Disgusting

[Jane Doe]

And you have to admit Della the BBC has hardly provided itself trustworthy recently has it - phone scandals etc AND EVEN ON BLUE PETER .......

The BBC is so far left at the moment, it needs to crawl out of it self-important lefty liberal backside and remember that it's us ordinary people that pay our licence fees to keep it going! AND don't get me started on Jonanthon Ross's salary......

[Della]

The phone scandal is appalling. I don't think that premium rate phone ins on children's programmes are ever appropriate. I also don't think that the BBC provides good value for the TV license any more and I would like to see it become like any other channel - funded by adverts - so that the licence fee can be scrapped.

However, I do have faith in the standard of their reporting. Unlike most newspapers, they have no obvious political alignment and at least try to be unbiased. It may not always be the case, but at least they try. How often do you see the BBC issuing a public apology publishing something inaccurate compared to newspapers and other media?

[non-stick]

(07-10-2008 04:56 PM)Della Wrote:  I also don't think that the BBC provides good value for the TV license any more and I would like to see it become like any other channel - funded by adverts - so that the licence fee can be scrapped.

No! No! and Thrice No! - the last bastion of (pretty much) advert free tv. Sky is adverts interrupted by programmes (and you pay a subscription to boot) and ITV is getting worse with all the "sponsers of" messages round programs. Many programs go pretty much straight into an ad break just as they get going and often in really clumsy spots. Some on sky break mid scene!!

The licence fee works out at pence per day and covers so much more than simply the TV channels. there's the radio and website as well for a start. It's actually pretty good value but needs to do a bit more and not rest on its laurels.

[Della]

My objection to the license is that it is a flat fee not in proportion to what you use and it is not means tested.

When you think of every student at university buying a license from their grant, people with very poor reception who can only receive TV through satellite, people on low incomes, people who rarely watch TV etc paying the same as those glued to the box, I think it is so unfair that it may as well be scrapped.

The BBC is full of adverts. They just advertise programmes on their freeview channels instead of commercial products.

[non-stick]

(08-10-2008 10:01 PM)Della Wrote:  My objection to the license is that it is a flat fee not in proportion to what you use and it is not means tested.

When you think of every student at university buying a license from their grant, people with very poor reception who can only receive TV through satellite, people on low incomes, people who rarely watch TV etc paying the same as those glued to the box, I think it is so unfair that it may as well be scrapped.

The BBC is full of adverts. They just advertise programmes on their freeview channels instead of commercial products.

As I say it's not just the TV channels and it really is only pence (about 38p) not pounds per day, less than the price of a newspaper, less than a pint (even at student discounts and they regulalry find money to get pissed!) and many other things. Actually pretty good value in my book. We'll probably only truly value what we had when/if we lose it. Last night I watched the Paul Merton program on India, the first ad break was after about 3 minutes!!!. At least when you're watching a film/program it doesn't break for adverts on the BBC. And the Beeb adverts whilst annoying are no where near as intrusive as on commercial channels.