Scottish TV at the expense of the English and Welsh

"JohnT" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...



Jim clearly doesn't get the point that the BBC cannot express any
opinion

Whereas you've clearly not understood or read what I've already actually
said. e.g.

On 01 Dec in uk.tech.digital-tv, Jim Lesurf
wrote:
They have to explain what they think the practicalities and costs, etc,
will be and stick to dealing with factual-based things. Not give an
opinion on what they'd 'like' the vote to be.

and similar statements in other postings.

I'm explicitly not asking for their 'opinions' on how people should vote.
But if they have any plans or examinations of the costs / options /
practicalities following a 'yes' then that may affect how people decide
to
vote. Its a matter of being able to make an *informed* choice.

Like it or not, a refusal to even discuss such matters in public will
mean
that some people will be deterred from voting 'yes' out of a worry that
they'd lose access to things they wish to keep on being able to
view/hear.
Saying nothing is not 'neutral', it biasses consideration by denying
people
information.

Afraid they can't simply pass this off as "for the Government to say"
because both the costs, changes in provision, and practicalities would
depend on how the BBC would impliment any changes.

I did read and fully understand what you said. You just can't accept that
the BBC is unable to offer any comment or opinion on the matter at all.
The ITV Companies are not under similar constraints but it seems unlikely
to me that they will offer any opinion either.

But as purely commercial organisation, funded from adverts, it's easy to see
that if the demand is there for a continuation of the status quo, all ITV
programs in Scotland an ITV Scottish "region" could provide it.

But the BBC can't do this as unless someone puts in some funding methods
they will not want to show their programs in Scotland for "free"

As I see it there are three outcomes for scottish viewers here - all of them
bad (for somebody)

tim

In message , Zimmy writes
On 27/11/2013 17:46, Mark Carver wrote:
On 27/11/2013 16:44, Michael Chare wrote:
I Scotland becomes a separate country how will we stop them from
benefiting from free satellite TV paid for by the English and Welsh?

The problems and anomalies surrounding TV in the proposed separation of
Scotland from the UK are a relatively minor microcosm of the enormity
of the task to create its own stand alone national infrastructure.

Believe it or not, Scotland already has a national infrastructure in
place. I can't think of anything that I have to go to England for. :-)

Z

But if you only have Scottish TV, how are your children going to grow up
to speak like Cockneys or Mancunians.
:¬)
--
Ian

tim...... wrote:


But as purely commercial organisation, funded from adverts, it's easy to
see that if the demand is there for a continuation of the status quo,
all ITV programs in Scotland an ITV Scottish "region" could provide it.

Or, it could evolve into what's developing in Ireland.

The commercial channel there, TV3, has a number of ITV shows sold to them,
Corrie, Emmerdale etc. Ulster TV (the ITV company for Northern Ireland) has
just won a licence to broadcast a service in Eire. They have
an exclusive deal from launch to show Corrie and Emmerdale. You'd have thought
that might kill TV3 stone dead, but last week they signed a deal to
screen X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent as well as some other tat.

So in effect UK ITV's programming will be shared out between two rival TV
stations in Ireland from 2016.

ITV and the Beeb could well do the same thing, selling to SBC and STV,
and no reason why STV couldn't show BBC programmes, particularly if SBC can't
afford to buy them ?




--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:51:48 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

tim...... wrote:


But as purely commercial organisation, funded from adverts, it's easy to
see that if the demand is there for a continuation of the status quo,
all ITV programs in Scotland an ITV Scottish "region" could provide it.

Or, it could evolve into what's developing in Ireland.

The commercial channel there, TV3, has a number of ITV shows sold to them,
Corrie, Emmerdale etc. Ulster TV (the ITV company for Northern Ireland) has
just won a licence to broadcast a service in Eire. They have
an exclusive deal from launch to show Corrie and Emmerdale. You'd have thought
that might kill TV3 stone dead, but last week they signed a deal to
screen X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent as well as some other tat.

So in effect UK ITV's programming will be shared out between two rival TV
stations in Ireland from 2016.

That's two rival TV *companies*. TV3 has two channels: TV3 and 3e.
Listings he
http://www.tv3.ie/tvguide.php

ITV and the Beeb could well do the same thing, selling to SBC and STV,
and no reason why STV couldn't show BBC programmes, particularly if SBC can't
afford to buy them ?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Peter Duncanson wrote:
at.

So in effect UK ITV's programming will be shared out between two rival TV
stations in Ireland from 2016.

That's two rival TV *companies*. TV3 has two channels: TV3 and 3e.
Listings he
http://www.tv3.ie/tvguide.php

Thanks for the correction. What does 3e find to show, when the Jungle prog
isn't running ?!

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...



Jim clearly doesn't get the point that the BBC cannot express any
opinion

Whereas you've clearly not understood or read what I've already
actually said. e.g.

On 01 Dec in uk.tech.digital-tv, Jim Lesurf
wrote:
They have to explain what they think the practicalities and costs,
etc, will be and stick to dealing with factual-based things. Not give
an opinion on what they'd 'like' the vote to be.

and similar statements in other postings.


I did read and fully understand what you said.

So why did you claim that

Jim clearly doesn't get the point that the BBC cannot express any
opinion

when you'd understood that assertion was false?

You just can't accept that the BBC is unable to offer any comment or
opinion on the matter at all.

Once again, what I've actually said has passed you by. Sorry I can't help
if you are unable to comprehend the relevant distinctions.


Whoosh!

--
JohnT

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:06:27 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:
at.

So in effect UK ITV's programming will be shared out between two rival TV
stations in Ireland from 2016.

That's two rival TV *companies*. TV3 has two channels: TV3 and 3e.
Listings he
http://www.tv3.ie/tvguide.php

Thanks for the correction. What does 3e find to show, when the Jungle prog
isn't running ?!

America's Got Talent. :-)


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 02/12/2013 16:18, JohnT wrote:

"Zimmy" wrote in message ...
On 27/11/2013 17:46, Mark Carver wrote:
On 27/11/2013 16:44, Michael Chare wrote:
I Scotland becomes a separate country how will we stop them from
benefiting from free satellite TV paid for by the English and Welsh?

The problems and anomalies surrounding TV in the proposed separation of
Scotland from the UK are a relatively minor microcosm of the enormity
of the task to create its own stand alone national infrastructure.

Believe it or not, Scotland already has a national infrastructure in
place. I can't think of anything that I have to go to England for. :-)

It isn't a Scottish infrastructure. It is a UK infastructure.

Only for a few things, all the council services are Scottish already,
NHS is Scottish, education system is Scottish, legal system is Scottish,
etc.

Even the stuff that isn't different from England generally has local
offices with Scottish people working there, do you think that they would
all have to relocate to England if there is independence?

Every time the UK government changes from Labour to Conservative (and
back), it does not require an 'enormous' change to national
infrastructure, everything carries on working as it did the day before
the election until they decide to make a few changes. Same when the CEO
of a large corporation changes.
Likewise with Scottish independence, all the infrastructure systems
would not suddenly have to change how they operate (not straight away
anyway), only the people holding the reigns would be changing.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a challenge in some areas, but it's not
the huge thing that some are making it out to be.

Z

On 03/12/2013 09:14, Zimmy wrote:

It isn't a Scottish infrastructure. It is a UK infastructure.

Only for a few things, all the council services are Scottish already,
NHS is Scottish, education system is Scottish, legal system is Scottish,
etc.

Even the stuff that isn't different from England generally has local
offices with Scottish people working there, do you think that they would
all have to relocate to England if there is independence?

Self sufficient for electricity then ? No need for those cross border
400kv lines ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
On 03/12/2013 09:14, Zimmy wrote:

It isn't a Scottish infrastructure. It is a UK infastructure.

Only for a few things, all the council services are Scottish already,
NHS is Scottish, education system is Scottish, legal system is Scottish,
etc.

Even the stuff that isn't different from England generally has local
offices with Scottish people working there, do you think that they would
all have to relocate to England if there is independence?

Self sufficient for electricity then ? No need for those cross border
400kv lines ?

Electricity is another Scottish export. No need for them at all after
independence.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18