BBC to axe 1000 jobs. Wheels are comming off....
Discussion
TTwiggy said:
If EVO were broadcast over the airwaves you would require a licence to receive the broadcast. And you'd have to pay for it. I pay for a radio licence for my boat (and had to pass a test too!).
you need a TV license/BBC Tax to watch TV online not just 'over the airwaves'. Presumably your boat license is for 2 way VHF, ie you're paying for the right to use the spectrum; which has more in similarity with being the broadcaster not one of its reluctant customers.The death of the BBC will hasten the end of the UK.
Both events are probably inevitable anyway it seems.
We don't have many institutions left in the country that, on the whole, pull the nation together for the great occasions.
With the BBC gone or reduced to a rump niche broadcaster - just like the rest of them - what is left to unify the nation?
At the moment I am seeing so many forces at work that are gradually destroying this country. This would be another nail in the coffin.
Both events are probably inevitable anyway it seems.
We don't have many institutions left in the country that, on the whole, pull the nation together for the great occasions.
With the BBC gone or reduced to a rump niche broadcaster - just like the rest of them - what is left to unify the nation?
At the moment I am seeing so many forces at work that are gradually destroying this country. This would be another nail in the coffin.
Challo said:
Without the licence fee they will have no way to fund themselves without advertising and will revert to any other tv station/channel currently available free to air or subscription. Im sure its not 'unexpected' and could be forecast years ago but its just something included in the statement to justify the big cuts.
I don't have a problem with the BBC being state funded, to be honest. I do have a problem with the notion of a licence fee though and all that entails.The real problem with a state funded broadcaster as the BBC is currently constituted is that it is far, far to large. It is absolutely massive and is way bigger than anything we actually need. Just considering the TV channels; there are four plus News 24. What is the reasoning as to why BBC 3 and BBC 4 are needed? Surely they are just doing what BBC 1 and BBC 2 are supposed to do? One as a general entertainment channel and the other a more serious arts/drama/science channel. To be fair, BBC 4 is very good but I'm not sure it is different enough from BBC 2. BBC 3 is utter wall-to-wall drivel with virtually zero redeeming features and it can't be put out to pasture soon enough, quite honestly.
Over those four channels where is the stuff the BBC used to do really well? A prime example would be a proper, high quality, live music show. Some of the best things shown on the BBC these days are repeats of the Old Grey Whistle Test from the 1970's. That was never an expensive show to make (and it shows) but in terms of "quality" it was at the very top. Why is it not still going? It must be something which would be staggeringly cheap to make today. No audience, no fancy sets - just a beardy bloke introducing some bands.
Derek Smith said:
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
A valid point. Why is BBC 4 actually needed though? Surely the job it is doing is what BBC 2 is supposed to be for? Likewise, BBC 3 is a very much down-market BBC 1 and has almost no reason to exist, in my opinion. All this duplication is unnecessary and seems to exist for the purpose of creating jobs.What the BBC needs is a channel more akin to Sky Arts as the BBC seems to be lacking in something of that nature.
Einion Yrth said:
Derek Smith said:
The usual pro BBC guff.
You watch it, you like it, you fund it; I don't watch it, I don't want it and I don't want to fund it. I might occasionally want to watch something on a competitor channel as it is broadcast though.AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
A valid point. Why is BBC 4 actually needed though? Surely the job it is doing is what BBC 2 is supposed to be for? Likewise, BBC 3 is a very much down-market BBC 1 and has almost no reason to exist, in my opinion. All this duplication is unnecessary and seems to exist for the purpose of creating jobs.What the BBC needs is a channel more akin to Sky Arts as the BBC seems to be lacking in something of that nature.
The organsation does need a damn good shake up. Maybe this is the moment when the realisation dawned.
AJL308 said:
Challo said:
Without the licence fee they will have no way to fund themselves without advertising and will revert to any other tv station/channel currently available free to air or subscription. Im sure its not 'unexpected' and could be forecast years ago but its just something included in the statement to justify the big cuts.
I don't have a problem with the BBC being state funded, to be honest. I do have a problem with the notion of a licence fee though and all that entails.The real problem with a state funded broadcaster as the BBC is currently constituted is that it is far, far to large. It is absolutely massive and is way bigger than anything we actually need. Just considering the TV channels; there are four plus News 24. What is the reasoning as to why BBC 3 and BBC 4 are needed? Surely they are just doing what BBC 1 and BBC 2 are supposed to do? One as a general entertainment channel and the other a more serious arts/drama/science channel. To be fair, BBC 4 is very good but I'm not sure it is different enough from BBC 2. BBC 3 is utter wall-to-wall drivel with virtually zero redeeming features and it can't be put out to pasture soon enough, quite honestly.
Over those four channels where is the stuff the BBC used to do really well? A prime example would be a proper, high quality, live music show. Some of the best things shown on the BBC these days are repeats of the Old Grey Whistle Test from the 1970's. That was never an expensive show to make (and it shows) but in terms of "quality" it was at the very top. Why is it not still going? It must be something which would be staggeringly cheap to make today. No audience, no fancy sets - just a beardy bloke introducing some bands.
Eric Mc said:
fblm said:
Eric Mc said:
The death of the BBC will hasten the end of the UK.
I'll give you that. It is a common cultural reference point. But like you say the demise of both is probably inevitable at some point anyway.AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
A valid point. The fee is as regressive as it gets, too - you pay the same whether you have £6k per year income or £600k! What's the difference between that and the Poll Tax?
It seems (some on the) the left love it, and they always seem to expect others to pay for what they like, no matter what.
If it is as great as some suggest, as others have said countless times before, the BBC would have no issues if it were subscription based, thus having a level playing field for all broadcasters.
I would not subscribe, as it have very little to offer us, but am sure plenty of others would.
fblm said:
Eric Mc said:
fblm said:
Eric Mc said:
The death of the BBC will hasten the end of the UK.
I'll give you that. It is a common cultural reference point. But like you say the demise of both is probably inevitable at some point anyway.I watch the BBC a lot and manage to avoid the vast bulk of that anyway so it is a non-issue to me. How come you can't avoid it?
chris watton said:
I cannot agree. We don't watch BBC content, nor listen to it, and our lives are certainly not all the poorer for it - yet we still have to pay for the crap!
The fee is as regressive as it gets, too - you pay the same whether you have £6k per year income or £600k! What's the difference between that and the Poll Tax?
It seems (some on the) the left love it, and they always seem to expect others to pay for what they like, no matter what.
If it is as great as some suggest, as others have said countless times before, the BBC would have no issues if it were subscription based, thus having a level playing field for all broadcasters.
I would not subscribe, as it have very little to offer us, but am sure plenty of others would.
And I watch and listen to BBC content and my life is a lot richer for it. The fee is as regressive as it gets, too - you pay the same whether you have £6k per year income or £600k! What's the difference between that and the Poll Tax?
It seems (some on the) the left love it, and they always seem to expect others to pay for what they like, no matter what.
If it is as great as some suggest, as others have said countless times before, the BBC would have no issues if it were subscription based, thus having a level playing field for all broadcasters.
I would not subscribe, as it have very little to offer us, but am sure plenty of others would.
I do think the BBC is a bit special and its willful destruction by successive governments is going to be marked as a great loss to the country - when it eventually does go.
Eric Mc said:
fblm said:
Eric Mc said:
fblm said:
Eric Mc said:
The death of the BBC will hasten the end of the UK.
I'll give you that. It is a common cultural reference point. But like you say the demise of both is probably inevitable at some point anyway.I watch the BBC a lot and manage to avoid the vast bulk of that anyway so it is a non-issue to me. How come you can't avoid it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff