current programme.

"Judy Booth" wrote in message
...

Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

The BBC must have bucket loads of complaints and by keeping the DOGs going
you can see what they think about the viewers.

I guess when anologue goes they will be on BBC 1 and 2 as well.
(same goes for ITV1, CH4 ans FIVE.)
--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group