1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

"Stewart Smith" wrote in message
...
Arfur Million wrote:
Stewart Smith wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
(Does a quick google). OK then, let me rephrase that. I notice that you
even include a cookery programme for children - is this what the
licence fee is for?

If it's educational then yes, definitely. I think teaching kids about
real food is an extremely laudable thing to do.


In that case, it should surely be funded out of the education budget,
ie from general taxation? (That's assuming that it's worthwhile doing
on TV in the first place.)


So should the license fee only fund programs that you personally approve
of

Not at all - I am arguing against the very existence of the licence fee, so
that viewers can vote with their feet. Why wouldn't you want a laudable and
worthwhile educational programme funded from the education budget?

or should it fund programs which meet the BBC's founding principle to
inform, educate and entertain?


Well, that could be (and is) used to justify virtually any programme that
they broadcast.

Regards,
Arfur

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.
You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?

quote

Sentences which describe a question [ i.e. are a reference to a question
- see above ] but do not directly ask a question are called indirect
questions. They do not take a question mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Try taking a look in the mirror, eh loser ?

A question referred to is not a question.

It's called an "indirect question".

....and is not punctuated like a direct one.

I find it rather strange that you should never have heard of
"indirect" questions.

Your premise is seriously flawed.

Or rather I would have done had I not read some of the other
material you post.

Really?

Honestly, you should have quit while you were ahead. I gave you the
chance.

So to you, honesty consists in vainly trying to deny the existence of
indirect questions then, does it?

Silly boy.

You should have quit while you were ahead.

Arfur Million wrote:
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

In article .com,
Arfur Million wrote:

Stewart Smith wrote:

Arfur Million wrote:

(Does a quick google). OK then, let me rephrase that. I notice that
you
even include a cookery programme for children - is this what the
licence fee is for?

If it's educational then yes, definitely. I think teaching kids about
real food is an extremely laudable thing to do.

In that case, it should surely be funded out of the education budget,
ie from general taxation? (That's assuming that it's worthwhile doing
on TV in the first place.)

My opinion of you is rapidly going downhill - and you started in the
basement.


Ah, back to insults . . .

....it's what they all revert to when they realise they've run out of
arguments. At least Cartmell has a few of those up his sleeve and doesn't
need to go nuclear as quickly as some others do.

JNugent wrote:
Jerry:::: wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

snip

Yes Mr Murdoch you are so right, how did we ever manage without
you...

What on Earth did you snip?

What is the point of your completely opaque post?

It's not opaque at all. He's implying that you are Rupert Murdoch
incarnate...

[That's not my position, incidentally. Despite the fact that I profoundly
disagree with most of what *you* say, I find it uncomfortable to be arguing
on the same side as Jerry and therefore dissociate myself from most of what
*he* says!]

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.
You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?

quote

Sentences which describe a question [ i.e. are a reference to a
question
- see above ] but do not directly ask a question are called indirect
questions. They do not take a question mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Try taking a look in the mirror, eh loser ?

A question referred to is not a question.

It's called an "indirect question".

...and is not punctuated like a direct one.

Exactly

__________________________________________________ ____________________

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
JNugent wrote:

Where's the question?

My mistake.

There is a question there, though it is not punctuated as a question.

__________________________________________________ _____________________



Silly boy.

You should have quit while you were ahead.


I'm even further ahead now, given that you've now flat contradicted
yourself.


michael adams



perm any 7 from 14 -

fish, hoist, barrel, a, shooting, log, falling, off, petard, with,
in, easy, as, with

....

Pyriform wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Jerry:::: wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

snip

Yes Mr Murdoch you are so right, how did we ever manage without
you...

What on Earth did you snip?

What is the point of your completely opaque post?


It's not opaque at all. He's implying that you are Rupert Murdoch
incarnate...

[That's not my position, incidentally. Despite the fact that I profoundly
disagree with most of what *you* say, I find it uncomfortable to be arguing
on the same side as Jerry and therefore dissociate myself from most of what
*he* says!]

I see... I think..

michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...

michael adams wrote:


"JNugent" wrote:

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.
You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?

quote

Sentences which describe a question [ i.e. are a reference to a

question

- see above ] but do not directly ask a question are called indirect
questions. They do not take a question mark.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Try taking a look in the mirror, eh loser ?

A question referred to is not a question.

It's called an "indirect question".

...and is not punctuated like a direct one.


Exactly

__________________________________________________ ____________________

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

JNugent wrote:


Where's the question?

My mistake.

There is a question there, though it is not punctuated as a question.


__________________________________________________ _____________________

Exactly.

I retracted what I had written.

But you insisted that I was right first time.

Silly billy.

Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Java Jive wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

BTW, where's the US equivalent of the BBC? Where do we buy a lot of
the best programmes on TV from?

Certainly not from the US. There's *nothing* made for US TV that I
watch. the nearest I come to it is joint-funded ventures made by the
BBC.

You may not like US TV, but US series are frequently successful in
the UK.

But you were claiming by juxtaposition that because there is no
equivalent of the BBC in the US and because the US is the source of
many of the programmes on our main channels, that there is no need
for the BBC licence fee to maintain the standard of Public Service
Broadcasting, but that's a complete non-sequitur.


You misinterpreted my point, which was that, IIRC, people were laughably
claiming that the BBC would somehow stop making programmes, or the
programmes they do make would inevitably be **** quality - THAT does not
follow, and IIRC I gave the example of HBO, which makes good series (whether
you like them or not is immaterial if millions of people think they're good
quality series), and HBO makes content for cable subscription services.


The US sourced offerings on our main channels are all populist (and
IMO crap, but that's not the point).


I don't see how you can call some of the US drama series "populist" - some
you can, but some you can't.


AFAIAA there is *no*
non-populist PSB-style US-sourced programming on the our channels.


Six Feet Under isn't populist. The Sopranos isn't populist.


So, if we follow the American business model, where is PSB going to
come from?


Funded by general taxation and made free-to-air, preferably, and then the
rest of BBC TV can be subscription.


And the only US-UK joint venture that springs to mind is Rome, that
I found to be tripe.

I suggest that next time you look more closely at the final credits
in many of the BBC's wildlife documentary series, many are
co-productions, commonly with The Discovery Channel, eg: 'Planet
Earth'.


But don't forget Rome, which was crap.


No, advertising increases the likelihood that you'll get lowest
common denominator ********, whereas subscription increases the
likelihood that you will watch fantastic programmes.

Looking at the current subscription alternative(s), where is your
evidence for that?

I'm actually drawing off an example in radio, because in the US
they've got subscription-based satellite digital radio systems (XM
and Sirius) which provide for every niche imaginable, whereas on an
ad-funded system the majority of the channels would never see the
light of day.

A) That's radio, we're talking TV, and ...


No, it's still applicable, because it's the "subscription model" as opposed
to the "advertising model".


B) That's America, this is here, and the US programming
environment is very different to ours.

I'm not saying that it can't work here, but the evidence so far is
overwhelmingly that it won't,


Sky is a subscription service, and like it or not, it's very successful in
terms of the number of subscriptions and it does provide a very wide range
of channels.


so I want to see it work here first
before I agree to the BBC going down that road.

Also, HBO
apparently takes more risks than it would do if it only sold to
ad-funded TV networks because it sells series to cable
(subscription) networks in the US.

Name at least one, preferably several, HBO programme(s) that has/ve
been shown on British TV that those of us here might have seen and
can therefore express an opinion about.


Look at the first paragraph on he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO

You may not like some of these series, but they've proved to be *very*
popular with UK audiences, and they're certainly not all populist.


I think it does stand to reason that subscription-funded TV or radio
is far more likely to provide programming that ad-funded TV and
radio wouldn't provide.

But it doesn't stand to reason that it will provide a better PSB
alternative than the BBC. In fact the evidence so far is that it
won't.


I think it would be best to have 1 BBC TV channel devoted to true public
service broadcasting, like News, current affairs, religion etc and have that
FTA and paid for out of general taxation, then make the rest
subscription-funded.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

DAB sounds worse than FM goes:

Then I think the time has come to say goodbye to Mr Adams, who is
undoubtedly one of the most unintelligent and angry people on Usenet.

*plonk*

You have a serious hostility problem towards anyone who argues better
than you do. Which by my reckoning, to date, is everyone.

Maybe instead of lashing out right and left, you need to develop
better intellectual skills.

Something to look into, perhaps.


--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com

In article ,
Arfur Million wrote:
"Stewart Smith" wrote in message
...
Arfur Million wrote:
Stewart Smith wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
(Does a quick google). OK then, let me rephrase that. I notice that you
even include a cookery programme for children - is this what the
licence fee is for?

If it's educational then yes, definitely. I think teaching kids about
real food is an extremely laudable thing to do.


In that case, it should surely be funded out of the education budget,
ie from general taxation? (That's assuming that it's worthwhile doing
on TV in the first place.)


So should the license fee only fund programs that you personally approve
of

Not at all - I am arguing against the very existence of the licence fee, so
that viewers can vote with their feet. Why wouldn't you want a laudable and
worthwhile educational programme funded from the education budget?

Because sticking it in a slot marked 'education' would nullify much of its
purpose and it would simply cost far more produced that way and have far less
effect. The BBC has its purpose and it does it well. It does it far, far
better than anyone else and at a far lower cost than anyone might hope for.
That doesn't mean that we are satisfied with it as it exists and there is much
that can (and should) be done to improve it. What isn't appropriate is the
idea that you are pushing as that is one thing guaranteed to destroy the whole
lot.

or should it fund programs which meet the BBC's founding principle to
inform, educate and entertain?


Well, that could be (and is) used to justify virtually any programme that
they broadcast.

But some do it better than others. I simply listed a (long) list of programmes
that did meet the principles and that I might want to watch/listen to
yesterday if only I had time. I pointed out that it was easy for anyone to
make such a long list - no matter (within reason) what their interests were -
and that showed the value of the BBC.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing