# Great. BBC cuts. Perfect news.



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

If you want to imagine the future of television, imagine Kate Burley stamping on a viewers face, forever.

now the beeb isn't perfect, but for what it is it provides excellent value for money. Looks like bbc2 is to become a version of Dave with endless repeats. Joy.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 6, 2011)

Come on Mr Redspot give us a link.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> If you want to imagine the future of television, imagine Kate Burley stamping on a viewers face, forever.
> 
> now the beeb isn't perfect, but for what it is it provides excellent value for money. Looks like bbc2 is to become a version of Dave with endless repeats. Joy.



Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15165926

some 2,000 jobs to go as well. Hope the scabs feel good about themselves now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


 
go fuck yourself- the bbc is known as one of the best broadcasters in the world for a reason.


----------



## Mungy (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


no, lets not.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


Yeah! Because what we'll get instead - American style, advert laden, product-placement littered, lowest-common-denominator shovelware is so much better!

*highfives the trollboy


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

of course we could just have broadcasters owned by private interests like News International. Thats been going so well.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.



Yeah, let's have everything run by Sky et al - that's a much better idea, isn't it?

What is it with the new intake?  They're either Sir Keith Joseph-alike loons, ardent goosesteppers or spamtastic dodgy salespeople.  Ye gods!


----------



## Mungy (Oct 6, 2011)

i just don't have dotty's flair for language


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


Not bad. Needs a little extra to be really convincing. Have you thought of citing your own experience in [whatever it is you are ranting about]?


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> go fuck yourself- the bbc is known as one of the best broadcasters in the world for a reason.



Yes but it's only considered such a good broadcaster by people such as yourself, who are too narrow minded to think of any alternatives.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Yes but it's only considered such a good broadcaster by people such as yourself, who are too narrow minded to think of any alternatives.


That's a really poor counter argument. 1/10


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Yeah! Because what we'll get instead - American style, advert laden, product-placement littered, lowest-common-denominator shovelware is so much better!


Except ITV and other commercial channels in the UK don't have ad breaks as often as the US does, cos it's regulated, so to say anything negative about the BBC has got to automatically mean an American style TV set up isn't right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Yes but it's only considered such a good broadcaster by people such as yourself, who are too narrow minded to think of any alternatives.


 
All hail the market.


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Yes but it's only considered such a good broadcaster by people such as yourself, who are too narrow minded to think of any alternatives.


Come on, you're not even trying. WHAT SORT of person is DotCommunist? What do you think his attitude to hard work is?


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Yeah! Because what we'll get instead - American style, advert laden, product-placement littered, lowest-common-denominator shovelware is so much better!
> 
> *highfives the trollboy



If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> All hail the market.



Oh, and your alternative the market is what? Yet more functions being taken on by the state?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 6, 2011)

Obviously I'm against austerity driven cuts in general - and would certainly defend the importance of the Beeb as public service broadcaster.  But equally, there are parts of what it currently does that effectively replicates what commercial channels deliver.   People got angry when they wanted to shut down 6 Music for good reason - because it was filling a much needed gap.  But couldn't they get rid of BBC3 and just have a bolder commissioning agenda for Beebs 1 and 2?

And I bet they're doing fuck all about the salaries paid to top management.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Oh, and your alternative the market is what? Yet more functions being taken on by the state?


 
funnily enough...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.



I think you may have been fooled there, if you don't have a TV you don't pay the licence afaict.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.



Only if you use them to watch or record tv as it is broadcast.

What do you do with your time if you don't have a tv?


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.



I'm 99.99% sure you are wrong about that - you only need a licence if you are watching live tv.. no because you own a device (paging Longdog).

I'm not on your side about the bbc. I look at ITV and Sky 1/2/3 and thank christ that we have one set of channels that produces the occasional worthwhile program.  C4 does so on the odd occasion as well, but then it is part-funded by the taxpayer.
The pure commercial channels are absolute 100% shite.
I hardly ever watch TV. I never watch ITV unless they are showing a good film, and even then the ads make it almost not worth watching.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Looks like bbc2 is to become a version of Dave with endless repeats. Joy.



Whats the announcement say about beeb 2 dot?



> now the beeb isn't perfect, but for what it is it provides excellent value for money.


yeah theres lots of great things about the bbc, and a fair few shite things - good for money i think on the whole
although the bad news is obvious (job losses and effect on services) I am glad that the bbc is moving out of london up north - should be more of this kind of thing - too much london bias in the media - this should change the culture and mood of the beeb a fair bit over time i think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.


 
Actually, ITV and Channel five are like that. Watching ITV news is like having a patronising 12 year old girl telling you the days events.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 6, 2011)

I used to know someone whose wife worked at the BBC, she made things like maps for news programs and for that was paid £45k.. I thought that was excessive.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.


Don't listen to the radio, then? Prefer incessant adverts interrupting broadcasts? Never use the BBC website?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

ska invita said:


> *Whats the announcement say about beeb 2 dot?*
> 
> yeah theres lots of great things about the bbc, and a fair few shite things - good for money i think on the whole
> although the bad news is obvious (job losses and effect on services) I am glad that the bbc is moving out of london up north - should be more of this kind of thing - too much london bias in the media - this should change the culture and mood of the beeb a fair bit over time i think.


 
Radio news bulletin said the money saving will come from a concentration on more repeats on bb2


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Actually, ITV and Channel five are like that. Watching ITV news is like having a patronising 12 year old girl telling you the days events.


Channel Five news is embarrassing and most of the output on the other channels after midnight is cheap, nasty betting and gambling drivel.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Actually, ITV and Channel five are like that. Watching ITV news is like having a patronising 12 year old girl telling you the days events.


BBC news is even more patronising than the ITN news, and that's saying something.
The sixty second update (or whatever it is) has got to be the final word in dumbing down.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Only if you use them to watch or record tv as it is broadcast.
> 
> What do you do with your time if you don't have a tv?


 
Talks shit


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> BBC news is even more patronising than the ITN news, and that's saying something.
> The sixty second update (or whatever it is) has got to be the final word in dumbing down.


 
No it isn't. It is naked propaganda but it isn't ITN level dumb.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> No it isn't. It is naked propaganda but it isn't ITN level dumb.


I think they're worse than ITV by miles. Some amusing gaffes on the BBC News channel from time to time as well.


----------



## Mungy (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> If you look at the non-BBC channels in this country you'll see they are nothing like that at all. Furthermore I don't own a television but am still required _by law_ to have a TV license because I have the internet and a particular type of phone which is totally ridiculous.


You only need a TV license if you watch or record  live broadcast. we have a TV but no license. We wrote a letter to them explaining that we do not watch live broadcast TV. So if you don't watch live broadcast, you no longer need to pay for a license.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Only if you use them to watch or record tv as it is broadcast.



I'll get clarification but the last TV License jobsworth I spoke to said they are required because I _could_, use them to watch live broadcasts.



> What do you do with your time if you don't have a tv?



Read, study, exercise, go out, have a life...


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

Cbeebies is probably worth the money, to be fair tho..


----------



## Mungy (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> I'll get clarification but the last TV License jobsworth I spoke to said they are required because I _could_, use them to watch live broadcasts.



they lied to you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I think they're worse than ITV by miles. Some amusing gaffes on the BBC News channel from time to time as well.


 
ITN have enough wooshy graphics to lend all the gravitas of a day out on the golden mile


----------



## Mungy (Oct 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Cbeebies is probably worth the money, to be fair tho..


if chris corcoran still does doodle-do, then yes, it is worth it


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Read, study, exercise, go out, have a life...



Cheers for that.  

But how do you know so much about it?


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

Mungy said:


> if chris cocoran still does doodle-do, then yes, it is worth it


I don't know who that is, but the entire channel seems to have been taken over by Justin Fletcher:


----------



## ska invita (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Radio news bulletin said the money saving will come from a concentration on more repeats on bb2


probably that is bad news, but I would just say that the beeb has some great stuff in their vaults and they deliberately dont repeat it in order to sell it on DVD - which pisses me off as we've all already paid for it and it belongs to us.  some creative repeats selection would be welcome - theres some classic and also little seen old telly which is a lot better than new productions out there. though as they are trying to save money they probably wont be doing anything to jeopardise their dvd sales...


----------



## Mungy (Oct 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I don't know who that is, but the entire channel seems to have been taken over by Justin Fletcher:


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

Mungy said:


>


Nah don't recognise him!

BBC 2 seems to have completely ceased to exist in any meaningful sense. Occasionally something interesting comes on BBC 4 which is, if you think about it, doing what BBC 2 was originally meant to do.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Talks shit



Speak for yourself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

ska invita said:


> probably that is bad news, but I would just say that the beeb has some great stuff in their vaults and they deliberately dont repeat it in order to sell it on DVD - which pisses me off as we've all already paid for it and it belongs to us. some creative repeats selection would be welcome - theres some classic and also little seen old telly which is a lot better than new productions out there. though as they are trying to save money they probably wont be doing anything to jeopardise their dvd sales...


 
Oh yeah, one thing that pissed me off is that they wouldn't give up the rights to This Morning with Richard Not Judy because they had not recouped thier money on it, but would not release it on DVD because they didn't think it would cover the cost of a DVD run. That sort of practise is to be frowned upon, but cuts and so on are not the way forward.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Speak for yourself.



If you always talk in the same way as in your first posting here, then DC speaks for a great many of us.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.



Bollocks.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 6, 2011)

It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.

It is quite a lot. Are there not possibilities to make the licence less expensive?


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.



So which one of these chinless cunts are you?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.
> 
> It is quite a lot. Are there not possibilities to make the licence less expensive?



These cuts are needed because the licence fee has been frozen for the next few years. A cut in the fee would result in even bigger cuts in the budget.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 6, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> These cuts are needed because the licence fee has been frozen for the next few years. A cut in the fee would result in even bigger cuts in the budget.



Could the BBC not earn more from the sale of some of its products?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Could the BBC not earn more from the sale of some of its products?



I expect that's been considered.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2011)

this is fucking shit.

i personally wish that the BBC would just axe BBC3 as it would get a lot of the commerical rivals off its back, we can after all watch OMG MY TITS ARE A KITTEN type shows elsewhere.

but the slashing and burning everywhere else depresses me.

one of this countries genuine world class (as in the actual use of the word, not the football use) institutions getting killed by a thousand slices


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

Dan U said:


> this is fucking shit.
> 
> i personally wish that the BBC would just axe BBC3 as it would get a lot of the commerical rivals off its back, we can after all watch OMG MY TITS ARE A KITTEN type shows elsewhere.
> 
> ...


BBC three can fuck off, agreed!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 6, 2011)

I would normally be one of the first to jump to the defence of the beloved Beeb, but currently I am very fed up with the tabloid style of its news coverage and the incessant repetitive trailers that fill what would be the advertising spot on a commercial channel. Apart from the obvious reason that they want to advertise their own content I suspect that they are preparing their viewers for a time when they will be forced to take advertising, and these trailer spots will be moved to allow that. These damned trailers for television programmes have also insinuated themselves into the radio schedule. Go away trailers. If you want to let us know what is coming give us a programme dedicated to this, at a fixed time. This programme itself, broadcast no more than twice a week could be announced quietly by a civilized unassertive voiced continuity announcer on the hour but not every hour.

There is also a lot of really low quality loud, brash vulgar television programming on BBC 1. The National Lottery programme is one such. The National Lottery is just a gambling operation run by Camelot. The programme is a terrible waste of time and has me grabbing the zapper to save puking on the carpet. Sadly it is the pressure from outside (I am looking at you Murdoch) that has got to the BBC senior management and made them do this.

Perhaps a change to a subscription service would be better than the so called 'licence'. It is vulnerable to the mean-spirited who take for granted the wide provisions of the BBC (including radio), and to the government who use a threat of reduction in the licence fee to intimidate the BBC in its news coverage - especially since the Gilligan affair. If people are prepared to pay the high rate they do for Sky television, and at the same time put up with advertising then the BBC could offer a similar subscription offering, based on something like ten percent higher than the existing licence fee but without the advertising.

As for the proposal to have local radio stations share material, this is plain bonkers. Good local stations have a distinct identity and help in a similar way to local newspapers to affirm local identity among the listeners.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

Hopefully now they'll show repeats of Pulling, This Life, Heartbreak High, Top Of The Pops 2 and all the other stuff I like.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

BBC3 is a bizarre mix of the lowest of low denominators and the occasional genuinely brilliant documentary.  It's like it can't quite decide where it is positioned.  Youth, yes.  But television for the betterment of youth or for its destruction?  Let's just throw a lot of shit in the pot and hope it kind of works.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Could the BBC not earn more from the sale of some of its products?


 
The bbc already makes a fuckton of money from exporting Top Gear, Doctor Who and many others, not to mention a bbc subscription charged channel in america, dvd sales and vast amounts of merchandising rights granted. They are already squeezing every drop of commercial cash they possibly can from their products.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> The bbc already makes a fuckton of money from exporting Top Gear, Doctor Who and many others, not to mention a bbc subscription charged channel in america, dvd sales and vast amounts of merchandising rights granted. They are already squeezing every drop of commercial cash they possibly can from their products.


I can't remember the relationship between this and the funding of new programmes though.  Aren't sales distributed via a private company?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> As for the proposal to have local radio stations share material, this is plain bonkers. Good local stations have a distinct identity and help in a similar way to local newspapers to affirm local identity among the listeners.


 
You can tell the difference in different regional beeb stations. Contrast that with syndicated stuff like Heart and you can pass through four fucking counties without noticing any difference in the output


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

They could've had the rights to the Simpsons when they bought the Tracey Ullman show back in the late 80s, but passed


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2011)

Need more Doctor Who spin-offs.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> You can tell the difference in different regional beeb stations. Contrast that with syndicated stuff like Heart and you can pass through four fucking counties without noticing any difference in the output


Yes I suspect that Heart - which is effectively a national programme with a hint of local variation, is the model that the would be vandals of the Beeb, have in mind.


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> They could've had the rights to the Simpsons when they bought the Tracey Ullman show back in the late 80s, but passed


'Had the rights' in what sense?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I can't remember the relationship between this and the funding of new programmes though. Aren't sales distributed via a private company?


 
I need strung out to explain it to me again but I think its a kind of 50/50 arrangement where modest profit is turned and some kicked back to the auntie, or auntie makes money from the initial sale to the capital wing. not sure


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> 'Had the rights' in what sense?



As in owned the distribution rights.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


> BBC3 is a bizarre mix of the lowest of low denominators and the occasional genuinely brilliant documentary. It's like it can't quite decide where it is positioned. Youth, yes. But television for the betterment of youth or for its destruction? Let's just throw a lot of shit in the pot and hope it kind of works.


Seems to be dedicated to slagging off young women most of the time.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

They need to make another series of The Challenges of Hercules. Almost all record of it is now defunct, just a few lonely references and retrospectives. But it was the best programme ever made and it was one of the first things BBC3 did.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

They should bring back Kilroy too. And Top Of The Pops. And Turnabout with Rob Curling.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

Definitely Tur..turn..turrrr... turn... TURNABOUT!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 6, 2011)

argument over


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)




----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 6, 2011)

Well everyone is skint and everything is costing more glad the licence is being frozen.


----------



## Santino (Oct 6, 2011)

All programmes to be padded out with extra 15 minutes of close-ups of main people, with tense Apprentice-style elimination announcement music playing.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


>


 

such an awesome show


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

Imagine how awesome it would be in full HD.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

It would be amazing. Like this, but better.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

I remember that if somebody managed to get the board set up right, they could manage to score a bazillion points by repeatedly turning the same blob.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

can anyone recall that utter shite program wher the competitors had to direct a famous battle from history and the computer took the opposing side, while the narrator gave you an overview of the history behind the battle? It was like watching someone else play Age of Empires really badly...


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

Oh no, that's right -- it was that if you were the person on the wrong side of the one who kept winning then you were fucked because you had to turn their blobs twice to get them your colour.  If you were on the right side of the one who kept winning then you could easily get second place.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> can anyone recall that utter shite program wher the competitors had to direct a famous battle from history and the computer took the opposing side, while the narrator gave you an overview of the history behind the battle? It was like watching someone else play Age of Empires really badly...


That actually was your brother playing Age of Empires.  He just told you that it was a telly programme.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 6, 2011)

Was that the one with Dermot Murnaghan?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> can anyone recall that utter shite program wher the competitors had to direct a famous battle from history and the computer took the opposing side, while the narrator gave you an overview of the history behind the battle? It was like watching someone else play Age of Empires really badly...



actually the were playing total war. (that's where the computer code came from)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Commanders


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Was that the one with Dermot Murnaghan?



I think so. Nobody ever won. It'd be like 'scipio vs hannibal' and they would play some prime battle in that conflict and then lose defying history and the narrator would be 'crucially, they placed thier archers within range of a charge of the heavy cavalry'. I used to shout at the telly so much during that program.


----------



## kittyP (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> go fuck yourself- the bbc is known as one of the best broadcasters in the world for a reason.



What he said ^


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> actually the were playing total war. (that's where the computer code came from)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Commanders


 
I knew I recognized the game from somewhere. Everyone on the show was so fucking shit at it though


----------



## kittyP (Oct 6, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Hopefully now they'll show repeats of Pulling, This Life, Heartbreak High, Top Of The Pops 2 and all the other stuff I like.



Oooh heartbreak high would be brilliant


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 6, 2011)

it was before the game it was based on came out.  you might  have seen shogun total war  which was it's older brother and  really rather similar


----------



## inferno (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.



The BBC is the finest news provider in the world bar none and the only one in this country  that doesn't kowtow to the tory sleazebag party.

The Beeb must be kept at all costs


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think you may have been fooled there, if you don't have a TV you don't pay the licence afaict.



Yep, he's taking utter bollocks. In fact you don't necessarily need one even if you do have a TV, provided you don't use it to watch live TV. I have a telly but no license because I only use it to watch DVDs and to watch my own astrovideo (my new hobby/obsession).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 6, 2011)

Mungy said:


> they lied to you.



I think a more likely explanation is tiny, sorry, rightmind made it up to support his nonsense "argument".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 6, 2011)

Even if everything else the BBC had ever made was shit (which it isn't) this would be reason enough to defend it:


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

inferno said:


> The BBC is the finest news provider in the world bar none and the only one in this country that doesn't kowtow to the tory sleazebag party.
> 
> The Beeb must be kept at all costs



Sky News and is a far better, and dare I say more impartial news provider than the left-wing BBC. No other news channel, from what I see - I don't get to see them too often, 'kowtow's' to the Tories, but the Beeb is definately a Labour institution.

I am not saying get rid of the BBC, just privatise it so it stops costing the tax-payer.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> I am not saying get rid of the BBC, just privatise it so it stops costing the tax-payer.



What - like the railways? (spoiler: it actually costs more to the taxpayer now...)


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

It's wonderful how someone who doesn't have a telly but spends his time 'studying and having a life' (no doubt knee deep in Literary theory when he isn't attending parties of great sophistication and being an all round bon viveur) still finds it in him to slag the BBC based on no reason other than his innate niggardliness and ideological objections to the funding model.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Sky News and is a far better, and dare I say more impartial news provider than the left-wing BBC. No other news channel, from what I see - I don't get to see them too often, 'kowtow's' to the Tories, but the Beeb is definately a Labour institution.
> 
> I am not saying get rid of the BBC, just privatise it so it stops costing the tax-payer.


 
You are a mug. The bbc doesn't have a left wing bias. It doesn't have a labour bias, and even if it did the labour party haven't been anything approaching left wing for nearly 20 years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Sky News ffs. Owned by those paragons of good journalistic practise, news international.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Sky News and is a far better, and dare I say more impartial news provider than the left-wing BBC. No other news channel, from what I see - I don't get to see them too often, 'kowtow's' to the Tories, but the Beeb is definately a Labour institution.
> 
> I am not saying get rid of the BBC, just privatise it so it stops costing the tax-payer.



Blimey, it's one tired cliché after another from this one, isn't it - and each of them dafter than the last.

The assertion that the BBC is a 'Labour institution' is patently ridiculous - not least because it sits most uneasily with the way in which the _Labour_ government savaged it over the sexed-up-dossier affair.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> You are a mug. The bbc doesn't have a left wing bias. It doesn't have a labour bias, and even if it did the labour party haven't been anything approaching left wing for nearly 20 years.



Is that so? Well someone who was a leading BBC newsreader for 20 years thinks differently...

Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2011)

This is the thing about the BBC the left and right both see the others bias.

Long may it continue.

The idea of Kay Burley scares me


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 6, 2011)

Sky is a minimum of £240 per year.  More if you want to add channels you actually might want to watch.   How is that better value?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Another mail link 

sissons is a clown


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 6, 2011)

dennisr said:


> What - like the railways? (spoiler: it actually costs more to the taxpayer now...)



Isn't what happened with the railways absolutely fucking mental - they were not a commercially viable so they were "quasi-renationalised" i.e. funded by the government whilst operating on a for-profit basis. Now the tory vermin are removing the cap on fees that they can impose so in effect we are now subsidising the rail companies to charge us extortionate prices. Ditto the banks. Ditto PFI/PPP. Ditto the NHS. We're not so much seeing this dismantling of the welfare state as the replacement of a social democratic welfare state with a corporate welfare state. We gotta stop these sponging, good for nothing scum!


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Another mail link
> 
> sissons is a clown



I notice that you are unable to actually contradict him.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 6, 2011)

Forget Sissons, Delingpole is loon in a league all of his own:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Marxist-plot-destroy-civilisation-within.html

The Daily Mail's Breivik moment.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> I notice that you are unable to actually contradict him.


Contradict this, Right Mind Hustings.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 6, 2011)

you don't own a TV, but you see Sky News as more impartial than BBC News?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Isn't what happened with the railways absolutely fucking mental -* they were not a commercially viable* so they were "quasi-renationalised" i.e. funded by the government whilst operating on a for-profit basis. Now the tory vermin are removing the cap on fees that they can impose so in effect we are now subsidising the rail companies to charge us extortionate prices. Ditto the banks. Ditto PFI/PPP. Ditto the NHS. We're not so much seeing this dismantling of the welfare state as the replacement of a social democratic welfare state with a corporate welfare state. We gotta stop these sponging, good for nothing scum!


 
not the case as it goes- they were not turning vast profit, and some routes made loss while others made money. As with any nationalised institution the profitable parts cover the ones that are not profitable (I await correction on this by mine of rail knowledge Roadkill)

but some things don't actually have to run at a profit. Telecoms, transport, energy and so on are not to be left for the vagaries of market forces. It is pointless to pretend that privitasing serves anything other than making people at the top richer while screwing the rest of us on safety and quality of service.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Contradict this, Right Mind Hustings.


 
IP match? well at least he tried using a different handle on this his third registration


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 6, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> not the case as it goes- they were not turning vast profit, and some routes made loss while others made money. As with any nationalised institution the profitable parts cover the ones that are not profitable (I await correction on this by mine of rail knowledge Roadkill)
> 
> but some things don't actually have to run at a profit. Telecoms, transport, energy and so on are not to be left for the vagaries of market forces. It is pointless to pretend that privitasing serves anything other than making people at the top richer while screwing the rest of us on safety and quality of service.



Railtrack were £7 billion in debt when they were liquidated, doesn't sound very commercially viable to be. A mate of mine who works in the rail buisness told me that passanger travel is not a profitable buisness in this country - the overheads are too high or some shit. Of course I completely agree with your second paragraph - the railways should be a publicly owned public service.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Forget Sissons, Delingpole is loon in a league all of his own:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Marxist-plot-destroy-civilisation-within.html
> 
> The Daily Mail's Breivik moment.


 
The man is stark raving mad. And like most right leaners who have skim read 1984 he's not understood a fucking word of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> *Railtrack were £7 billion in debt when they were liquidated,* doesn't sound very commercially viable to be. A mate of mine who works in the rail buisness told me that passanger travel is not a profitable buisness in this country - the overheads are too high or some shit. Of course I completely agree with your second paragraph - the railways should be a publicly owned public service.


 
iirc this was after the part-privatise 'sell off the profitable bits and call the rest failed' tactics seen as employed against the royal mail.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 6, 2011)

The point about the railways is that they were privatised on the assumption that, because it was state-owned, British Rail had to be inefficient.  That view (like most Tory thinking) owed everything to ideology and dogma and nothing to the facts, as the last fifteen years have shown.  Actually, BR was far more efficient than the privatised railway.  It moved two thirds as many people for one third of the cost, and its subsidy in real terms was between a third and a fifth of what the railways now need.  Had BR not been privatised, with the rise in traffic of the late 90s and 2000s, it might well have been turning a modest operating profit by now - although it would still have needed support for major capital investment.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 6, 2011)

Meanwhile, back on topic, the BBC's Director General claims the cuts have left it 'at the end of the road' and any further cuts will mean entire stations being closed down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/06/bbc-cuts-end-of-road

Fucking vandals.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 6, 2011)

Ah, I think we were getting our wires mixed up Dotty - I was saying thr railways were not commercially viable _after _privitisation but that instead of just taking them outright back into public ownership labour essentially just decided to prop up private buisnesses to run them PFI style. Now the tories are going one step further and abolishing price controls - leaving us with the worst of both worlds: a publicly funded service that charges extortionate fees.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Meanwhile, back on topic, the BBC's Director General claims the cuts have left it 'at the end of the road' and any further cuts will mean entire stations being closed down.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/06/bbc-cuts-end-of-road
> 
> Fucking vandals.



innit, fucking scum.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.



And you have the cheek to use the name 'Right Mind'!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Sky News and is a far better, and dare I say more impartial news provider than the left-wing BBC. No other news channel, from what I see - I don't get to see them too often, 'kowtow's' to the Tories, but the Beeb is definately a Labour institution.
> 
> I am not saying get rid of the BBC, just privatise it so it stops costing the tax-payer.



The BBC is not left wing, it follows the government of the day. Even if it were a 'Labour institution' that would still mean that it was a right-wing organisation. The Labour party has not been left-wing since a very brief period just before it lost the election in 1983 when it became a war casualty. Privatising something does not save any costs. The 'taxpayer' is the same person who will have to pay the privatised company that takes over the BBC.  Their 'tax' bill - that is to say the licence, will be reduced but if they want the product then it will cost more from the private company which will have to make a profit. The new owner can save money by lowering wages or cutting the quality and quantity of the service provided. This brings us full circle to what is happening now at the existing BBC. I won't pass judgement on your analysis of Sky News as you say you don't see much news. Get yourself a computer, you can get lots of news channels on the internet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Meanwhile, back on topic, the BBC's Director General claims the cuts have left it 'at the end of the road' and any further cuts will mean entire stations being closed down.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/06/bbc-cuts-end-of-road
> 
> Fucking vandals.


 
Remember Cameron calling the cuts to the beeb 'delicious'? with a grin?

Pure ideology. Nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with actual basis in reality. Much like the entire spectrum of tory cuts to public services. Blind fuck you jack, god love the market bullshit


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 6, 2011)

They are not in any sense of the word "conservatives" either. I'm more of a conservative than these fuckers. There are some values, some institutions, some services that I think are worth perserving in this country. These nihilists just want to disolve everything into liquid gold for shareholders and bonuses for CEOs.


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 6, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The BBC is not left wing, it follows the government of the day. Even if it were a 'Labour institution' that would still mean that it was a right-wing organisation. The Labour party has not been left-wing since a very brief period just before it lost the election in 1983 when it became a war casualty. ...



Yup.  The idea that the modern-day Labour party is in any meaningful sense left-wing is laughable.  Ideologically it'd be difficult to slip a fag paper between them and the Tories.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.
> 
> It is quite a lot. Are there not possibilities to make the licence less expensive?



Take the £145.50 figure, that's under £3pw for shedloads of commercial-free TV & radio services (national, nations, regional & local), the BBC World Service & an excellent website - that is so NOT a lot!

BTW - some of the TV licence income has also been 'top-sliced' to fund digital switch-over too, so the BBC does't even get all of it.



weltweit said:


> Could the BBC not earn more from the sale of some of its products?



BBC Worldwide, the commercial wing, continues to expand and contribute ever increasing amounts to the core operation - the latest plan is to release the iPlayer worldwide on a subscription and/or advertising basis.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Sky News and is a far better, and dare I say more impartial news provider than the left-wing BBC. No other news channel, from what I see - I don't get to see them too often, 'kowtow's' to the Tories, but the Beeb is definately a Labour institution.



Left wing BBC lol. So the BBC's cheif political correspondent, Nick Robinson, is a raging trot, clearly he's just been disguising himself as a self-confessed Tory all this time.



Right Mind said:


> I am not saying get rid of the BBC, just privatise it so it stops costing the tax-payer.



1) You need to demonstrate how privatisation reduces the cost to the tax-payer - the history of privatisation suggests otherwise.

2) If it was privatised it would cease to be the BBC in any meaningful sense.

Have you been on here before under a different name? You remind me of that Hustings clown who was here a week or 2 ago.

E2A: I see this has already been confirmed by a mod.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Sky News and is a far better, and dare I say more impartial news provider .......



I gave up reading at that point, you are clearly a fucking idiot of the highest order. 

And a fucking mug if you brought a TV licence and don't even watch TV.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 6, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Take the £145.50 figure, that's under £3pw for shedloads of commercial-free TV & radio services (national, nations, regional & local), the BBC World Service & an excellent website - that is so NOT a lot!



I suppose if you view it as £3pw it does not seem so much.

But there are a whole host of things that are pushed at us as being not a lot, gas bill, water bill, electric, BT, mobile bill, council tax, licence fee, broadband, antivirus, diesel for the car, car insurance, road tax, etc etc .. when you add them all up it amounts to a pretty penny..


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 6, 2011)

Birmingham's fucked. Again. Factual programming moves to Bristol; Birmingham gets to keep such gems as Doctors.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I can't remember the relationship between this and the funding of new programmes though. Aren't sales distributed via a private company?



BBC Worldwide, the commercial wing, operates a whole host of different arrangements across different sectors and different markets across the world, some operations they totally control and some are in partnerships with other businesses that are more expert in particular sectors or markets.

For example, their DVD business used to be in partnership with Woolworths before they collapsed & the UKTV network is in partnership with Flextech (or should I say was, as I think the partner has changed), because the BBC is not allowed to sell TV advertising in the UK market.

They also co-fund not only BBC productions, but productions shown on other networks, including ITV, but return the profits to the BBC.

IIRC BBC America, for example, is wholly operated by BBC Worldwide as are similar set-ups in other countries, again IIRC their satellite/cable television operations worldwide are one of the largest, if not the largest generator of growth & therefore income - hence the plan to roll-out the iPlayer internationality.

ETA - BTW there was a proposal to merge BBC Worldwide with Channel 4, as advertising revenues fall and C-4 needs additional income, this being seen as a better option then giving C-4 a slice of the licence fee.

The fact that this is being considered for our only other true 'public service broadcaster', somewhat craps on the idea of taking the BBC commercial - there isn't enough advertising out there to fund it.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Oh, and your alternative the market is what? Yet more functions being taken on by the state?



If we ever end up with all commercial tv and radio and no BBC, well you might as well administer the lethal...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> If we ever end up with all commercial tv and radio and no BBC, well you might as well administer the lethal...



To be fair, Right Mind could do the world a favour by administering the lethal to himself - now.


----------



## xenon (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind. LOL.

Tell us your view on the NHS Mr Mind? I've an incling where you might stand.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

Took a bit of digging around, but finally I found what I was looking for - confirmation that Right Mind is right off his/her head, as far as most of the British public is concerned.

The BBC is the most trusted for political news, with Sky second, but there's one fucking big gap between the two of them -

*50.3% to 6.5%*! 



> Name the print publication, broadcast news outlet or website you most trust when it comes to political news:
> 
> 1 - BBC News (online, TV and radio): 50.3 per cent.
> 2 - Sky News (6.5 per cent)
> ...


----------



## kabbes (Oct 6, 2011)

Jesus fuck, 2.5% of people trust the Sieg Heil.


----------



## binka (Oct 6, 2011)

people who think the bbc is the best for news reporting are talking rubbish imo. channel 4 news is miles better than anything else on tv.

im not in favour of cuts and do think there is a place for public service broadcasting but the bbc on the whole is a bit shit and i don't think this country would be much poorer culturally if it was half the size or even smaller tbh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 6, 2011)

The bbc thinks you are a bit shit and would gladly see you reduced by half.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

How the fuck anyone can describe the BBC as 'a bit shit' is beyond me.

BBC 1 has the highest reach of any TV channel, with about 85% tuning in at some point during the average week, despite competition from dozens upon dozens of, mainly shit, commercial stations.

The BBC News Channel has over 50% more viewers than the, mainly shit, Sky News.

And BBC radio has well over 50% of total share of radio listening despite competition from hundreds upon hundreds of, mainly shit, commercial stations.

Whilst some improvements and some cost cutting can be justified, to refer to them as 'a bit shit' or that they should be cut to half of their size or less is, well, a bit shit TBH.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

And let's not forget we've already seen years of dumbing down of both commercial TV & radio with formally great regional TV services and local radio stations being taken-over by the borg - how must worst that would be now if they still didn't have to keep up some sort of effort to compete with the standards set by the BBC?


----------



## binka (Oct 6, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> How the fuck anyone can describe the BBC as 'a bit shit' is beyond me.


because quite a bit of what the bbc does is shit therefore the bbc is a bit shit


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

binka said:


> because quite a bit of what the bbc does is shit therefore the bbc is a bit shit



Correction, you find some of what the BBC does is a bit shit, that doesn't make the BBC 'a bit shit'. 

The BBC has to appeal to the widest possible audience, across all ages and all social groups in order to justify the universal licence fee, that they do extremely well as all the viewing & listening figures prove.

Meanwhile the commercial sector is left wanting.

And moaning.

And more than a bit shit.


----------



## binka (Oct 6, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Correction, you find some of what the BBC does is a bit shit, that doesn't make the BBC 'a bit shit'.


right so the only thing you are disputing now is exactly how much of the bbc is shit.

there's very little genuine quality on the bbc


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 6, 2011)

binka said:


> right so the only thing you are disputing not is exactly how much of the bbc is shit.



What? 



> there's very little genuine quality on the bbc



WTF? 

Compare any BBC service to the equal commercial service, and the BBC wins hands down.


----------



## binka (Oct 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> What?


see edit



claphamboy said:


> WTF?
> 
> Compare any BBC service to the equal commercial service, and the BBC wins hands down.


does it fuck


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Took a bit of digging around, but finally I found what I was looking for - confirmation that Right Mind is right off his/her head, as far as most of the British public is concerned.



I really don't know why you bothered as Right Mind showed him/herself to be out of their mind from the very first post.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I really don't know why you bothered as Right Mind showed him/herself to be out of their mind from the very first post.



Why go on about right mind, he / she has been banned - for whatever reason I have no idea - but he / she cannot defend themselves or put any points anymore.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Why go on about right mind, he / she has been banned - for whatever reason I have no idea - but he / she cannot defend themselves or put any points anymore.



Don't be so precious, my dear.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Don't be so precious, my dear.



I don't like people appearing, making a point, and then suddenly being banned and dissapearing again ....

It might help if we knew why they had been banned? otherwise it appears anyone can be banned at any moment on the whim of a mod.... and if that is the case - honestly why bother to populate the forum with our valuable content ? why ?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 7, 2011)

Because it was Hustings, a banned poster, apparently.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2011)

returning for the third time


----------



## kabbes (Oct 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't like people appearing, making a point, and then suddenly being banned and dissapearing again ....
> 
> It might help if we knew why they had been banned? otherwise it appears anyone can be banned at any moment on the whim of a mod.... and if that is the case - honestly why bother to populate the forum with our valuable content ? why ?


1) Anyone _can_ be banned at any moment on the whim of the mod.  It's a private message board.  They _can_ do what they want.
2) But does this actually happen?  It does not.  So I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The BBC is the most trusted for political news, with Sky second, but there's one fucking big gap between the two of them -
> 
> *50.3% to 6.5%*!



That's a bit worrying, that BBC News is sooo influential - means that eg. when they substitute a neutral frame for an independent one (eg. over Gaza) half of the population take it up on trust.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't like people appearing, making a point, and then suddenly being banned and dissapearing again ....
> 
> It might help if we knew why they had been banned? otherwise it appears anyone can be banned at any moment on the whim of a mod.... and if that is the case - honestly why bother to populate the forum with our valuable content ? why ?



See post 107 on this thread.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 7, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


Your name says is all. Do you propose an increase in the number of free schools too?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 7, 2011)

This posh twat from the Torygraph crows with delight
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...heyre-at-least-a-step-in-the-right-direction/

The comments are full of the usual ill-informed nonsense.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 7, 2011)

binka said:


> see edit
> 
> 
> 
> > right so the only thing you are disputing now is exactly how much of the bbc is shit.



No, there's plenty of BBC output that doesn't appeal to me, such as Radio 3 & most of the output of BBC3, that doesn't mean it's shit, it's just not aimed at me - I am neither a classical music fan nor in the age group that BBC3 is aimed at.



> does it fuck



Well the viewing & listening figures, together with the traffic to their website, would suggest otherwise - see post 136 above.

Unless you are judging it on some other basis, in which case please do explain, because just posting claims that 'it's a bit shit' & 'there's very little genuine quality on the bbc' is rather pointless without explanation.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 7, 2011)

Mungy said:


> You only need a TV license if you watch or record live broadcast. we have a TV but no license. We wrote a letter to them explaining that we do not watch live broadcast TV. So if you don't watch live broadcast, you no longer need to pay for a license.



Yep, we are the same in my house. When we told TV licensing we were only watching recorded TV via iPlayer on our Wii, they were perfectly fine with it.

I think when rightmind returns under another psudoname, they ought to at least get the basic facts right on their trolling. It's one thing to come across as a cunt, quite another to come across as a _stupid_ cunt...


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> And let's not forget we've already seen years of dumbing down of both commercial TV & radio with formally great regional TV services and local radio stations being taken-over by the borg - how must worst that would be now if they still didn't have to keep up some sort of effort to compete with the standards set by the BBC?


Standards set by the BBC - what would that be? At least in terms of news reporting they are more likely to unquestioningly take the government line - regardless of which party it is. Like telling us all that "the cuts" esp in the NHS had to happen, this was a couple of years ago before the coalition as well.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 7, 2011)

It looks like Danny Baker is on Twitter (as prodnose) saying that his showing is getting the axe?



> So the BBC London afternoon show - current Sony Gold Holder - is to be part of the Delivering Quality First cuts. The logic of Genius.


----------



## Teepee (Oct 7, 2011)

I hope they leave radio 4 alone


----------



## Diamond (Oct 7, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> If you want to imagine the future of television, imagine Kate Burley stamping on a viewers face, forever.
> 
> now the beeb isn't perfect, but for what it is it provides excellent value for money. Looks like bbc2 is to become a version of Dave with endless repeats. Joy.



I think the beeb's great but I'm not sure that you can say that it's excellent value for money.

In essence, the beeb's licence fee is a regressive tax. The notion that an organisation that draws much of its funding from a regressive tax can be excellent value for money is bizarre. Further, the fact that it has a guaranteed revenue stream from a regressive tax makes the beeb very liable to being flabby and wasteful.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2011)

For how much you pay in license fee per household, per year, to get the TV channels, national radio and local radio stations you do, I can't see how that is bad value tbh.

The worse thing about these cuts is that it always seems to end up targeting production and programmes (looking at this anyway), which is where the BBC excels. It doesn't hit those areas where I am sure money is wasted.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 7, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Standards set by the BBC - what would that be? At least in terms of news reporting they are more likely to unquestioningly take the government line - regardless of which party it is. Like telling us all that "the cuts" esp in the NHS had to happen, this was a couple of years ago before the coalition as well.



My comment was more to do with overall output.

However in respect of news, they will report that the government are saying cuts have to happen, because that is the job of reporting, just like they will report claims from others (professionals, unions or whatever) that state the opposite - they don't express their our editorial view, like newspapers do.

They regularly question government ministers over policy and give time to others to offer different views, not just in the main news programmes, but in the more in-depth political programmes. They may not be perfect, but they are still far better than both Sky News & ITN, with perhaps the exception of the ITN produced C-4 News on some subjects.

British broadcast news, both TV & radio, is actually fairly well balanced, it has to be by law, there are calls, mostly from the 'right' for this requirement to be dropped so that we can have a British version of the likes of Fox News, let's hope the fuck that that never happens.

The fact that those on the left cry a right-wing bias at the BBC, whilst those on the right cry the opposite is, to me, a fairly good indication that overall they are reasonably balanced.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2011)

No, that old chesnut again, if people on the left and right complain about it it must be well balanced!!


----------



## cemertyone (Oct 7, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> go fuck yourself- the bbc is known as one of the best broadcasters in the world for a reason.



I guess you dont watch the morning news with Bill and Sain then???
Theres no news but every has been/wannbe thats got a film to flog or an album to promote
seems to get endless sofa time with them at the expense of proper news reportage..
Im not knocking the BBC per se...just that morning "oh isnt the world lovely" sugar theseem to pump out.
This morning it was the 75 year old granny running marathon hero...sweet jesus save us..


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2011)

breakfast news is all bollocks. GMTV anyone?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 7, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> I guess you dont watch the morning news with Bill and Sain then???
> *Theres no news but every has been/wannbe thats got a film to flog or an album to promote*
> *seems to get endless sofa time with them at the expense of proper news reportage..*
> Im not knocking the BBC per se...just that morning "oh isnt the world lovely" sugar theseem to pump out.
> This morning it was the 75 year old granny running marathon hero...sweet jesus save us..



You must only be watching after 9am, when the format moves from mainly news to magazine style, the point at which 'Breakfast' is dropped on the BBC News Channel.

You need to switch over to the News Channel or just get up earlier!


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 7, 2011)

re the "left/right" balance thing, someone I know told me that there was a study showing the BBC coverage of views broadcast in the run up to Iraq 2003, and there was a low ratio of people expressing "anti" war views compared to those expressing "pro" war views.

Has anyone heard of this?  Is it true?  I was doubtful, but sometimes I think stories do seem framed toward a certain quarters agenda.  Coverage of the big strike at the start of summer (was it teachers?) seemed to be have a distinct lack of union leaders being interviewed at times, but then at other times it seemed pretty balanced.  Hard to tell, without watching/listening to more news than is healthy for you.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2011)

There was that infamous clip of some strikers being interviewed with the end of what he was saying deliberately left off by Nick Robinson to try and infer they were all racists.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 7, 2011)

The BBC, in the final analysis, is an institution of the bourgeois state. Nevertheless, as a collectively funded, non commercial public entity it must be defended as an important cultural buffer to the full spectrum dominance of neoliberal nihilism. Anybody who has watched american tv (_tv_ not _tv shows_ please note) will feel this.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 7, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> I guess you dont watch the morning news with Bill and Sain then???
> Theres no news but every has been/wannbe thats got a film to flog or an album to promote
> seems to get endless sofa time with them at the expense of proper news reportage..
> Im not knocking the BBC per se...just that morning "oh isnt the world lovely" sugar theseem to pump out.
> This morning it was the 75 year old granny running marathon hero...sweet jesus save us..


 
It's not called the morning news.  Why do you think it's a news programme? It's called Breakfast.  It's a 'magazine' programme and news, weather and traffic are segments in it.


----------



## Mungy (Oct 7, 2011)

before the dodgy dossier, the bbc used to be ever so slightly anti-government. in the aftermath, they were slightly more pro-government. i haven't watched tv in the last couple of years, so i don't know if that still the case


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> It's not called the morning news. Why do you think it's a news programme? It's called Breakfast. It's a 'magazine' programme and news, weather and traffic are segments in it.


I hate that programme. Thank God for Zingzillas.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 13, 2011)

If you care about the future of the BBC, please take the time to take part in the public consultation on this latest round of cuts.  You can access the questionnaire via the BBC Trust website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/index.shtml


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I hate that programme. Thank God for Zingzillas.


Offering their unqualified support for single parents to be forced onto JSA this morning, the "socialist" BBC.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

Just slash most of BBC local radio. Largely duplicates commercial stations and costs a hell of a lot. Also here in Edinburgh BBC Scotland is all over the radio 4 frequencies which is really annoying.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Just slash most of BBC local radio. Largely duplicates commercial stations and costs a hell of a lot. Also here in Edinburgh BBC Scotland is all over the radio 4 frequencies which is really annoying.


I think it's a big mistake to cut local radio. Next time there's something like the floods in Sheffield, or a gunman on the rampage in Cumbria, people will really realise what they've lost.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Offering their unqualified support for single parents to be forced onto JSA this morning, the "socialist" BBC.



I must have missed that.  I was watching Breakfast when they mentioned this, but I didn't hear them offering unqualified support for it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> IP match? well at least he tried using a different handle on this his third registration


He later tried a fourth  He's not the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 14, 2011)

Excellent post by Jeff Robinson at #168.

On any channel, breakfast time tv has always seemed an alien country - if people want it to make sense then they really need to seriously adjust their mindset. Or just get out more.

I do struggle a little with BBC 3 and 4 - no daytime prgramming, thin on the ground generally... I'm not critcising the BBC for planting a flag in so much of the digital landscape (early doors) but, from there, the strategy could only be to use the fact of more channels to justify the license fee level.

Fwiw, I'd lose the News Channel now if it didn't leave that entire market to Sky.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

If it was down to me I'd cut BBC3 and TV and radio trailers. I certainly wouldn't be deciding to leave overseas news to local stringers either. For a start it could put them and their families at serious risk of harm.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think it's a big mistake to cut local radio. Next time there's something like the floods in Sheffield, or a gunman on the rampage in Cumbria, people will really realise what they've lost.


great 2 hypotheticals to push my point (don't know Sheffield or Cumbria that well, just did a quick google). Do you really think only the listeners to BBC Radio Sheffield deserve to know there may be flooding coming and not Hallam FM listeners or that listeners to local state radio in Cumbria deserve a heads up about maniacs with guns more than commercial radio listeners. ? No, either do I, at present thats 2 calls you have to make instead of one


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

It's about coping with the aftermath in the case of Sheffield and in the case of Cumbria arguably lives were saved.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> great 2 hypotheticals to push my point (don't know Sheffield or Cumbria that well, just did a quick google). Do you really think only the listeners to BBC Radio Sheffield deserve to know there may be flooding coming and not Hallam FM listeners or that listeners to local state radio in Cumbria deserve a heads up about maniacs with guns more than commercial radio listeners. ? No, either do I, at present thats 2 calls you have to make instead of one



What a strange point which I don't see follows Mrs M's post whatsoever.

Besides, commercial radio rarely covers any local issues in the same way that BBC local radio does as it is always chasing advertising revenue and audience figures, and especially given that proper ILR is becoming a rare thing nowadays with networked programming and groups such as Heart buying up every station it can.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

Example I can relate to the snow last year in the south east. Both commercial and BBC pulled their weight in making sure you knew where was blocked where to pull up to avoid being stranded etc. To say only the Beeb can do it is bollocks, I don't live in Sheffield or Cumbria but I doubt commercial left their issues alone either.
Plus looking at it the Murdcoch way (I don't think he does local radio so not directly defending the fucker) Commercials undermined by subsidised Beeb, and in going would also lose places where local business can promote themselves.

Don't get me wrong there is stuff on local I like, Robert Elms is great, (sadly missed by me now) for example, but local radio is over 20% of the license fee and is more duplicate and less niche than other areas that HAVE been threatened with an axe


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Don't get me wrong there is stuff on local I like, Robert Elms is great, (sadly missed by me now) for example, but local radio is over 20% of the license fee and is more duplicate and less niche than other areas that HAVE been threatened with an axe



When I can get the sort of alternative music and speech output from commercial radio stations that I can from the BBC (possibly only Colourful and Jazz FM excepted - everything else I listen to is either community radio or pirate) rather than mostly inane chatter and the same 10 songs on rotation every day, perhaps I'll believe you.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

try radio 6 or radio 4, radio 4 extra


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 14, 2011)

In the mean time, playing specific radio show playlists automatically through Spotify is a decent compromise....

http://www.biblify.com/
http://www.britify.com/


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> try radio 6 or radio 4, radio 4 extra


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He later tried a fourth  He's not the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer.


...and he's just tried again...he's ridiculously thick.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> In the mean time, playing specific radio show playlists automatically through Spotify is a decent compromise....



Not if I want to actually listen to _the radio - _I love the medium. I realise this makes me some kind of dinosaur.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


>


they aren't local stations, they are national. I'm talking the locals which generally do play the same records in rotation as their commercial equivilants....


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> they aren't local stations, they are national. I'm talking the locals which generally do play the same records in rotation as their commercial equivilants....



I wasn't talking about nationals - I was talking about stations like BBC London (which has been frankly culturally vandalised enough over the years but still remains pretty good) and GMR.

BBC local does a lot more than just 'play the same records in rotation'.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

London is an odd example, you have half a dozen specialist music stations as well as the syndicated commercials. Outside London its mainly beige vs beige


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

I'd like to see a healthy and diverse radio spectrum regardless of whether the BBC provide it, commercial radio stations provide it, or not-for-profit/community groups provide it. Not approach it from the angle of a 'race to the wireless bottom'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Excellent post by Jeff Robinson at #168.
> 
> On any channel, breakfast time tv has always seemed an alien country - if people want it to make sense then they really need to seriously adjust their mindset. Or just get out more.
> 
> ...


 
BBC3 does manage some good shows-fades is shaping up nicely for example and Being Human was ace. Could do with less 'dog borstal' type shit but I'm assuming somewhere among the license paying hordes thereis a demographic these show are aimed at.

BB4 is a goldmine for documentaries


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> London is an odd example, you have half a dozen specialist music stations as well as the syndicated commercials. Outside London its mainly beige vs beige



And the commercial radio market isn't doing much for that is it? That's what I'm saying - it's BBC local stations that still have output for minorities and communities, specialist music shows, local band shows, locally focused phone-ins talking about those issues.

I used to love ILRs when I was younger, but they are incredibly bland nowadays in comparison, and if you can actually find any local output on them - stations like Chiltern and Invicta turning into yet another Heart.

And then there is the crop of what were newer ILRs such as Kiss, Galaxy and XFM that appeared in the 90s and were offering something different to what prevailed both commercially and from the BBC, but that have slowly become subsumed by larger groups (EMAP, Capital) wanting national reach and audience revenues, and their diversity of output and local-mindedness has been eroded as time has moved on.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> And the commercial radio market isn't doing much for that is it? That's what I'm saying - it's BBC local stations that still have output for minorities and communities, specialist music shows, local band shows, locally focused phone-ins talking about those issues.
> 
> I used to love ILRs when I was younger, but they are incredibly bland nowadays in comparison, and if you can actually find any local output on them - stations like Chiltern turning into another Heart, etc. And then there was the crop of newer ILRs such as Kiss and XFM that appeared in the 90s that have slowly become national-focused and their diversity of output has become less as time has gone on.


not gone local since been up here in scotland, but when down south outside London I found commercial and beeb being much of a muchness, hence what I'm saying. I also don't think playing jenga acorss the whole of the bbc is the answer, a bit of judical pruning in order. I'd like to say ditch local tv news cos for the last 20 years ITV regional kicks its arse, with BBC South only covering it if happens (regardless of how insignificant) in Southampton, or for me more recently Glasgow, whilst commercial has 2 news rooms east or west coast. But video is expensive to put together. Phone the local papers newsroom and let em play their dictaphone and you can cover radio. As for the rest of content local radio is in the main a bit meh, would class BBC London as the exception. Both commercial and Beeb do do local phone ins / bands/ community news


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

My concern really is that when any kind of 'pruning' happens, it doesn't seem to affect those areas which I think the BBC actually excels in - especially localism, alternative/specialist output and quality output of news/current affairs, drama and documentaries. It's bad enough that specialist stuff often gets shifted to graveyard slots as it is, and then there's the predictable cry from right-wingers "I don't want to see a drama about teh gays, teh Muslims 111eleventy1".

I hate the way that the BBC has decided that it will follow the commercial model of aggressively advertising on its own channels when it doesn't really need to. That it will try and embrace absolutely everything it can like the commercial world to get maximum reach. And, if anything, this new round of BBC cuts I fear will tend to reduce its quality and diversity of output, whilst presumably other things which are more intended for mass audience will continue.

And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to risk living in a cultural desert just because some people would like to pay a bit less tax/license fee. I honestly believe that going down that line you would really see how much is lost later and perhaps when it is too late.

I've had involvement in radio and I'm a radio lover, and I've seen so many promises of great possibilities from commercial radio just fail to deliver time and time again, or to offer some occasionally truly great things only for them to be swallowed up again by the 'forces of the market' or 'opening up the market'. The latter replaced hundreds of proper ILRs with identikit Heart and Capital.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Just slash most of BBC local radio. Largely duplicates commercial stations and costs a hell of a lot.



How on earth can you say that?

Most local commercial stations have all but ceased to be local, apart from very brief local news bulletins, traffic, weather & ads being inserted into networked programmes which accounts for the vast majority of their airtime. They give the impression they are local, but they are not and can't possibly provide anything near to what BBC local radio does.

We have two 'local' commercial stations, one is networked 24/7 with 3 or 4 others that are miles away and the other is Heart, that is only 'local' at for the breakfast & drive-time shows Mon-Fri, less at weekends, and even that so-called 'local' output is networked with a neighbouring Heart station, the rest is networked from London.

BBC local radio also costs very little in terms of the overall budget, in fact all BBC radio services (national, nations & local) costs just over £2pm from the licence fee - about 17%. And we also have one of the cheapest licence fees in Europe - source.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I do struggle a little with BBC 3 and 4 - no daytime prgramming...



They do carry daytime programming - they are CBBC & CBeebies during the daytime, they just have different channel numbers on the EPG (Electronic Programme Guide], but they share the same actual transmission spectrum.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> If it was down to me I'd cut BBC3 ....



That would be a big mistake, the BBC has to be inclusive to justify the universal licence fee, and therefore they need BBC3 to bring in younger viewers.

Besides the total budget for both BBC3 & BBC4 is only equal to 15% of the budget that the BBC spends on sports rights, it's peanuts, and has been covered by the BBC sharing rights with Sky over F1 motor racing.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> How on earth can you say that?
> 
> Most local commercial stations have all but ceased to be local, apart from very brief local news bulletins, traffic, weather & ads being inserted into networked programmes which accounts for the vast majority of their airtime. They give the impression they are local, but they are not and can't possibly provide anything near to what BBC local radio does.
> 
> ...



Coz I spen(t)d most of my time between Basingstoke and Guildford and found Kestrel/Eagle/Southern Counties interchangeable


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Don't get me wrong there is stuff on local I like, Robert Elms is great, (sadly missed by me now) for example, *but local radio is over 20% of the license fee* and is more duplicate and less niche than other areas that HAVE been threatened with an axe



Bollocks, total bollocks, see post #198 - the total budget of ALL radio services in the UK is only 17%.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

As long as gosub gets what they want in where they are, stuff everyone else. All hail the market, lets get those taxes down!


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> I'd like to say ditch local tv news cos for the last 20 years ITV regional kicks its arse....



ITV is trying to drop regional news. 

After full digital switch-over they are even threatening to hand back their official channel 3 licence, so they will no longer have to provide what very limited public service remit they are still required to do.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Bollocks, total bollocks, see post #198 - the total budget of ALL radio services in the UK is only 17%.


Looking on wikipedia, confirms what you say. Article I read a couple of years ago says different, I'll have to go will the 17%, thats still what 10% of license fee, not insignificant


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> As long as gosub gets what they want in where they are, stuff everyone else. All hail the market, lets get those taxes down!



Do fuck off. I have never called for a drop in the license fee coz living NFA til last October it wasn't something I had to worry about. Came to this thread in the spirit of how would you make the cuts that have been agreed. Not only do I think local radio is the weak link pissed being discussed. Mind you quite hard around a back drop of the BBC is so sacrasanct, there is no aera of the myriad of services it provides that we can do without. BURN THE HERETICS! BURN! BURN! BURN!


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Coz I spen(t)d most of my time between Basingstoke and Guildford and found Kestrel/Eagle/Southern Counties interchangeable



Kestrel is now owned by the Tindle Radio group, whilst Eagle is now owned by the UKRD Group, both of those groups are fairly small and likely to get taken over sooner or later. Again both of these small groups are a bit more committed to keeping their stations fairly local, Tindle more so.

Whilst they may not carry much networked programming, a hell of a lot of their output will be voice-tracked, often there will be no one in the building - just a computer playing out music & voice tracks whilst inserting station IDs, ads & IRN news (provided by Sky nowadays), they have not a chance in hell in reacting to a major local situation developing.

The largest UK 'local' radio group is called *Global* Radio, how ironic is that?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Do fuck off. I have never called for a drop in the license fee coz living NFA til last October it wasn't something I had to worry about. Came to this thread in the spirit of how would you make the cuts that have been agreed. Not only do I think local radio is the weak link pissed being discussed. Mind you quite hard around a back drop of the BBC is so sacrasanct, there is no aera of the myriad of services it provides that we can do without. BURN THE HERETICS! BURN! BURN! BURN!



So you've basically proven my point then.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Coz I spen(t)d most of my time between Basingstoke and Guildford and found Kestrel/Eagle/Southern Counties interchangeable



This is therefore representative of the whole country. Now I've listened to radio in a lot of places around the country but not found many ILR/commercial stations that offer the same output as BBC local radio. Many of them how now been swallowed up by Heart/Capital of course, but those remaining are heavily chart-music oriented stations.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Looking on wikipedia, confirms what you say. Article I read a couple of years ago says different, I'll have to go will the 17%, thats still what 10% of license fee, not insignificant



No, total BBC radio spend is 17%, the vast majority of that will be on national radio, the percentage on local radio is likely to be well under 5%.

Have you seen how much the BBC has to pay to play recorded music on their national stations?



> BBC Radio 1  £16.84
> BBC Radio 2  £22.71
> BBC Radio 3  £11.07
> BBC Radio 4  £26.40
> ...



And that's per minute, not per track.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Kestrel is now owned by the Tindle Radio group, whilst Eagle is now owned by the UKRD Group, both of those groups are fairly small and likely to get taken over sooner or later. Again both of these small groups are a bit more committed to keeping their stations fairly local, Tindle more so.
> 
> Whilst they may not carry much networked programming, a hell of a lot of their output will be voice-tracked, often there will be no one in the building - just a computer playing out music & voice tracks whilst inserting station IDs, ads & IRN news (provided by Sky nowadays), they have not a chance in hell in reacting to a major local situation developing.
> 
> The largest UK 'local' radio group is called *Global* Radio, how ironic is that?


Global is that GWR as was, that 210 used to be part of. I sort of get what you are saying growing we had 210 in reading CountySound in Guildford much of a muchness, didn't notice beeb at time. As for local situations that sznow last spring that was a national story but local to the area. All three stations handled in well, as did DoT. Was on the M3 when it strarted rain washing away salt turning to snow...


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> This is therefore representative of the whole country. Now I've listened to radio in a lot of places around the country but not found many ILR/commercial stations that offer the same output as BBC local radio. Many of them how now been swallowed up by Heart/Capital of course, but those remaining are heavily chart-music oriented stations.


 
It is therefore representative of my expericence.

Oh for an ignore list


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

Global Radio bought up the following local ILR stations and re-branded them as Capital, losing a lot of local programming/DJs:

Trent FM; Ram FM; Leicester Sound; Red Dragon FM; Galaxy Manchester; Galaxy Birmingham; Galaxy South Coast; Galaxy Yorkshire; Galaxy North East; Galaxy Scotland.

(Galaxy in-turn had previously bought up the following and re-branded: Kiss Yorkshire, Kiss Manchester, Choice Birmingham, Beat 106, Power FM).

They also bought up the following local ILR stations and re-branded them as Heart, again losing a lot of local programming/DJs:

Hereward Radio; Q103; Gemini FM; Plymouth Sound; Lantern Radio; SGR; Essex FM; Horizon; Chiltern; Northants 96; Severn Sound; Mercury (Herts); Oasis; Buzz; Coast; Marcher Sound; 2CR; Ocean Sound; Mercury FM; Southern Sound; Invicta; 2-Ten; Fox; GWR; Orchard FM.

To a lesser extent you also had a similar situation with GMG with Real Radio, and Bauer with Kiss.

How Ofcom ever allowed this to go on just beggars belief.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> It is therefore representative of my expericence.
> 
> Oh for an ignore list



Are you unable to discuss then, because so far you've not exactly shown that you're capable of arguing this much from a position other than some stations in one area didn't sound much different to the bbc local station. And everything else you've said seems to run contrary to a number of other posters experiences and presentation of facts.

You'll notice that I'm not against commercial radio but into protecting what's good about BBC local radio because it is incredibly popular and loved. You seem to work on the basis that on your experience of one bbc local radio station, there should be big cuts to bbc local radio.

If commercial radio does everything that BBC local radio offers as you suggest it does, then of course, there would be lesser or no need for BBC local radio - perhaps you can have a think about why commercial radio hasn't achieved that?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Global is that GWR as was, that 210 used to be part of. I sort of get what you are saying growing we had 210 in reading CountySound in Guildford much of a muchness, didn't notice beeb at time. As for local situations that sznow last spring that was a national story but local to the area. All three stations handled in well, as did DoT. Was on the M3 when it strarted rain washing away salt turning to snow...



The GWR group & Capital group combined and were taken over by Global, together with a few other stations, the big different is that both GWR & Capital, even when they combined, kept their stations largely local - Global couldn't give a flying fuck, and nor does OFCOM it seems, they are only interested in creating national stations by the back door.

Local commercial radio in this country is on it's way out, the big boys are only interested in token gestures towards being local and that's only because they have too, not because they want too. It's a fucking disgrace IMO.

I spent years in the 80s working for one of the 'super-pirates' in Ireland, which ended-up having three associated stations across the country, and we provided much more local output, much more community involvement in the cities/towns/villages we covered, shitsloads of local outside broadcasts, less advertising airtime, operating a fair bigger playlist during the daytime with plenty of 'free' options within that for the DJ's own choices and offering different specialist music programmes every evening. We provided good local news in partnership with the local papers and traffic reports in partnership with local taxi firms.

We were the biggest & best in each of the markets we operated in because we believed in providing the best possible service and not just in the bottom line.

Global, and the other big groups, are only interested in providing a very limited 'jukebox' output, keep costs as low as possible, profits as high as possible and fuck everything else.

Jesus, we were 'pirates', but had far higher standards than these bandits, the bastards.

And you think BBC local radio should be closed, and allow the commercial groups to fill the gap?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> And you think BBC local radio should be closed, and allow the commercial groups to fill the gap?



God help us. Voice-tracking, networking, adverts every other song from a playlist chosen by programming directors not presenters.

Besides, it'll largely work on the same basis as 'cutting public sector jobs and the private sector stepping in'!!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Local commercial radio in this country is on it's way out, the big boys are only interested in token gestures towards being local and that's only because they have too, not because they want too. It's a fucking disgrace IMO.



Quite, the golden-age of local, independent commercial radio has already gone, bought up by big groups and turned into national brands with just a couple of shows that are still locally presented.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> God help us. Voice-tracking, networking, adverts every other song from a playlist chosen by programming directors not presenters.
> 
> Besides, it'll largely work on the same basis as 'cutting public sector jobs and the private sector stepping in'!!



I reckon you & I should be taken on by OFCOM to head up the radio division, I am sure we could sort it all out.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> Quite, the golden-age of local, independent commercial radio has already gone, bought up by big groups and turned into national brands with just a couple of shows that are still locally presented.



It's worst than that, in the case of the Heart attack that killed so many local stations, even their so-called 'local' shows (breakfast & drive) are now shared between 2 to 4 what had been local stations before hand, with the rest from London.

IIRC in the case of the Capital branded stations, they only have a so-called 'local' breakfast show.

All the Gold branded stations are now networked 24/7 from London.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> And you think BBC local radio should be closed, and allow the commercial groups to fill the gap?



Because I'm going what I know from experience, you have just explained to me in reasonable terms that my experience is atypical. Other numprty is saying I'm the one calling for cuts (bit rich seeing as only just started paying license fee again) and my bexpericience is be all and end all, and my complaining about his/her tone proves their point Deranged


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

Then you're not reading either my posts or your own then properly.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

old boards multi quote would be easy. I am not  calling for cuts its about implimentation 203 mis represents me, 208 response to 206. I think you'llfind  I'm saying anyone who wants to change the BBC is a heretic 209. You took my expresion of my expience and told told me sarcastically "this is represative of the whole country".
Claphamboy took my explatation and explained they were outside the main group

consider yourslf on virtual ignore


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

So why did you roll with an argument based on your experience and other spurious points then if you knew it was going to fall over so badly?

Your personal experience is of course fine, but what sounded to me like a rather limited one, wrapped up in what appeared to be nothing more than 'bbc local radio bad/commercial radio great' comments which I don't even think stand up don't really lend much.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> No, total BBC radio spend is 17%, the vast majority of that will be on national radio, the percentage on local radio is likely to be well under 5%.
> 
> Have you seen how much the BBC has to pay to play recorded music on their national stations?
> 
> ...



How do they justify that, its not even squewed tow\ards total listeners, iirc 2 is more poular than 4, and classic and 3 are about the same...


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> So why did you roll with an argument based on your experience and other spurious points then if you knew it was going to fall over so badly?
> .


 
Coz reincarnation not withstanding (and I don't believe in that) I've only lived the life I'm living


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> Because I'm going what I know from experience, you have just explained to me in reasonable terms that my experience is atypical.



Going by experience is fair enough, but the landscape has changed so much and it's going to change even more as the big groups take more & more control - what's happened to local commercial radio over the last couple of years, and continues to roll-on, is much like what happened to ITV a good few years ago, it's history repeating itself. 

Funny thing is, I used to be anti-BBC, what with my background of working in pirate radio, the days when ITV used to produce good local programming, great investigative programmes & decent national news - the days when it used to be the most watched channel - and we had decent local commercial TV & radio stations. It seemed, back then, that the commercial boys could beat the BBC hands down, in almost all respects.

Sadly, I've witnessed over the years what the commercial sector has done in dumbing-down and just chasing the bucks, despite in theory being regulated in such a way to stop them doing exactly what they have managed to do. I guess the regulation slowed the pace, but piecemeal the commercial operators have got to, or are getting to, the position they have always wanted.

I don't want our broadcasting media, both TV & radio, to be dragged down to the gutter that the commercial groups swim in, hence I am now one of the greatest defenders of the BBC.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2011)

I now think from what I've read just renegotiate PRS, we they seem to be renegotiating as lasting longer and longer anyway, if they are willing to take that much lower off advert subisidized why pay extra


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> How do they justify that, its not even squewed tow\ards total listeners, iirc 2 is more poular than 4, and classic and 3 are about the same...



It's bloody odd, isn't it, something I've never understood.

IIRC in the US the stations don't have to pay royalties for playing music.

Has hearing a record on the radio ever stopped you from buying it or increase your chance of buying a track/album because if you hadn't heard it on the radio you would never have known about it? 

Going back to my experience in pirate radio in Ireland, we actually offered to pay PRS fees, because we wanted to be as legit as possible despite not actually having a broadcast licence, but they refused because we were 'illegal', despite the fact that we employed NUJ journalists, banked with the Bank of Ireland and had major national & international brands advertising with us!  - lol 

All the record companies supplied us with free records, because they wanted airtime to promote them, even after the state broadcaster (RTE) threaten to refuse to play records from companies supplying the pirates we received free records, but via their London offices instead, which caused delays & hassle with customs.

We even had a couple of record companies that offered to pay for records to be plugged, we refused.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Going by experience is fair enough, but the landscape has changed so much and it's going to change even more as the big groups take more & more control - what's happened to local commercial radio over the last couple of years, and continues to roll-on, is much like what happened to ITV a good few years ago, it's history repeating itself.
> 
> Funny thing is, I used to be anti-BBC, what with my background of working in pirate radio, the days when ITV used to produce good local programming, great investigative programmes & decent national news - the days when it used to be the most watched channel - and we had decent local commercial TV & radio stations. It seemed, back then, that the commercial boys could beat the BBC hands down, in almost all respects.
> 
> ...



Don't you think all channels, regardless of BBC or commercial have got worse in terms of output?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Don't you think all channels, regardless of BBC or commercial have got worse in terms of output?



To a degree, but the commercial sector has been the worst, in a way dragging the BBC down with it - because the BBC has to appeal to the widest possible audience, again, to justify the universal licence fee.

However, the BBC remains has become a shinning light in the last ten years - i.e. BBC1 took over from ITV as being the most watched channel, the BBC TV channels despite being very limited in their number of outlets command the largest share of audience (against ITV or Sky) and BBC radio shits on commercial radio despite the hundreds of commercial radio stations they compete with.

God help us if people seriously want to see the BBC disbanded and allow the Murdoch-controlled Sky, ITV (which Murdoch tried to take-over) & Dirty Desmond's Channel FIVE a free run.

FFS, the BBC costs under £3 per week per household, it's a bloody bargain!


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2011)

Why is it assumed that anyone who questions the BBC must want Rupert Murdoch running everything? The BBC might be "a bloody bargain" for anyone not struggling for money but I'd rather see a fairer method of charging according to ability to pay.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

On a side note, ITV used to be limited to 6 minutes of advertising per hour on average, 7 minutes per 'clock hour', i.e. they could top-load peak viewing times in order to provide off-peak programming.

IIRC that's now 9/10 minutes PLUS sponsorship and now PLUS product placement, fuck that.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Why is it assumed that anyone who questions the BBC must want Rupert Murdoch running everything? The BBC might be "a bloody bargain" for anyone not struggling for money but I'd rather see a fairer method of charging according to ability to pay.


It's surely fairer than the funding mechanism of commercial tv.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It's surely fairer than the funding mechanism of commercial tv.


No one goes to jail over that, though???


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The BBC might be "a bloody bargain" for anyone not struggling for money


A skint neighbour was moaning about the money for the BBC and I was sympathetic until I discovered what he's paying for Sky.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No one goes to jail over that, though???


Does that still happen?

Anyway, I was responding to your statement about what is "fair".


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Why is it assumed that anyone who questions the BBC must want Rupert Murdoch running everything?



Because, that is where the market will go without the BBC.



> The BBC might be "a bloody bargain" for anyone not struggling for money but I'd rather see a fairer method of charging according to ability to pay.



Any suggestions on how that can be achieved?

I would suggest any attempt to vary the licence fee according to ability to pay would be far too costly, FFS it's only £3 pw. 

Argue for increased benefits for those struggling, fair enough, but to argue for 'means testing' of the licence fee is beyond stupid.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No one goes to jail over that, though???



Who's gone to jail for not paying their TV licence?

Do you have examples to quote?


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Who's gone to jail for not paying their TV licence?
> 
> Do you have examples to quote?


There're all over the place. My friend saw someone in jail for not paying the fine.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

My sister didn't go to jail. She was fined £1000 about 20 years ago though which gladdened my heart as she could well afford the licence fee and is far right of Nigel Farage.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 14, 2011)

...and moreover, after the NHS had saved her child's life her airing cupboard was full of stolen NHS sheets.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> There're all over the place. My friend saw someone in jail for not paying the fine.



No one has ever been jailed for not paying the TV licence, that's a fact.

People do get jailed for not paying fines, sometimes those fines are a result of being caught without a TV licence, that's another fact.

Not that I've seen anything in recent years about anyone being jailed as a result of not paying fines as a result of not having a TV licence, but if 'there're all over the place', I am sure you'll be able to provide some links.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Why is it assumed that anyone who questions the BBC must want Rupert Murdoch running everything? The BBC might be "a bloody bargain" for anyone not struggling for money but I'd rather see a fairer method of charging according to ability to pay.



Don't pay then. If ever there was a paper tiger it is license enforcement.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Don't pay then. If ever there was a paper tiger it is license enforcement.



What about that advert when the licence non-payer is being forced to scrub cars while his mates are living it large in Ibiza? Are you saying that doesn't reflect reality?


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> No one has ever been jailed for not paying the TV licence, that's a fact.
> 
> People do get jailed for not paying fines, sometimes those fines are a result of being caught without a TV licence, that's another fact.
> 
> Not that I've seen anything in recent years about anyone being jailed as a result of not paying fines as a result of not having a TV licence, but if 'there're all over the place', I am sure you'll be able to provide some links.


Yes I'm well aware that it is as a result of not paying the fine in the first place. The whole point of fining people who can't afford £3 a week is ridiculous in the first place.
Being jailed for having a fine over not having a tv licence is pathetic in the extreme. Generally jailing people for not paying fines is pretty pathetic anyway.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> To a degree, but the commercial sector has been the worst, in a way dragging the BBC down with it - because the BBC has to appeal to the widest possible audience, again, to justify the universal licence fee.
> 
> However, the BBC remains has become a shinning light in the last ten years - i.e. BBC1 took over from ITV as being the most watched channel, the BBC TV channels despite being very limited in their number of outlets command the largest share of audience (against ITV or Sky) and BBC radio shits on commercial radio despite the hundreds of commercial radio stations they compete with.



Completely agree. In the past I didn't listen to anywhere near as much BBC radio (both national and local) than what I do nowadays (and for the last 10 years), but commercial radio has largely to me just become so incredibly bland and repetitive.



claphamboy said:


> God help us if people seriously want to see the BBC disbanded and allow the Murdoch-controlled Sky, ITV (which Murdoch tried to take-over) & Dirty Desmond's Channel FIVE a free run.



Whilst Murdoch so far hasn't been able to take much of a stranglehold in the radio industry here (that said, sky news is heavily used now by commercial broadcasters - I want IRN back ), groups like Global are no better in modus operandi. Similar to Murdoch, their eyes are only on appealing to as many mainstream listeners as possible in order to maximise advertising revenue/profits, with little interest in developing the music industry, in specialist output, or serving local communities.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What about that advert when the licence non-payer is being forced to scrub cars while his mates are living it large in Ibiza? Are you saying that doesn't reflect reality?



I liked the ones where the parents of a uni student kept saying 'FINE' in response to his every question after he had failed to pay and we were lead to assume that the parents had had to bail him out of a grim fine for non payment. 'If your children are going to university thy'll need a full license' etc etc.

thats demographic targeting that is.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> Whilst Murdoch so far hasn't been able to take much of a stranglehold in the radio industry here (that said, sky news is heavily used now by commercial broadcasters - I want IRN back ),



In theory it is still IRN (Independent Radio News), which was a division of LBC when first established back in 1973 to out source LBC's news content to other commercial stations for a subscription, sadly IRN was allowed to be separated from the LBC licence and sometime in the early 90's gave-up being 'independent' and out sourced itself to ITN.

At that point IRN had at least two competitors supplying news to the growing number of commercial radio stations, Network News from the Chiltern Radio group (closed down after the GWR take-over) and Reuters Radio News, but I think IRN now has a monopoly again.

It was only a couple of years ago that IRN changed supplier from ITN to Sky.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 14, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Any cuts to the ridiculously oversized BBC are to be welcomed. It's absurd that in the 21st century we still have a state owned broadcaster. Privatise the BBC, abolish the TV License and let's save ourselves millions of pounds in tax each year.


There's a like button but were is the prick button


----------

