After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 17:47:07 UTC+1, Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

No I think he is correct you only have to see what happens in the USA and shock horror look at the programmes in the EU (general speaking)

In article ,
Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

So name a better broadcaster that doesn't get its income from advertising?
And with such a wide range of radio and TV?

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:55:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

So name a better broadcaster that doesn't get its income from advertising?
And with such a wide range of radio and TV?

The problem is the BBC has huge amounts of money stolen from people who don't want to watch their programs, that's why they have enough cash to make better ones. But there should always be a choice, just as you can choose to shop at Asda or Tesco, and more importantly only pay the one you actually get goods from. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it would be ok for Tesco to get a proportion of your money when you only buy food from Asda....

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:13:18 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 17:47:07 UTC+1, Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

No I think he is correct you only have to see what happens in the USA and shock horror look at the programmes in the EU (general speaking)

No worse than the ****e we have on the BBC.

Anyway, the point remains, why should we be forced to pay for a TV station to be good? If it's that good, it will get enough GENINE SUBSCRIBERS who are WILLING TO PAY.

On 25/10/2018 14:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

So name a better broadcaster that doesn't get its income from advertising?
And with such a wide range of radio and TV?

Who cares? The issue here is that of (lack of) choice, not alleged
quality.

"Gym Sulkinson Fork" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:55:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

So name a better broadcaster that doesn't get its income from
advertising?
And with such a wide range of radio and TV?

The problem is the BBC has huge amounts of money stolen from people who
don't want to watch their programs, that's why they have enough cash to
make better ones. But there should always be a choice, just as you can
choose to shop at Asda or Tesco, and more importantly only pay the one you
actually get goods from.

But you can't choose not to pay for government schools or unis
even if you choose to send you kids to say church schools etc.

Same with the roads, you can't say that you never ever
use motorways and will only pay for the upkeep of the
local footpaths that you choose to walk on.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it would be ok for Tesco
? to get a proportion of your money when you only buy food from Asda....

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:31:13 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Gym Sulkinson Fork" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:55:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

So name a better broadcaster that doesn't get its income from
advertising?
And with such a wide range of radio and TV?

The problem is the BBC has huge amounts of money stolen from people who
don't want to watch their programs, that's why they have enough cash to
make better ones. But there should always be a choice, just as you can
choose to shop at Asda or Tesco, and more importantly only pay the one you
actually get goods from.

But you can't choose not to pay for government schools or unis
even if you choose to send you kids to say church schools etc.

This is also wrong, especially for those paying for schools when they have no children of their own.

Anyway, even if you're a stupid lefty and agree with government funded schools, TV is a LUXURY, and should never be centrally funded.

Also, why even have a seperate license fee? Why not just add it to income tax?

Same with the roads, you can't say that you never ever
use motorways and will only pay for the upkeep of the
local footpaths that you choose to walk on.

We should pay for what we use, which we do. The more petrol I use, the more I pay for road upkeep. If I had no car, I'd pay no petrol duty.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it would be ok for Tesco
to get a proportion of your money when you only buy food from Asda....

"Joe Silkinson Spoon" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:31:13 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Gym Sulkinson Fork" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:55:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality
uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

So name a better broadcaster that doesn't get its income from
advertising?
And with such a wide range of radio and TV?

The problem is the BBC has huge amounts of money stolen from people who
don't want to watch their programs, that's why they have enough cash to
make better ones. But there should always be a choice, just as you can
choose to shop at Asda or Tesco, and more importantly only pay the one
you
actually get goods from.

But you can't choose not to pay for government schools or unis
even if you choose to send you kids to say church schools etc.

This is also wrong, especially for those paying for schools when they have
no children of their own.

Then you had best set fire to yourself outside Westminster or sumfin.

Anyway, even if you're a stupid lefty and agree with government funded
schools, TV is a LUXURY,

Nope. That's all stupids like that can do, veg out in front of the TV.

and should never be centrally funded.

Just watched this episode recently
True Evil: The Making Of A Nazi : Goebbels
where they made the point that he made their TV and
radio a govt monopoly and remarked that you lot did
the same thing with the BBC at about the same time.

Oddly enough, not made by the BBC

Also, why even have a seperate license fee? Why not just add it to income
tax?

That's what everyone else does with their govt broadcaster.

Same with the roads, you can't say that you never ever
use motorways and will only pay for the upkeep of the
local footpaths that you choose to walk on.

We should pay for what we use, which we do.

No you don't.

The more petrol I use, the more I pay for road upkeep.

But bike riders don't pay anything.

If I had no car, I'd pay no petrol duty.

But would still use the roads when riding your bike.

And you don't pay for the footpaths you walk in either.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it would be ok for Tesco
to get a proportion of your money when you only buy food from Asda....

On Thursday, 25 October 2018 20:14:25 UTC+1, Gym Sulkinson Fork wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:13:18 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 17:47:07 UTC+1, Paul Pot wrote:
After serious thinking Chris wrote :
soup wrote:
On 23/10/2018 08:37, Brian Gaff wrote:
And end the BBC?

...and that would be a problem because?

Loss of the world's best broadcaster. Which would drag all quality uk
content down due to fragmentation and chasing populist programming.

You're joking, right?

No I think he is correct you only have to see what happens in the USA and shock horror look at the programmes in the EU (general speaking)

No worse than the ****e we have on the BBC.

It's a lot worse have yuo watched spanish TV ?


Anyway, the point remains, why should we be forced to pay for a TV station to be good? If it's that good, it will get enough GENINE SUBSCRIBERS who are WILLING TO PAY.

You don;t have to pay if you don't watch it, what makes you think you have to pay for something you don't wacth ?