The fucking Tories are eyeing up the BBC!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I fucking love the BBC. I watch BBC TV almost exclusively and I listen to 5-live on the radio. The BBC website is one of my always-open tabs and Cameroon and Murdoch can tie themselves up in knots trying to fuck each other up the arse at the same time for all I care!

[Clinton Huxley]

If you think the BBC is shit, try the alternative. Auntie Beeb is all that stands between Mankind and a new Dark Age

[redunderthebed]

If you think the BBC is shit, try the alternative. Auntie Beeb is all that stands between Mankind and a new Dark Age

A-fucking-men be wary my pommy friends here in the colonies a man of which cameron would agree a shitload with John Howard and his conservative mates,spent fucking 11 years attacking our wonderful ABC by stacking the board with his tory mates cutting funding and bagging it for having the balls to not parrot his bullshit.

It wanted to replace our international tv channel (well regional more like it covers the asia-pacific region) with fucking murdoch sky bullshit. Not to mention selling airwave time when radio australia wasn't broadcasting to bloody bible bashers.

Oh and if they cut the BBC world service i wont be fucking happy best.international.service.ever nothing comes close.

[Mallardz]

<snip> and finding new singers for musicals.

Waste of time money and no ones entertained. The only viewers are the arseholes familys and friends. Then the old people who are dead in their armchairs in front of the tele.

[Svartalf]

Murdoch is a cunt who NEEDs the BBC broken so he can hike his prices. I willingly pay the licence fee.

Oyh, so that "licence" you speak of is the TV tax? I don't know if the UKTV would be good enough for me to want a set if I dwelt your side, but I know that OUR licence, combined with the fact there's nothing on French TV that I can't live without (especially since I became a computer addict), is a major factor why I haven't had a TV set in 12 or 14 years (that and the fact that the public TV that licence pays for only produces crap that I want no part in)

[Trolldor]

The BBC is respected world wide for producing a whole slew of comedies, documentaries and news programs. Most of this is possible because of the relative independance of the thing. Selling it off would take away a lot of the character that makes it so popular. Say hello to Sky News and a conservative agenda!


And hey, if I had French television I wouldn't pay for it either.

[Clinton Huxley]

Fear not! Under Cameron's "Big Society" television will be provided by volunteers and will consist entirely of screenings of the Amateur Dramatic Society of Penge performing Pirates of Penzance. And re-runs of My Family.

[Trolldor]

Brilliant, we can watch "A Huxley Christmas" Twelve times a year.

[Clinton Huxley]

Brilliant, we can watch "A Huxley Christmas" Twelve times a year.

I applaud your quest to find a silver lining....

[devogue]

If you think the BBC is shit, try the alternative.

I have.

I watch Sky 1, Bravo, Channel 4, E4, More4, Sky Arts, Sky Documentaries, Sky Sports etc etc etc etc etc. In the last week I have watched only one programme on the BBC, a documentary about Brian Clough. That's pretty much par for the course - I have watched the odd series like Brian Cox's brilliant "Wonders of the Solar System" but I watch nothing on a regular basis and I don't listen to BBC radio at all.

The BBC's impact on my day to day life is therefore negligible yet I am forced, on pain of imprisonment, to pay £145.50 per year to this corporation for services I hardly ever use. If millions of people enjoy Radio 2 or Radio 4, fair play to them - but they should pay for their entertainment and stimulation, not me. Likewise, if Eastenders costs £20 million a year to run then charge the 8 million people who watch it £2.50 each to see it, and not people like me who have never endured an episode.

This is not the Education system or the NHS we are talking about here. The "public service" aspect of the BBC is seriously overplayed. Channel Four's news coverage is miles better and less infantilised than the BBC's (watch how Fiona Bruce and the other presenters now shake their heads sadly and hold their hands out imploringly in certain stories) and both the left and the right have criticised the BBC for a perceived lack of impartiality over the years. Besides, I get most of my news and opinion from the internet now anyway - if you want impartiality use Reuters, if you want opinion (which tends to be subjective by its very nature) you can switch from right to left wing view points at the click of a mouse. More than 70% of the UK is now online and has access to exactly the same resources as I do.

So what's left? Schools programmes? The library going back more than 40 years is more than enough, and the internet is a far more valuable tool now anyway. The World Service? Like most people in the UK, I've never listened to it in my life, yet it costs a quarter of a billion pounds every year to keep it going to the benefit of barely anyone who pays for it. Regional news? Covered perfectly well by ITV. National sporting events? Sky's Sports coverage and cutting edge technology absolutely blew the BBC out of the water and they've been playing catch up ever since - in fact every technological advance at the BBC has been presaged by Sky. Childrens TV? My kids prefer Disney, Nick Toons and the other channels far more than the tame CBeebies and the watery fare served up each afternoon on the main channels

Look at BBC1 today - the legendary channel, which costs £1 billion a year to run is showing the following:

Bargain Hunt, Doctors, Murder, She Wrote, The Weakest Link, The One Show, Eastenders and Holby City with a smattering of kids programmes and news bulletins in between.

Pure wank.

Why should I be forced to subsidise such shit? Instead of contributing to Anne Robinson's outrageous salary I would far rather hand my £145 over to Climax 3 and watch some seriously good porn after getting in from a hard day at work. It would be even better if I could see La Robinson getting a baseball bat shoved up her twat on Extreme Night - I wouldn't begrudge the old cunt a penny then.

Of course, the downside is the Murdochisation of vast swathes of the British media and political opinion. I can't stand the bastard and his scumbag family either, but he has worked within the law and given the public what the public wants - Murdoch is a very canny opportunist. However, take the BBC out of it and Murdoch isn't the only voice - ITV and Channel Four would still be around. (Channel Four in particular has been stifled by the BBC cash cow - the quality of many of C4's documentaries and films over 25 years has been astonishing - get rid of the BBC and give this channel some air to breathe). The problem lies in the monopoly laws of this country - also, how hard would it be to draft a charter and create an ombudsman regarding gross bias and lack of impartiality within the print and televised media? I think it's overdue anyway, especially with some of the poisonous shit spewed by the Daily Mail and The Guardian.

It would cost a fuck's sight less than the £3,000,000,000+ it costs every year to keep an anachronistic monolith like the BBC going, that's for sure.

[Clinton Huxley]

Of course, the downside is the Murdochisation of vast swathes of the British media and political opinion.

That's a hell of a downside...get rid of the BBC and let Murdoch totally control the political agenda of the UK (even more than he does now). Brilliant.

I can't stand the bastard and his scumbag family either, but he has worked within the law and given the public what the public wants - Murdoch is a very canny opportunist.

So when Murdoch gives the public what they want (America's Next Teen Bounty Hunter or whatever), that's ok, but when the BBC does it, its the end of the world?

And it's not like you aren't paying for this guff, even if you don't have SKY.

However, take the BBC out of it and Murdoch isn't the only voice - ITV and Channel Four would still be around.

Yes, if ITV went under, I'm sure we'd all weep at the passing of fly on the wall documentaries about Peter Andre.

(Channel Four in particular has been stifled by the BBC cash cow - the quality of many of C4's documentaries and films over 25 years has been astonishing - get rid of the BBC and give this channel some air to breathe).

Looks like a non-sequitur to me. Get rid of the BBC and Channel 4 will have exactly the same amount of money to make program as it has now. Unless they sell more advertising and have breaks every 5 minutes.

The problem lies in the monopoly laws of this country - also, how hard would it be to draft a charter and create an ombudsman regarding gross bias and lack of impartiality within the print and televised media? I think it's overdue anyway, especially with some of the poisonous shit spewed by the Daily Mail and The Guardian.

Newspapers shouldn't be compelled to be impartial. They'd all be the same then.

[devogue]

Of course, the downside is the Murdochisation of vast swathes of the British media and political opinion.

That's a hell of a downside...get rid of the BBC and let Murdoch totally control the political agenda of the UK (even more than he does now). Brilliant.

How would he control it any more?

I can't stand the bastard and his scumbag family either, but he has worked within the law and given the public what the public wants - Murdoch is a very canny opportunist.

So when Murdoch gives the public what they want (America's Next Teen Bounty Hunter or whatever), that's ok, but when the BBC does it, its the end of the world?

I can choose not to pay Murdoch.

And it's not like you aren't paying for this guff, even if you don't have SKY.

I assume you mean through advertising. If so, that's correct - but I don't object to that - I object to the extra £145 premium I am forced to pay just to have a TV on which to watch something else.

However, take the BBC out of it and Murdoch isn't the only voice - ITV and Channel Four would still be around.

Yes, if ITV went under, I'm sure we'd all weep at the passing of fly on the wall documentaries about Peter Andre.

And if the BBC went under we would all gnash our teeth and wail at the demise of The One Show.

(Channel Four in particular has been stifled by the BBC cash cow - the quality of many of C4's documentaries and films over 25 years has been astonishing - get rid of the BBC and give this channel some air to breathe).

Looks like a non-sequitur to me. Get rid of the BBC and Channel 4 will have exactly the same amount of money to make program as it has now. Unless they sell more advertising and have breaks every 5 minutes.

Get rid of the BBC (or privatise it as a company run on advertising revenue) and the playing field will be much easier for Channel Four to play on - more viewers will lead to an increase in advertising income and even better programme making.

The problem lies in the monopoly laws of this country - also, how hard would it be to draft a charter and create an ombudsman regarding gross bias and lack of impartiality within the print and televised media? I think it's overdue anyway, especially with some of the poisonous shit spewed by the Daily Mail and The Guardian.

Newspapers shouldn't be compelled to be impartial. They'd all be the same then.

In that case you should have no problem with Murdoch's editorial power at The Sun and The Times and presumably no problem with his influence through Sky. You're trying to have your cake and eat it - you complain about the influence of the likes of Murdoch, who is anything but impartial, then you say nobody should be compelled to be impartial.

[floppit]

We all pay for entertainment we don't watch - the advertising revenues come from us, eventually!

If there was only one reason to defend the BBC, for me it would be the news website. As yet I have never found another site which frequently references to full information at a single click, especially when reporting on reports! Murdoch won't fill THAT gap, he's no interest at all in accuracy.

I think without doubt we should keep it but lean more towards public service, especially using the internet to report news/pass information.

But - feck, all that said - the buggers are after the NHS too and that needs guarding well before the beeb.

[Clinton Huxley]

How would he control it any more?

Personally, I would introduce some kind of citizenship requirement so that anyone wanting to own more than 5% of "The media" had to be a British Passport holder. I'd do it specifically to annoy Murdoch. The sight of PMs and potential PMs scurrying to Murdoch-sponsored events to give talks is nauseating.

Get rid of the BBC (or privatise it as a company run on advertising revenue) and the playing field will be much easier for Channel Four to play on - more viewers will lead to an increase in advertising income and even better programme making.

So sack 18,000 people? Or sell it (to whom?). Then have adverts (which we still have to pay for). The argument here seems to be if you destroy the best programme maker in the UK (which, for all its dross, the BBC still is), that enables the rest to compete. Wacky.

In that case you should have no problem with Murdoch's editorial power at The Sun and The Times and presumably no problem with his influence through Sky.

Well, the issue here is how much of the national media one organisation controls. As long as there are diverse views, it's not a problem.

SKY hate the BBC. That in itself is reason enough to keep it.

[Pappa]

How would he control it any more?

Personally, I would introduce some kind of citizenship requirement so that anyone wanting to own more than 5% of "The media" had to be a British Passport holder. I'd do it specifically to annoy Murdoch. The sight of PMs and potential PMs scurrying to Murdoch-sponsored events to give talks is nauseating.

Get rid of the BBC (or privatise it as a company run on advertising revenue) and the playing field will be much easier for Channel Four to play on - more viewers will lead to an increase in advertising income and even better programme making.

So sack 18,000 people? Or sell it (to whom?). Then have adverts (which we still have to pay for). The argument here seems to be if you destroy the best programme maker in the UK (which, for all its dross, the BBC still is), that enables the rest to compete. Wacky.

In that case you should have no problem with Murdoch's editorial power at The Sun and The Times and presumably no problem with his influence through Sky.

Well, the issue here is how much of the national media one organisation controls. As long as there are diverse views, it's not a problem.

SKY hate the BBC. That in itself is reason enough to keep it.

I couldn't possibly agree more.