Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Reform or Abolish the BBC


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 926-950 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 6 Apr 2012 18:08:27 BDT
4 wheels trumps 2

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Apr 2012 18:04:57 BDT
Fazool says:
CLarkson is no man cos he travels round in a bread bin and doesn't like motorcycles. He probably doesn't like them because (a) he would look ridiculous on one (b) scared to fall off

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Mar 2012 17:18:44 BDT
Spin says:
Barclays: There already is "pay as you go TV". Porn. And dire porn for the price, =)

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 07:38:02 BDT
K. N. Crosby says:
Did anyone watch the programmes on Wikileaks? They'll tell you all you need to know about "impartiality".

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 07:35:37 BDT
K. N. Crosby says:
I wouldn't have minded the travesty if it had been any good. As you point out, Sid James was a far better 'enery.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 07:33:20 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
Not sure if you can define the definitive here, though it sure as heck wasn't the serialised "Tudor" romp recently shown on the BBC. Granted this was fiction and (one hopes) never intended to be historically accurate, but it was a shame that they went for a product so clearly aimed at the American market (I believe it was actually made by our colonial cousions). Personally, I thought it wasn't a patch on an earlier screen account of King Hal's reign, the 1970s film "Carry On Henry" !!!

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2012 21:14:34 BDT
K. N. Crosby says:
I doubt that would work, since these days it runs on you pay as we ignore.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2012 21:01:25 BDT
Fazool says:
What is a definitive history of the Tudors? According to who?

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 20:21:29 BDT
Barclays says:
One possible solution is introducing "pay as you go" scheme as an alternative to TV license. Watch BBC and pay accordingly.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 13:57:05 BDT
K. N. Crosby says:
The old BBC didn't outlive its nemesis, Thatchler. As Popcorn points out a 'socialist' organisation isn't structured on the Fuhrerprinzip and doesn't act as an indirect tax gatherer and government-corporate propagandist. http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1332862782.html

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 10:50:52 BDT
"Those who want it ended are fundamentalist neo liberalist and do not care if everything gets worse if the BBC goes. They do not care if British TV and radio ends up costing more and worse that TV and radio in the USA. They jus NEED for the socialist project to stop being there and stop proving that socialism, in a very small way and sometimes works." - Socialist? That contradicts the 6 figure salaries the BBC pay certian members of staff.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2012 19:21:28 BDT
K. N. Crosby says:
Quite agree.

Posted on 26 Mar 2012 16:04:22 BDT
Barry Bunn says:
I have had the benefit, experience or mis-fortune to live and work extensible over seas.
I have lived and worked in: USA, Australia, Argentina, Thailand, Laos, Serbia, Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia and Montenegro.
My oversees days are now finish. However they taught me many things about this country.
We are better, almost the best when it comes to many things, standard of living, health and safety, underground transport system, press (to a degree), relative peace and freedom, obedience and honouring if contracts and food variations etc. But the two things that raise us above all others are the civil service (try living without one) and the BBC.
The licence fee is good value for money if you only listen to the radio. I love, Radio 4, 5 and 6. I like some of radio 1 and lots of local radio.
I sky+ some good TV programmes, some great documentaries, sports programmes, music, culture and so much more especially on 3 and 4. The BBC is proof that rampant capitalism does not work and that some socialist projects are brilliant success. Those who want it ended are fundamentalist neo liberalist and do not care if everything gets worse if the BBC goes. They do not care if British TV and radio ends up costing more and worse that TV and radio in the USA. They jus NEED for the socialist project to stop being there and stop proving that socialism, in a very small way and sometimes works.

Posted on 26 Mar 2012 14:10:37 BDT
Familiar?
"In the case of enemy crimes, we find outrage; allegations based on the flimsiest evidence, often simply invented, and uncorrectable, even when conceded to be fabrication; careful filtering of testimony to exclude contrary evidence while allowing what may be useful; reliance on official U.S. sources, unless they provide the wrong picture, in which case they are avoided (Cambodia under Pol Pot is a case in point); vivid detail; insistence that the crimes originate at the highest level of planning, even in the absence of evidence or credible argument; and so on.
Where the locus of responsibility is at home, we find precisely the opposite: silence or apologetics; avoidance of personal testimony and specific detail; worldweary wisdom about the complexities of history and foreign cultures that we do not understand; narrowing of focus to the lowest levels of planning or understandable error in confusing circumstances; and other forms of evasion. (Chomsky, Noam, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, Toronto: CBC Enterprises, 1989: 137)

For example of paragraph 1, see the BBC's coverage of Libya before Gaddafi's death, and for example of paragraph 2, see its coverage of Libya since then.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 22:09:06 BDT
K. N. Crosby says:
'Ow dare you! I thought it was an epigram worthy of Oscar Wilde. ;O)

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 20:36:05 BDT
Yangonite says:
That's not surprising. IMDB is the place where all the biggest foul mouthed ill mannered idiots on the internet meet! - can be quite fun at times ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 20:33:23 BDT
Yangonite says:
I guess what one terms "essential" differs between individuals. To me BBC4 is essential (but you may have guessed that any way!).

I tend to agree that Horizon is not much cop now, although I suspect it never was.
I saw it the other week. The pace of was sub-glacial, and the level at which it was pitched seemed far below the level of person likely to watch it.
Basically, if one was that thick they wouldn't be watching Horizon in the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 07:12:37 BDT
Molly Brown says:
I stopped watching it then, didn't it have some young comedian presenting it, don't know his name, long forgotten I daresay.
"Lost" Horizon, R.I.P.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2012 07:10:59 BDT
Molly Brown says:
I will have to try and catch it again, I am pretty sure it will be repeated! My point was that why was the Eve Arnold documentary on so late, I quite like the World News at 7pm, and after that on the same night we had at 7.30pm YET another repeat of Top of the Pops 1977!!
Sooo depressing, they could have reversed the time slots surely.

Posted on 24 Mar 2012 18:51:36 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
"Heth eth eth eth eth heth, Chris Patten."

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2012 18:45:16 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
Horizon? In 2006 someone on IMDB called it Eastenders with an 'O' level.

Posted on 24 Mar 2012 18:16:57 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
Yangonite: I have no objection (well, I might moan a bit!) about paying taxes for essential services even though I might not personally need or use them. However, television is NOT an essential service. Contrary to what the big-headed so and so's at the BBC would have us believe, it never has been an essential service and is even less so with so many new modes of entertainment and news dissemination available. At a time when genuinely essential services such as health, care, policing, transport etc. are being starved of funds I think it absolutely disgraceful that a form of tax (the licence fee) is being squandered on TV.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2012 15:23:13 GMT
Yangonite says:
Indeed!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2012 15:22:38 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Mar 2012 15:23:32 GMT
Yangonite says:
I thought it was rather good: informative and well presented (imho).

It also dealt with the interesting psychologies of some of the leading artists and artisans associated with Art Nouveau.

Links were made with contemporary events and personalities in France at the time, e.g. Sarah Bernharhdt, and the Dreyfuss Affair.

I've always believed that BBC4 are v. good at history of art progs.

Definitely worth paying the license fee for.

One of the downers of statehood is that the individual ends up paying for, in taxes etc., things he would prefer not to - unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

In an ideal World this would not be the case, but imagine a tax system where the entire population only payed for what they wanted to - a workable system?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2012 14:20:17 GMT
Molly Brown says:
Excellent film!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  132
Total posts:  1590
Initial post:  22 Dec 2010
Latest post:  18 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions