If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So you support extortion. Fair enough. Not my choice but it's yours.
Couple of things "go some place" why not right here? You think that imaginary lines mean I should do what someone else says? I am free to do that, right here. Why do you think I am not?
Aye, and there are plenty of idiots and thieves about as well. :wave:
The coast is not an imaginary line. Your preoccupation with this notion of arbitrary boundaries betrays your wish to pick a fight over something that us boringly sensible people don't see as an issue at all. You don't feel obliged in any way to obey the laws of the country you're living in? Feel free to bleat on about kidnapping and extortion, though.
Certainly idiots and/or bullshitters :thumb:
It must seem crushingly unfair to you that commercial companies have a standard, in the BBC, that they have to follow to keep their ratings up, and satisfy their advertisers. If you can't be bothered to even speculate on the probable outcome of the Beeb having to chase ratings along with everyone else, it's just as well that your opinion isn't worth the attention of anyone who matters.
All government action is either violent or paid for through violence. If you don't think so, tell me why please, because I would like to join you in your parallel fantasy world.
As that's not got anything to do with the boundaries of the country, may I ask what the fuck you are on about?
Btw, the "country" was first imagined in 1706, do you think the shoreline didn't exist before then? :rolleyes:
What country? Proof please? Some evidence over and above repeated assertions would be great.
Does the BBC make good or somethimes great TV?
Sure it does.
Does that better quality TV mean that other TV has to pull it's socks up a bit?
Probably.
Does this have anything to do with the fact that the BBC is paid for by threats and or direct theft?
No.
Is theft and threatening people a good or bad thing?
:wave:
Don't be so rough on yourself, mate. Thanks for your attention though.
It does?
Some BBC programmes are quite good. But are you trying to sit there and say that Britain's Worst Toilet, or Just The Two Of Us, is "far superior" to, say, Wire in the Blood?
No, didn't think so.
But the supposed quality of the BBC's output completely misses the point.
The BBC is a commercial entity, operating in the commercial sphere. But unlike every other commercial entity on the whole planet, the BBC can imprison you for providing custom to its competitors without giving it money first.
The BBC does not provide a "public good". Pensions do, schools do, the military does. But what does the BBC do? It charges me £130 a year to watch something on ITV. It charges me £130 to keep Vernon fucking Kay in cheap suits and expensive cars. It poaches "stars" like Graham "cunt" Norton and Gaby Roslin, at my exorbitant expense, without any clue as to what to do with them. It sends Peter Schmeichel on courses to learn how to be a TV presenter, and then pays him £100,000 when they finally work out he's too crap to be one.
Some of the BBC's programming is very good. But why on earth should I be sent to prison for watching Sky Sports without paying the BBC a huge amount of money first?
Crucially, unlike every other tax-raising body in this democracy of ours, I can't vote the fuckers out if I disagree with their policy. Let me know where I can vote for Graham Norton or Jim Davidson to be sacked. Let me know where I can vote for the new DG.
I don't have it in for the BBC. But it should not be funded by taxation for a second longer, especially a tax that so disgracefully penalises the poor. It is a commercial entity, and its about time it should fund itself as one.
After all, if the programming is so good, people will be queuing up to pay a £150 a year subscription, won't they?
The coast is not.
The coast does not equal a country, otherwise each Isle of Scilly would be it's own country, and the land mass from Cape Town to Vladivostok would be one country.
Borders are arbritrary. Have you ever travelled from Salzburg to the Tirol? You randomly go into Germany for ten miles, for no apparent reason. There's no big white line painted by mother Nature, just a sign saying someone has decided that's where the borders are.
Countries are useful social constructs, but they are nothing more. They are certainly not "real".
The quality of the BBC's programming is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the BBC is funded purely through extortion and threats of violence, and whilst some taxation is necessary to maintain social constructs, the world will not starve and the country will not grind to a halt if EastEnders is suddenly sponsored by a chocolate bar.
odd point, whilst luby was in spain, they had a satillite dish that was jsut able to get british satillite tv without a sky card so could watch all bbc without one
and i doubt the bbc could extradite from spain for not paying tv license
The unique way the BBC is funded, by the license fee, does help set a high standard of media in this country. It forces commercial operations to be smarter and try to grab peoples attention because they are competing against the BBC that doesn't need to have adverts.
Some great examples of non license funded media are in my opinion:
Kiss 100
Classic FM
Channel 4
Smooth/Jazz FM
I think the future is subscription radio (XM Radio and Sirius satellite radio in the states) and subscription podcasting (which Ricky Jervais is pioneering with his shows via iTunes). Then we really can choose what we pay for. This does have a danger of us only choosing things we like where as the BBCs mandatory license fee enabled it to give us things that we liked and stuff that we didn't know we liked - serenedipity.
Of late, I think the license fee has been abused a little with copycat programming from the commerical sector. Some of it should be shared with other broadcasters.
Also, Saturday night TV on the beeb is crap, with a boring show built around reading out the lottery numbers. ITV would do a much much better job of this sort of thing. Why don't they couple it with Millionaire?
:banghead:
No it's always wrong. That's my whole point. Alleged territory is just another trick for murderers, thieves and liars to get halfwits to put up with their actions.
IMO, BBC Radio 4 should be broadcast on all frequencies and is worth the license fee alone.
Interesting how those who support whatever government scheme we are talking about like to focus on how irrelevent said governments threats, theft and killing is. It's almost like they decide that having a licence fee is worth all the robbery and extortion.
Like Kermit said, you can argue that justified theft and threats are needed for hospitals but for Eastenders??!! Do me a favour.....
That's exactly the point.
*applauds*
The state-run radio is not trying that hard to sew their programs around their advertisements, making it possible to cater to broader audience. The fact I can hear traditional folk songs, jazz, pop, rock and dance music on the same radio station is nothing but sweet.
However, I will admit that the same does not apply to TV. It could, but because of lack of money that's not happening.
Well, it was more because you were looking like a fuckwit, but meh.
Why in god's name would you think I was an anarchist?
Who?
You mean the changes brought about through voluntary trade, the removal of force from ever more relationships and what's left of the free market? Oh and theres no such thing as soceity either. If you think there is, please tell me what colour it is.
I don't care about the standard of television programmes when you are looking at chucking single mum's and little old ladies in the clink for them. I'd rather have shite or even no TV than mass theft and extortion.
Then Mr. Public can go earn the cash to pay for it himself, whoever he is. All I am asking is that he leaves his hands out of other people's pockets i.e. he doesn't steal to pay for his trinkets.
Of course, and then the "people" will get the TV they really are willing to pay for. The fact that a majority of people are completely happy with shit TV is neither here nor there. Who are you to tell everyone else they are wrong? Don't you believe in democracy or something? Let people vote with their wallets.
The issue isn't the quality of the TV produced it's how it's paid for.
Say it until you get it or something, or at least stop moving the debate onto irrelevency like the standard of BBC2.
If I am perfectly happy with something I get, even if I am forced to pay for it, then I'm not going to be all huffy about it, now am I?
Ofc. How else does the state operate at all?
if people really were particularly moral the whole boiling lot would be burned to the rafters by morning. The average person is fine with theft and murder as long as it's someone else doing the robbing and shooting and they just get a bit of the swag. Plausible deniability and all that.
Ofc. How else does the state operate at all?
The crucial central issue of the state - which is that it achieves everything through violence and threats of violence - always takes second place (or is often not mentioned at all) to how effective it has been in using that violence and/or threats.
People moan about how crap the local hospital is but they don't moan that it's paid for through robbery. And fair enough. I'd steal to help a sick family member, so you may as well rationalise it and make it less dramatic and avoid ots of messy robberies with some organised ones.
Would anyone personally go and do the things the state will do to pay for a few hours of TV a week? I doubt it. But it's alright if someone else does it. And those people are "just doing their job" so they aren't responsible either.
Virgin didn't get a national FM licence directly because of the BBC, and stations such as Century and Galaxy only got around the BBC's torpedoing of their applications by buying local commercial stations up.
It's a good trick, isn't it?
Only allowing certain people access to the market and then claiming that you need to be there because the market doesn't do as good a job.
It's a wonderful trick, the PR people the BBC can afford to pay at my expense sure do a great job.
Honestly, you people.
I don't really watch TV (when you share with two Americans you can't even get close to the remote control LOL jk), most of it is shite braindead drivel like Ant & Dec's "I'm a Celebrity Sell Out Desperate to Revive My Career in a Jungle shit"... Or dramas... Or cookery shows that use ingredients most of us can't afford, holiday shows that show holidays most of us can't afford, shows about big houses ect...
BBC radio is Ok... I mean in the background... People should check out Triple J on the internet, it's Australian and waaaaay cooler.
Anyway, the BBC are just as bad as Starbucks, Waterstones and so on, consuming smaller businesses so a fatcat on top can line their pocket with gold. People go with what is trendy.
It is annoying that the BBC make us pay to watch any channel though.