BBC Trust - no idea engineering experience whatsoever

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

"Virgils Ghost" wrote in message
...
"Jerry" wrote in message
news:4530a742$0$97263

Err, your argument doesn't stack up, I'm not paying a penny to
the
BBC, I'm buying a licence to use a TV - it doesn't matter if I
then
watch BBC, ITV or BSkyB's output.

The money from the licence goes directly to the BBC so you are
paying each
and every penny to them. But you are right, it doesn't matter if
you just
watch ITV or BSkyB, the BBC want their money regardless.


I am *not* paying the BBC to access their programmes, I *am* paying
to use a television receiver, were the money goes and who collects it
is irrelevant.

"I am not paying for sex, I'm just paying for your drinks and company"
quipped the filthy businessman.

Richard L ha scritto:

And the rest of British telly might degenerate
into Italian-style game shows and US imports.

Most British telly has already degenerated into US imports (much more
so than Italian TV), game shows, soaps, and generally crappy
programming, so I would not make those kind of remarks about other
countries' TV (about which you clearly know very little anyway) if I
were you.
Indeed, when I could receive them (until a couple of years ago), ITV
and Five were poor even by Italian standards, and looking at their
schedules they seem to have gotten even worse now (I can't imagine the
major commercial networks in Italy carrying the equivalent of ITV Play,
even late at night). Some BBC TV was good, but BBC 1 and 3 definitely
weren't, the first days I watched them I was really amazed at how
uninspiring their programming was, probably because I had higher
expectations from the BBC. Channel 4 had good parts too, but less and
less so as time passed, to make room for more US imports, reality TV
and other populist programming, which seems to be the trend for public
service broadcasters as the increased competition erodes into their
audience share. But then even the Italian public broadcaster had better
programming before it had to compete with dozens of commercial
channels, which happened much earlier in Italy than in the UK.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Virgils Ghost
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Heracles Pollux
wrote:
If it's merely a permit to use a TV set, why does the BBC get and
collect the money?

History. In the very early days of broadcasting, the government saw the
way commercially funded radio had gone in other countries and decided
it wasn't to be in the UK. And subsequent governments of both colours
kept it that way for nearly 30 years.

Yes, basically they wanted to retain control, and still do to this very
day when it comes to appointing the Director General and associated
lackeys.

er, no. the Government, or properly The Queen in Council, appoint the
governors (to be trustees). They apppoint the Director General - and the
other members of the Board of Management.

Very nice, but next you'll be telling me the Queen sent us to war rather
than Blair calling upon the powers of the royal prerogative

The BBC is a political football, a cushy number for the cronies, as you know
Dyke made a 'donation' to NuLabour and they appointed him DG. Gavyn Davies
made a series of donations and was magically appointed the Vice Chairman of
the Board of Governors, oh, and his wife just happends to work for Gordon
Brown. Nice.

I'm sure they could come up with a better system, Russian roulette springs
to mind.

"Richard L" wrote in message
...
In message
"Heracles Pollux" wrote:



Err, your argument doesn't stack up, I'm not paying a penny to the
BBC, I'm buying a licence to use a TV - it doesn't matter if I then
watch BBC, ITV or BSkyB's output.

So why is the fee £180 or what ever and not £5?

If it's merely a permit to use a TV set, why does the BBC get and collect
the money?

Because Parliament has decided on our behalf that broadcasting is such
an important medium for informing and educating us and reflecting and
developing our culture that it has chosen to provide us with a public
service at the public expense

HAhahhaaaa.

You've still got it Richard

"Richard L" wrote in message

And the rest of British telly might degenerate
into Italian-style game shows and US imports. Would you really want
that?

More to the point, would we notice?

"Jerry" wrote in message news:4530f307$0$97241

Hmmm, perhaps you were having a senior moment or two when you typed
the above, have you forgotten the 'Kelly affair' - hardly pro
Labour....

The Kelly affair was a bit of internecine warfare, the anti-war
establishment left v. NuLabour. It was all made worse by the fact they were
once best mates, obviously Dyke wasn't getting value for money in terms of
his donations and the government realised the limits to its cronyism.

In message , Heracles Pollux
writes

Because Parliament has decided on our behalf that broadcasting is such
an important medium for informing and educating us and reflecting and
developing our culture that it has chosen to provide us with a public
service at the public expense, via a public corporation established
for that purpose. Funding this through a licence fee rather than
general taxation places some separation between the BBC and government
influence, as well as giving you the opportunity to choose not to pay
by not having television. It's not ideal, but Parliament has so far
failed to come up with a better formula.

Wrong. It has never tried another formula. We have had the same forumula
since the 1920s and to date rather than inovate and adapt, the politicians
have coped out and gone for the usual status quo option.



Nevertheless, having ready access to a source of news and information
which is not (so far as can be achieved) beholden to political or
commercial pressures is surely pretty important to the maintenance of
an informed electorate in our country and hence of our democracy. Not
everyone reads the newspapers.


You've got to be ****ting me. BBC and not biased!

Only if you are blinded by your own bias would you not realise how biased
the BBC is.

Pro Labour, London-centric, snearing of Conservatives usually (except tame
one's like Portiloo, left-Ken Clarke, Andrew Neal), always using the same
media pseudo-intellectual faces, typically P.C., of the conceited and false
opinion that the BBC is the saviour of PSB.


If BBC TV didn't exist to provide a strong alternative, Sky News might
quickly metamorphose into Fox News, and ITV news wouldn't exist at all
because of the expense. And the rest of British telly might degenerate
into Italian-style game shows and US imports. Would you really want
that?

--
Richard L.

You talk game shows: And how many BBC News readers host game shows: John
Humphrey, Paxo, Natasha ****wit... I'd say we have game show hell with a BBC
logo on it already.

And no Fox is a red herring. In 1986, the FCC and US Government ruled that
the US could at that point scrap the impartiality principle. Until 1986, the
US media had an impartiality principle. Reagan made that problem.

Where as we do still have an impartiality principle, we also weakly enforce
it, allowing the BBC to be its own judge and jury (the ECU and GPCAC), and
OFCOM's hand's off handling of Sky.

The BBC may say it is impartial, but its not, and it will ignore most people
who complain about it, and send "enforcement officers" around if you don't
pay for its ****.



You talk impartiality and democracy, yet in everything you and the BBC does,
its role is to crush descent, prevent uncensored voices from getting on the
air, to preserve the three way oligopy of BBC/ITV/BSKYB, and to be tame to
the state government.

Ironically, the one news service that comes near to challenging Westminster
is ITV's owned Channel 4 News. And that is an advert subsidised, state
unfounded, commercial broadcaster.


I'm afraid that's a lot of bollox, Pollux.
--
Ian

wrote in message
ups.com...
Richard L ha scritto:

And the rest of British telly might degenerate
into Italian-style game shows and US imports.

Most British telly has already degenerated into US imports (much more
so than Italian TV), game shows, soaps, and generally crappy
programming, so I would not make those kind of remarks about other
countries' TV (about which you clearly know very little anyway) if I
were you.
Indeed, when I could receive them (until a couple of years ago), ITV
and Five were poor even by Italian standards, and looking at their
schedules they seem to have gotten even worse now (I can't imagine the
major commercial networks in Italy carrying the equivalent of ITV Play,
even late at night). Some BBC TV was good, but BBC 1 and 3 definitely
weren't, the first days I watched them I was really amazed at how
uninspiring their programming was, probably because I had higher
expectations from the BBC. Channel 4 had good parts too, but less and
less so as time passed, to make room for more US imports, reality TV
and other populist programming, which seems to be the trend for public
service broadcasters as the increased competition erodes into their
audience share. But then even the Italian public broadcaster had better
programming before it had to compete with dozens of commercial
channels, which happened much earlier in Italy than in the UK.



Precisely. It's because the BBC's standards and output are so deplorable
that I am up in arms about the BBC, the licence fee, or which ever part of
the policy you wish to blame.

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Heracles Pollux
writes

Because Parliament has decided on our behalf that broadcasting is such
an important medium for informing and educating us and reflecting and
developing our culture that it has chosen to provide us with a public
service at the public expense, via a public corporation established
for that purpose. Funding this through a licence fee rather than
general taxation places some separation between the BBC and government
influence, as well as giving you the opportunity to choose not to pay
by not having television. It's not ideal, but Parliament has so far
failed to come up with a better formula.

Wrong. It has never tried another formula. We have had the same forumula
since the 1920s and to date rather than inovate and adapt, the politicians
have coped out and gone for the usual status quo option.



Nevertheless, having ready access to a source of news and information
which is not (so far as can be achieved) beholden to political or
commercial pressures is surely pretty important to the maintenance of
an informed electorate in our country and hence of our democracy. Not
everyone reads the newspapers.


You've got to be ****ting me. BBC and not biased!

Only if you are blinded by your own bias would you not realise how biased
the BBC is.

Pro Labour, London-centric, snearing of Conservatives usually (except tame
one's like Portiloo, left-Ken Clarke, Andrew Neal), always using the same
media pseudo-intellectual faces, typically P.C., of the conceited and
false
opinion that the BBC is the saviour of PSB.


If BBC TV didn't exist to provide a strong alternative, Sky News might
quickly metamorphose into Fox News, and ITV news wouldn't exist at all
because of the expense. And the rest of British telly might degenerate
into Italian-style game shows and US imports. Would you really want
that?

--
Richard L.

You talk game shows: And how many BBC News readers host game shows: John
Humphrey, Paxo, Natasha ****wit... I'd say we have game show hell with a
BBC
logo on it already.

And no Fox is a red herring. In 1986, the FCC and US Government ruled that
the US could at that point scrap the impartiality principle. Until 1986,
the
US media had an impartiality principle. Reagan made that problem.

Where as we do still have an impartiality principle, we also weakly
enforce
it, allowing the BBC to be its own judge and jury (the ECU and GPCAC), and
OFCOM's hand's off handling of Sky.

The BBC may say it is impartial, but its not, and it will ignore most
people
who complain about it, and send "enforcement officers" around if you don't
pay for its ****.



You talk impartiality and democracy, yet in everything you and the BBC
does,
its role is to crush descent, prevent uncensored voices from getting on
the
air, to preserve the three way oligopy of BBC/ITV/BSKYB, and to be tame to
the state government.

Ironically, the one news service that comes near to challenging
Westminster
is ITV's owned Channel 4 News. And that is an advert subsidised, state
unfounded, commercial broadcaster.


I'm afraid that's a lot of bollox, Pollux.
--
Ian


Yes, thread over. ;-)

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:47:20 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

Err, your argument doesn't stack up, I'm not paying a penny to the
BBC, I'm buying a licence to use a TV - it doesn't matter if I
then
watch BBC, ITV or BSkyB's output.

That's ridiculous. What do you think the licence money pays for?


What parliament decides to spend it on, they could well decide that
it's split five ways between all broadcasters or they might decide
that the BBC has to become a 100 percent commercial broadcaster
allowing HMG spends the television receiver licence fee income on
propping up the NHS or what ever,

They don't and never have. The television licence money pays for the
BBC. That's why it's called a television licence and not an NHS
licence. The scheme is intended to make the BBC independent of
government so it doesn't become a political mouthpiece.

the fact remains that the fee is
buying a licence to use a television receiver - it only indirectly
funds the BBC, and is why the BBC has to go 'cap in hand' to the
government every year or so.

I don't understand what you mean by "indirectly". The BBC's income is
directly linked to the licence fee. That's what the licence is for.
When the BBC go "cap in hand" to the government they don't ask for
more government money, they ask for an increase in the licence fee so
they can have more licence money.

Saying that the licence is not to pay for the BBC, but for the right
to use a TV receiver is like saying that the money you pay in a shop
is not to pay for the goods but for the right to take the goods out of
the door. It's the same thing in the end - you pay some money and you
get something, and the people who produce the goods get paid.

The usual deal in a shop however is that you pay some money and you
get the thing you've paid for. Paying the licence fee (which *does* go
to the BBC even if you call it "indirectly"), is like being compelled
to pay for a particular item in the shop even if you want something
else. It may have made some sense in the days when the BBC was the
*only* item in the shop, but times have changed.

Rod.