On BBC Breakfast today

Typical BBC presenters who have their brains up their rectums are trying
to say that an Ipod (screen the size of 4 postage stamps) might well
replace the TV (screen size up to enormous). In any case there is no way
an Ipod can receive broadcast TV programs.
Quite a lot of the BBC presnters seem to think they are talking at a
load of cretins. And this is from the BBC who want a HUGE increase in
licence fee.
Today's special idiot is Dermot Murnaghan.
Regards Mike.

In article , says...
Typical BBC presenters who have their brains up their rectums are trying
to say that an Ipod (screen the size of 4 postage stamps) might well
replace the TV (screen size up to enormous). In any case there is no way
an Ipod can receive broadcast TV programs.
Quite a lot of the BBC presnters seem to think they are talking at a
load of cretins. And this is from the BBC who want a HUGE increase in
licence fee.
Today's special idiot is Dermot Murnaghan



I take very little notice of them.

Anyway if the video Ipod is as bad as te other Ipods, then I would not
even touch it.

I will stick with my little Minidisk player, ok so it do not play
videos, but I like to see where I am going when I am walking.

I can't bring myself to watch that programme, it really is the very
worst of the BBC. I could *just* about suffer feeble journalism and
ignorance on a commercial station (although I can't think that Sky News
or ITN are as consistently rubbish) but on the BBC it's an utter
disgrace. The only decent news programme offered by the Beeb is on
World Service. And that's not even funded by the "telly tax" (it is
paid for out of the Home Office budget)

On 13 Oct 2005, Madge O'Reene wrote

The only decent news programme offered by the Beeb is on World
Service. And that's not even funded by the "telly tax" (it is paid
for out of the Home Office budget)

(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget.

(/pedant mode)



--
Cheers,
Harvey

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005, Madge O'Reene wrote

The only decent news programme offered by the Beeb is on World
Service. And that's not even funded by the "telly tax" (it is paid
for out of the Home Office budget)

(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget.

(/pedant mode)

(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget ONLY for BBC World Service Radio, the WS TV is
funded 'commercially'.

(/pedant mode)

Mark Carver wrote:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget.

(/pedant mode)

(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget ONLY for BBC World Service Radio, the WS TV is
funded 'commercially'.

(/pedant mode)

*****

Good game!

pedant

Foreign *& Commonwealth* Office

/pedant

;-)

André Coutanche

Andr=E9 Coutanche wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget.

(/pedant mode)

(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget ONLY for BBC World Service Radio, the WS TV is
funded 'commercially'.

(/pedant mode)

*****

Good game!

pedant

Foreign *& Commonwealth* Office

/pedant

;-)

Andr=E9 Coutanche


Oi, don't flame me ! can't you tell it was only a glitch with Google
Groups ;-)

"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
Typical BBC presenters who have their brains up their rectums are trying
to say that an Ipod (screen the size of 4 postage stamps) might well
replace the TV (screen size up to enormous). In any case there is no way
an Ipod can receive broadcast TV programs.

At what point do you need a TV licence? Would you need one for example to see
the programmes which the BBC are to make available on the internet?


--

Michael Chare

"Harvey Van Sickle" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2005, Madge O'Reene wrote

The only decent news programme offered by the Beeb is on World
Service. And that's not even funded by the "telly tax" (it is paid
for out of the Home Office budget)

(pedant mode)

Foreign Office budget.

(/pedant mode)



--
Cheers,
Harvey

And the F&C office get THEIR money from ?....

regards
ted

ted msn asked

And the F&C office get THEIR money from ?....

General taxation, which you may see as more or less fair than
collecting money through a licence fee. Personally, I welcome the fact
that WS doesn't blindly chase audience figures or try to replicate
programming from commercial stations. If this is how the BBC can be
made different (superior?) to commercial programming, then this should
be how it is funded. It's ironic, however, that they seems to be more
independant and less likely to pander to the government of the day.
Certainly, their reporting contains much less editorialisation and
trusts the listener to make judgements, rather than relying on
"celebrities" who can read out loud (TV news readers). Although I'll
grant you that quality seems to have dropped since Blair and Campbell
put their pals at the top.