1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
ChrisM wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:49:49 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:


five out of six is a very respectable viewing rate.


Hardly, considering this is a universal tax on watching TV.


Don't usually get involved in this debate, as it is clear that both
sides have clear and very fixed thoughts on the subject, and no
amount of arguing is going to get anyone to change their mind,
Just wanted to stick my 2p worth in anyway though, and will
probably live to regret it...
Why such a fuss about the licence fee? We are talking about £2.50 a
week here, that's a pint of lager, or 10 fags or few of cups of
coffee in a cafe(one cup of it's Starbucks!) A WEEK. Not really
very much is it!


It's a lot of money wasted if you don't watch BBC TV or watch so
little that you wouldn't want to pay the £130 (going up to £180 over
the next few years).


That is a weak argument when we are talking about under 50 pence a
day for something that no one is forced to own.


People are forced to pay it if they want to watch TV, but an
increasing number of people do not watch BBC TV, which is the point.

Got **** all to do with it. The licence fee is payable for owning a working
TV receiver. What you watch is your own business. The fact that the
Government chooses to award the BBC an amount equal to the collected licence
fee is straightforward historical precedent.
--
John Dean
Oxford

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:

That's the deal. No-one is forced to watch commercial channels.
No-one is forced to buy the advertised products. But millions do,
just the same.
If only one could say the same for the licence fee.

Nope you've got it exactly the wrong way around.

You are forced to watch commercial channels, are you?

Do you normally take sentences out of context ?

Never.

You said what you said. And you were wrong.

When its fairly obvious
that the subsatnce of the argument is in what follows ?

Sorry Mr Nugent I don't really have the time to indulge you in your
singular debating style

We could translate that, but it's obvious what you really mean.

snippage

"Choice". A good word.
Those on the opposite side of the fence from you say they want a choice
about the licence fee, as well as about the time they have to donate in
watching adverts.

If the licence fee is abolished they will have no alternative but
watch advertisements. And then if the advertisements prove ineffective
and advertsers go elsewhwere then the TV Stations will have
no income and be forced to close down.

Once the licence fee is abolished, there is no choice for anyone.

So as far as you are concerned, no choice is the only way to ensure choice.

And looking forward to Hancock (BBC), Arthur Haynes
(ITV*), Dixon of Dock Green on a Saturday evening (BBC), and Sunday
Night at the London Palladium (ITV*), as the highlights of the week.
Jumpers for goalposts, etc, etc, etc.

* IIRR Rediffusion or ABC

You remember wrong (again). Both were on ATV (London weekends). The
regional ITV stations were a class act in those days. Mostly.

The Arthur Hayes show was on Tuesdays or Wednesday evenings I believe.

Maybe you do believe it. You are wrong. It was shown on Saturday nights. It
was an ATV London programme as opposed to an ATV Midlands programme. ATV
London operated in Saturdays and Sundays only. In order for it to have been
shown on a weekday, they'd have had to prevail upon arch-rival Rediffusion
(London, Mon-Fri) to take it. And why would ATV do that? It was one of
their top programmes of the day.

However it was indeed ATV on Sundays.

Correct.

I prefaced mine with an IIRR. You were cetain and you are decidely
wrong about the Arthur Haynes Show.

Not at all, old chap. A smidgeon of knowledge about the ITV situation at
the time, coupled with a moment's reflection, would convince you of that.

About a quarter of todays output in black and white but still at half
the price.

What makes you think that there aren't people (and plenty of them) who
can't afford to pay for any more than that on a licence fee basis? Why
should they pay more so that you have more? There may be an excellent
reason why people poorer than you should subsidise your viewing, but you
haven't made that case - have you?

I would imagine..

Stop there.

Isn't that your "argument" all over?

... that the TV licence fee is among the basic requirements
which are included in the basic living costs on which basic State
Benefits are calculated. And that anyone unable to afford a TV licence
is probably wasting their money on cigarettes or other non-essentials
instead.

You can be a very imaginative chap, can't you? Ask the DWP whether basic
benefits take TV licences into account.

Good luck with your quest.

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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

If you wanted to make your comprison page in any way useful you
should consider the following question.

REPEAT:
"If you wanted to make your comprison [sic]

....

Spelling flames ? What a sad and truly desperate little man you are,
eh Mr Nugent ?

....

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.

So first off list all the features, and what they can do.

One useful feature - an LED display on the set top box which displays
the channel number. It's not 'til after you've bought one that you
realise
this can prove useful in certain situations.

I stand to be corrected but your guide makes no mention of such a
feature
and which boxes have it. Some have dark panels, but that may merely be
the
design.

The Tesco box features both now and next for the selected channel,
plus a guide featuring the next five(?) programmes for all
channnels which can be scrolled through on a menu. With a detailed
programme description at the foot of the page. Apparently
there are weekly guides on some boxes as well. No mention is
made of all these specific possibilities on your site - just
vague mentions. Again totally unsatisfactory IMO.

Where's the question?

At the top of the post.

The very next sentence in fact.

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.

Hot on the spelling flames, just not so hot on the comprehension skills
eh ?

Or maybe you're unfamilar with the meaning of complicated words such
as "what", and er "which", eh ?

And before you succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself,
by attempting a follow up punctuation-flame concerning the lack of
a question mark Mr Nugent, I need only point out that the sentence
in question is a reference to a question or topic for discussion,
rather than a direct question in itself.


michael adams

....

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

instead.

You can be a very imaginative chap, can't you? Ask the DWP whether basic
benefits take TV licences into account.


Presumably basic benefits don't take cigarettes into account either.

So are you claiming that nobody on basic benefits smokes cigarettes
either? Or drinks alcohol?

Given that just 1 packet of cigarettes per week equals the cost of
the TV licence. If not more.

Oh champion of the poor and downtrodden !



michael adams

....










Good luck with your quest.

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

If you wanted to make your comprison page in any way useful you
should consider the following question.

REPEAT:
"If you wanted to make your comprison [sic]

Spelling flames ? What a sad and truly desperate little man you are,
eh Mr Nugent ?

Not a flame at all.

I just was not going to either (a) presumptively change your spelling or
(b) risk others thinking that I had typed it that way.

Be assured that the use of "sic" is absolutely standard in such
circumstances - assuming that the quoter notices the error (and I have to
admit that I don't manage that every time).

Where's the question?

At the top of the post.

Yes - already noted. It wasn't punctuated, of course, but I had already
posted a retraction.

The very next sentence in fact.

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.

Hot on the spelling flames, just not so hot on the comprehension skills
eh ?

Questions are supposed to punctuated with a question mark: "?".

Or maybe you're unfamilar with the meaning of complicated words such
as "what", and er "which", eh ?

No, I'm unfamiliar with questions without question marks.

And before you succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself,
by attempting a follow up punctuation-flame concerning the lack of
a question mark Mr Nugent, I need only point out that the sentence
in question is a reference to a question or topic for discussion,
rather than a direct question in itself.

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.

You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

And before you succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself,
by attempting a follow up punctuation-flame concerning the lack of
a question mark Mr Nugent, I need only point out that the sentence
in question is a reference to a question or topic for discussion,
rather than a direct question in itself.

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.


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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Incorrect: He asked if he could leave early?
(Describes but does not ask a question)
Correct: He asked if he could leave early.

Correct: He asked, "May I leave early?"
(In the last one, the question is directly quoted.)

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000065.htm

/quote



You should have quit while you were ahead, eh?


Try taking a look in the mirror, eh loser ?


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

instead.

That's pretty fancy snipping.

You can be a very imaginative chap, can't you? Ask the DWP whether basic
benefits take TV licences into account.

Presumably basic benefits don't take cigarettes into account either.

Not likely, given that 40 a day (not unusual, I understand) costs something
rather more than basic weekly benefit. But you never know; perhaps the
government simply sees it as an easy way to claw benefits back - because
it's certainly that.

So are you claiming that nobody on basic benefits smokes cigarettes
either? Or drinks alcohol?

Not at all. Just that weekly basic benefits (at less than £60, IIRC) are
clearly not meant to cover things which are highly taxed. Nevertheless,
irrespective of what benefits are *meant* to cover, what individuals do is
up to them.

Given that just 1 packet of cigarettes per week equals the cost of
the TV licence. If not more.

Indeed.

Oh champion of the poor and downtrodden !

I recognise that they exist. Some seem to regard them as mere TV licence
fodder whose fate is to shoulder some of the burden so that TV watching can
be cheaper than it would otherwise would be (and maybe that is a legitimate
pint of view - I'm not knocking it per se).

Of course not all of the poor are on benefits. It's possible to be in work
and to be relatively poor.

At 02:41:06 on 11/07/2006, michael adams delighted uk.tech.digital-tv
by announcing:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...

And before you succeed in making an even bigger fool of yourself,
by attempting a follow up punctuation-flame concerning the lack of
a question mark Mr Nugent, I need only point out that the sentence
in question is a reference to a question or topic for discussion,
rather than a direct question in itself.

In that case, there was no question in your post after all.


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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Because they are *not* questions.

"Ian" wrote in message
...
snip
TV is dumbed down because we as a nation are dumber.

The viewers are dumber, the programme makers are dumber, the
broadcasters are dumber, the producers, directors, presenters,
editors,
are all dumber because we are in the grip of a generation who
haven't
been educated.

They've just been taught how to pass exams, and are obsessed with
status, looking "cool", and having lots of "stuff".

Are you suggesting that television is controlled and run by people
under the age of 35, what about all those people who did receive a
proper education, they to are not only still making programmes but
are those who commission the programmes - commercial [1] TV makes
what people want to watch, PSB make [2] what people should be
watching, but in saying that I agree that even though you can take a
horse to water you can't make a horse drink the water...

[1] which includes subscription services.

[2] or should be making if there wasn't political interference to
make them act more like commercial broadcasters...


Qualifications don't mean you are talented.

Very true, all a qualification means is that you remembered a certain
snippet of information on a certain day, it in know way says anything
about how talented you are - just that you can store and retrieve
facts - nothing what so ever about what you can do with those facts.

At 02:09:35 on 11/07/2006, John Dean delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

It's a lot of money wasted if you don't watch BBC TV or watch so
little that you wouldn't want to pay the £130 (going up to £180
over the next few years).


That is a weak argument when we are talking about under 50 pence a
day for something that no one is forced to own.


People are forced to pay it if they want to watch TV, but an
increasing number of people do not watch BBC TV, which is the point.

Got **** all to do with it. The licence fee is payable for owning a
working TV receiver.

No it isn't. It's for installing or using it to view TV broadcasts.