Slim Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 No big loss there Sky and Freesat is much better (in fact I do not use terrestrial TV anymore) and I for one have never used the BBC play website. Presumably you still want to watch the BBC, but via freesat? Someone's still got to bloody pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul H Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Whats the lark with the TV Tax then?The UK can pull out of agreements at the drop of a hat - why can we not pull out of the TV Tax agreement? unless ... Do you want to? Do you want to have our transponders disconnected so we receive no terrestrial telly, and our internets blocked so we can't get on any bbc websites? No big loss there Sky and Freesat is much better (in fact I do not use terrestrial TV anymore) and I for one have never used the BBC play website. Same here. And if anyone is worried about screwing the BBC or more to the point the British Government, fear not. Just remember that they won't hesitate for one second before screwing us. Wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh janus Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 No big loss there Sky and Freesat is much better (in fact I do not use terrestrial TV anymore) and I for one have never used the BBC play website. Presumably you still want to watch the BBC, but via freesat? Someone's still got to bloody pay for it! Well - if Ireland, France, Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal Greece, Ezeccubanistanionia, infact anyone with a view of the Sky or Freesat birds can do it without paying a penny, why must we? We get more news from those areas than we do for our little country anyway. BBC output is drivel, I would rather sit infront of the box and look at 'Police CCTV' shows on a Saturday night than the complete shite they pump out then. Its been mentioned before, but just how much cash do they (the BBC) make from product placements every year? Mac must be paying them a fortune, (from the DVDs I have seen of Hustle and Spooks) and lets not forget the biggest free advertising rip off of all - The Lotto - run by a company to make a profit, who get free advertising on the BBC, under the guise of 'Charity'. They flog the shows to DAVE - or GOLD or what ever the stuff the channel is called, who bungs ads in them every 30 seconds - where the income from those sold shows gone? Dr Who and Top Gear spin off sales alone would pay for the loss of our few quid, not to mention the many books and DVDs they sell back to the people at vast prices, the very people who have paid for them already. Let the people who benefit from the service pay for it - i.e the UK - (or indeed Bristol all by themseleves), as most of the 'drama' they try to produce is all based there anyway. edit coz I pressed send to quick and just posted nowt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Same here. And if anyone is worried about screwing the BBC or more to the point the British Government, fear not. Just remember that they won't hesitate for one second before screwing us. Wait and see. But you're not screwing the BBC or the Government, you're screwing the license payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 It's incredible, isn't it. I'm constantly amazed at the fact that people will pay up to £50 a month to watch "The World's Barkiest Dog" et al broadcast on Sky etc. yet moan like a Man Utd. manager when asked to pay less than £200 a year for 4 TV channels, a quality news service and umpteen radio stations operating at a far higher standard than any others* Just look at the utter moronic drivel aimed at people with a reading age of less than 4 years that's constantly being pumped-out by the satelite channels and then take a look at BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4. * Radio 1 is the obvious exception ^ What he said ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 With the coming demise of the BBC Radio World Service I object to waste like this almost as much as I object to the obscene wedge given to the untalented Woss and his entourage: Ever wondered why your TV licence fee costs so much? Well on Wednesday of this week the BBC launched Persian TV, a Farsi language channel aimed at the Iranian market, at the small cost of £15 million a year. So that’s the entire population of Cambridge contributing every penny of their licence fee to provide a television channel for people in a distant foreign country who aren’t going to pay a penny for the service. Why? What is going on here? The director of the BBC’s World Service, Nigel Chapman, says: “Persian TV builds on our distinguished history of broadcasting in Persian and brings the best of the BBC’s news and documentary programmes to audiences.” Again, why? Why isn’t the BBC spending money on local radio and television, bringing “the best of the BBC’s news and documentary programmes” to audiences in Towcester and Trowbridge rather then Tehran? And buying Bruce Forsyth some new jokes because let's face it he certainly needs some? It’s an utter disgrace. The IOM gives Aunty Beeb something like £7.5m p.a. or "Half-a-Farsi" as it's now known... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Same here. And if anyone is worried about screwing the BBC or more to the point the British Government, fear not. Just remember that they won't hesitate for one second before screwing us. Wait and see. But you're not screwing the BBC or the Government, you're screwing the license payers. Who are all fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 BBC output is drivel Bit of a generalisation innit? Personally I think its excellent value for money. Each to their own..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Nope - tonight says it all. BBC output is drivel Bit of a generalisation innit? Personally I think its excellent value for money. Each to their own..... I think Hugh has it spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I really dislike subscribing to Sky but at the moment we pay the cheapest package available so that we can retain access to the british television stations, particularly the BBC. It also gives us Radio 4 and Radio 2 & Radio 5 etc. If I could just access the normal UK channels, as at home, I'd pay a licence fee without a complaint and wave bye-bye to Sky once and for all. BBC is totally excellent value for money and I'd happily pay them direct if I could and cut out the money-grabbing, tat trading, porn-peddling middle man any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I subscribe to Sky for the Rugby Union, I find there coverage far superior to BBCs, more camera's, better presenters and reviews. For me its worth the 50 quid a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 it was dissapointing this year losing an old friend to see the new year in with.. not the same without johnathon ross and jack daniels.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 What would be good is some kind of pay as you watch service, ie you watch say 20 hours of BBC in a month and you pay a certain amount. I hate paying my TV licence and Sky fee, I'd rather just pay for Sky as anything I watch is on that. I only really watch BBC1 for Eastenders, ITV for Corries and C4 for Hollyoaks and Big Brother. Unless they have something good on, other wise I'll watch Sky. More channles = more variety in what I can watch, rather than just 4 channels of mostly shit. Then theres the movies and as Lopez has pointed out, Sports. Much better coverage on Sky and variety also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I really dislike subscribing to Sky but at the moment we pay the cheapest package available so that we can retain access to the british television stations, particularly the BBC. It also gives us Radio 4 and Radio 2 & Radio 5 etc. You don't need to subscribe to Sky to get any of that stuff. It's free on the satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Ever wondered why your TV licence fee costs so much? Well on Wednesday of this week the BBC launched Persian TV, a Farsi language channel aimed at the Iranian market, at the small cost of £15 million a year. So that’s the entire population of Cambridge contributing every penny of their licence fee to provide a television channel for people in a distant foreign country who aren’t going to pay a penny for the service. Why? What is going on here? The BBC World Service is paid for by the Foreign Office, not from the licence fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.