1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

But you are not allowed to pay for it on a weekly basis. That is a
relevant consideration for those of us whose television needs are
rather meagre.

Your argument doesn't add up, there was until this month TVL saving
stamps, there will be a replacement savings card [1], there is
monthly direct debits, there is always the old coffee jar at the back
of the airing cupboard (OK they have to pay the first year 'up
front').

But you can get the licence on a weekly basis, you can only get a whole year
(12 month ends, to be precise) or some discount on unused quarters. You are
describing the methods available to obtain an annual licence.


[1] any saved value will be transferred to the new card.

snip
To be more precise, the government introduced a free licence for
anyone
who happened to live in the same household as an elderly person,
which
is not quite the same thing.

No, they introduced free TVL's for pensioners, they get a free TVL
regardless as to who else lives in the house.


The entire household benefits from the free licence. The younger-than-75s do
not have to pay anything.

Regards,
Arfur

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Radio and the Interenet are different arguments,

No they're not. Your 'solution' would destroy the lot.


My solution would be to make the public service parts of the BBC to be
funded from general taxation, and the rest to be subscription. The radio
stations should remain to be public service, and parts of bbc.co.uk, and
BBC1 can be free-to-air and carry public service content, and the rest
should carry the everything else on subscription.

Murdoch by stealth.
It doesn't matter how you wrap it up your proposals are designed specifically
to destroy the BBC and hand Murdoch an even better money-making machine on a
plate. He wants to catch up with Bill Gates and get direct political power as
well.

And you're intent on helping him.

--
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

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Do you use the Health Service? Last time I had major cause I was covered
by
my firm's Health Insurance and so went private. Now, I visit a doctor
about
once a year or two at most. Yet I don't complain about all the idiots who
wreck their health by smoking taking up a disproportionate slice of NHS
resources even though they pay the same NI Contributions as I do.

I am doubtful about the country's involvement in Iraq, but I don't
withhold
the percentage of my taxes needed to pay for them (though many Americans
did
just that in protest against Vietnam).

Do you use local libraries? If not, why aren't you complaining that Local
Government funding has to cover them?

Generally, there are many things that come out of the general purse that
we
don't all of us agree with or use all the time, but that's part of living
in
an egalitarian society. There may be, probably is, a serious argument for
making such taxes more *accountable*, but it would be a serious change to
our society to say that for any or all of them, people who don't agree or
use them should not have to pay for them along with everyone else.

I think that this argument shows a real divide between those who are
pro-licence and those who are anti-licence fee people. Those, or many of
those, who support the fee think why not pay for TV out of public money, if
it leads to better quality and more diverse programming. Many
anti-licencists (?), such as myself, do not accept that TV has a legitimate
reason to be funded publicly, and cannot be placed on a par with critical
services such as the NHS, education or the armed forces.

For my part, I can see the benefit of having a better-educated society, and
do not mind contributing towards the education of other people's kids (I am
not blessed with children myself). I strongly believe in a good NHS since
good health is self-evidently important, which is not to say that the NHS
spends all its money wisely. It is also a form of insurance, other people
may benefit from it now and I will benefit from it when the time comes that
I am ill - if I never have to use it then so much the better. As far as Iraq
goes, I resent every penny spent on it, but at least I am getting the same
supposed benefit as anyone else (whereas what benefit do I get from someone
else watching TV?). Television, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly about
entertainment, usually very light entertainment - and I really see no reason
why its cost should be foisted upon me when I don't use it.

I am not saying that there isn't *any* TV output that should be publicly
funded, Parliament TV and weather forecasts come to mind; or that light
entertainment should never be subsidised (for example I support the subsidy
to channel 4 to help it get started, but think that they should be
financially independent by now). There may also be an argument for the
public funding of its educational output (I believe that OU programmes were
funded out of general taxation, but may be wrong). I am saying that funding
one broadcaster out of many to provide lightweight programming to the tune
of £4 billion per annum is non-sensical, and that people should really be
paying for this out of their own pockets.

In short, anti-licencists do not believe that the (vast majority of the)
output of the BBC is important enough to be funded publicly, however high
its quality may or may not be.


Particularly, with regard to the licence fee, I've always looked to it to
provide the sort of intellectual content the BBC used to provide very
well,
but increasingly over the last 10-15 years or so seems to be failing to
provide. Consequently, I am hesitant on the issue, but I am even more
hesitant looking at the alternatives.

I see no evidence at all that subscription channels provide better
value for money, let alone any primary content I would wish to watch -
that content currently on them that I *would* wish to watch is almost
entirely repeats of what was created for and has already been shown on
terrestrial channels. And why should I have to pay a subscription *AND*
watch adverts that are an insult to my intelligence, just to watch output
consisting entirely of terrestrial repeats? Surely the first reason for
paying a sub is to get original programming, and the second is to avoid
advertising?

Nor do I see much improvement when I look across at the commercial
channels.
The only thing I watch on ITV1/2 is 'F1' and 'Creature Comforts' repeats,
ITV3 is 'Survival' and 'Raging Planet' repeats, and on ITV4 the 'Volvo
Ocean
Race' and a single dramatisation about Brinks Matt (and anyway I think
I've
seen most or all of the ITV repeats now). As for Ch4, 'Time Team' and its
repeats continue to be good, as an ex farm-worker I've always liked
'Scrapyard Wars', and there is the odd good documentary (series), eg:
those
fronted by Bettany Hughes. Channel Five seems occasionally to show some
quite good wildlife documentaries, though many are also repeats and none
compare with any of the BBC's major wildlife programming, and they also
hosted the RI Christmas Lectures last year.

But that's about it. By comparison, there is usually *something* on a BBC
radio or TV channel *every* day of the week.

So although compared with former years I don't think the BBC is doing a
very
good job with the licence fee, they could certainly be doing worse.


An interesting perspective, I find myself having to hunt for something
decent on any channel. I do not share DAB's optimism that subscription would
definitely lead to better BBC quality, but I think it could do.I believe
that the continuation of the licence fee will inevitably continue to lower
quality programming, and ulitmately resentment with the BBC for being
indistinguishable from other channels - ISTM that this is already happening.

Regards,
Arfur

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

True enough.

At least Cartmell has a few of those up his sleeve and doesn't need to go
nuclear as quickly as some others do.

His posts are a strange mixture of argument and insult.

Regards,
Arfur

In article ,
Arfur Million wrote:
His posts are a strange mixture of argument and insult.

I start off by assuming that readers are of high intelligence and goodwill.
Finding that they are conmen intent on stealing something of great value - and
pretending to do you a favour at the same time - means that it's likely that
gently persuasion won't work whilst calling them for what they are might just
do the trick.

--
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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
snip

We don't pay for the BBC directly either then, we buy a TVL, from
the
state who then fund the BBC - QED as you say...


Presumably in your ridiculous mind, the only way we'd be able to
pay the BBC
directly is if we got on a train down to Laaaaaaaaaaaaaanden, got a
tube to
the BBC and handed the money over *directly* to someone at the BBC
saying "I
want some programmes for the next 12 months, ta very much like",
took the
tube back to the train station, took the train back from
Laaaaaaaaanden, got
off and went home?


So how is paying for commercial TV through what is bought in (for
example) a supermarket any different?

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

But you are not allowed to pay for it on a weekly basis. That is
a
relevant consideration for those of us whose television needs
are
rather meagre.

Your argument doesn't add up, there was until this month TVL
saving
stamps, there will be a replacement savings card [1], there is
monthly direct debits, there is always the old coffee jar at the
back
of the airing cupboard (OK they have to pay the first year 'up
front').

But you can get the licence on a weekly basis, you can only get a
whole year
(12 month ends, to be precise) or some discount on unused quarters.
You are
describing the methods available to obtain an annual licence.

Your point being what exactly?



[1] any saved value will be transferred to the new card.

snip
To be more precise, the government introduced a free licence for
anyone
who happened to live in the same household as an elderly person,
which
is not quite the same thing.

No, they introduced free TVL's for pensioners, they get a free
TVL
regardless as to who else lives in the house.


The entire household benefits from the free licence. The
younger-than-75s do
not have to pay anything.


Your point being what exactly?

In article ,
Arfur Million wrote:
I think that this argument shows a real divide between those who are
pro-licence and those who are anti-licence fee people. Those, or many of
those, who support the fee think why not pay for TV out of public money, if
it leads to better quality and more diverse programming. Many
anti-licencists (?), such as myself, do not accept that TV has a legitimate
reason to be funded publicly, and cannot be placed on a par with critical
services such as the NHS, education or the armed forces.

Accepted as a coherent argument. And you later go on to suggest that the bits
that are educational might be so funded.

But it wouldn't work.

The only way that you'll get the whole thing to work is as a mix of inform,
educate, and entertain. Indeed the best programmes - I've discussed "Big Cook
Little Cook" do all three at once and the audience don't even notice (or
care). But the good bits work.

The trouble is (and it started this discussion) is that the BBC is criticised
if the share of its audience falls. It has to include a big (very big) dollop
of entertainment. Now I would argue strongly against lots of (needless)
dumbing down and for more intellectually challenging programmes. I'd like to
see an adult equivalent of "Big Cook Little Cook" that helped us develop an
educated citizenship with a better understanding of the world [a recent survey
showed that 30% of a random sample of adults didn't know where leather came
from - ie didn't appreciate that it indicated a dead animal]. You won't get
that education by putting on educational programmes - those that need it won't
watch it - but you do need a larger group of educated people else the stupid
will act to cause misery for the rest of us (eg not understand why
innoculation is important, you should complete a course of anti-biotics,
Murdoch isn't a nice man who wants to give you the best TV cheap, &c).

Education through TV works when it's all properly integrated and knowing and
understanding is given high status. You'll be moving in the wrong direction by
trying to split up 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

Alan Hope wrote:
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.


Oh please, I run rings around you ex-BBC people day in day out without
breaking into a sweat pal.

And I've never seen you post on uk.media.tv.misc before, which is where
Michael Adams is posting from, and he's extremely annoying, he keeps
laughably calling me a spammer, which suggests he doesn't even understand
what spammers actually do, which isn't the most difficult thing to
understand, and he probably has the shortest temper I've ever seen on
Usenet.


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


Pal, I've literally got more letters after my name than letters in my name,
so spare me the intellectual skills bull****.



--
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

Pyriform wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Don't know WTF you're going on about, but the thing I didn't
understand about M-Theory was where all the 13 dimensions are - I
know of 3 spatial + 1 time dimension, but I found it difficult to
visualise the other 9 dimensions. If you can help me out on that I'd
be much obliged.

Well, I think you're trying to visualise too many dimensions, for a
start.


What are the other dimensions then? Are they just mathematical constructs
and not physical at all? For example, I can vaguely remember from reading A
Brief History of Time that you can have complex time, so as complex numbers
have real and imaginary axes (dimensions?), would that mean there's 3
spatial + 2 time dimensions, so that's 5 rather than 4, and the only 6 or
however many are just mathematical constructs like complex numbers are?


10 (or possibly11) should be plenty. And 6 (or it might be 7) of
those are compactified in a Calabi-Yau manifold, safely out of reach:


How do you mean "safely out of reach"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_manifold.

See how easy it is now?


Oh, Chem classes and K3 manifolds, yeah, I get ya. ;-)



--
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