Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

The BBC ( British bloated corporation )

last reply
85 replies
4.4k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by kentswingers777
As a general rule Blonde, I ALWAYS post what I believe. Sometimes there are some on here, who bite like a wild elephant, and just sometimes I love to see the reactions.
But as for my political views, or anything on a serious topic, I always say what I think, and more importantly....what I believe to be right.
My question to those who think my stance is tooooo hard line is this......as a society it is obviously apparent to most, that it has gone very wrong. Is that because we as a society have become toooo soft?
The young lad who was shot dead in Liverpool, look at the weak sentences the courts gave to them. Now ask the question had they have been given 20 years like they should have done, would it be a serious deterent to others? I think it would.
Does that answer your question Blonde? wink

You need to look at the sentencing guidelines for that crime, with those defendants, before commenting. Courts have to pay attention to those guidelines. They have little choice, since if they do not the appeal courts will. As for it being a deterrent, it would not. If people thought (those with an ability to think that is) before committing a crime then there would be a lot less crime. Unfortunately drink, drugs and sex tend to produce gibbering idiots, not people capable of cerebration.

Apart from the above, other countries have a wide range of methods used to pay for "public service" televisions and radio. extra taxes, levies on utility bills etc.
Quote by mazalli
Just a quick calculation...
At per annum, the license fee for EVERYTHING that the BBC produces is a princely 38p per day.
38p....
Is that REALLY a rip-off?
Hi Varca, biggrin

That is 8p a day more that the sun, but funny how some can justify spending that! wink
Quote by Angel Chat
So somehow, you equate your opinion on the sentencing of criminals to your opinion on the existence of the BBC? Just because people might agree with you on one subject doesn't mean they'd agree with you on everything, surely you can see that? Or can you? I do wonder sometimes.
You appear to live in a little bubble of your very own, where your ideals are the only ideals worth anything. Where anyone who happens to disagree with you is automatically wrong, and where anyone who asks a direct question or makes a point that you don't wish to address gets completely ignored. I'm not even sure why I've bothered typing this, since I don't exist in the Kenty bubble rolleyes

I Take being ignored, as he can not respond to logic! lol
Have we solved it yet..................... rolleyes
I'm not going to get too involved in this debate, but I think the BBC is one of the best (if not the best) broadcasters in the world.
Yes it's public funded, and this I appreciate is contentious, but in the main the money is ploughed into UK productions. I personally hate commercials and am not keen on a lot of US programmes (with exceptions to some, e.g. Simpsons, Family Guy).
It'd be a nightmare if the BBC got it's money from advertising, although it's worth noting that outside of the UK the BBC does advertise (e.g. is sponsored by Rolex). It also gains a lot of revenue by selling it's programmes across the world, especially on DVD.
As for rags like The Sun, they have a strong following, and are loved by many...but the majority of people DON'T read The Sun. I don't like being told what to think, and like many would much rather take in the news and make my own judgements.
As for Jonathan Ross, whenever I've spoken with him he's very down to earth and is never up his own arse (which may be contrary to many people's views). As for what he's paid, would you complain if you were on the same money?
Quote by Angel Chat
So somehow, you equate your opinion on the sentencing of criminals to your opinion on the existence of the BBC? Just because people might agree with you on one subject doesn't mean they'd agree with you on everything, surely you can see that? Or can you? I do wonder sometimes.
You appear to live in a little bubble of your very own, where your ideals are the only ideals worth anything. Where anyone who happens to disagree with you is automatically wrong, and where anyone who asks a direct question or makes a point that you don't wish to address gets completely ignored. I'm not even sure why I've bothered typing this, since I don't exist in the Kenty bubble rolleyes

its the old "jedi" mind trick of trying to divert the conversation when people see they there view is not shared by the majority... hence the attacks on the "liberals" and "middle class" (if i am I think i am doing quite well.....)
change the subject and hope the original goes away
I think the comparision between the price of the license fee and the price of the rag in question is a brilliant one......
I know which is better for value....... lol
I ask people not to change the subject...I know some just gently slide in different directions, but for the OP to try and do it smacks of a little desperation
I think we should keep the BBC as it is it does a great job please do not make the same mistake as many people make and just look at TV out put they have a brilliant web site and array of radio and the world service loose the TV Licence monies and you would loose the lot
Quote by JTS

As a general rule Blonde, I ALWAYS post what I believe. Sometimes there are some on here, who bite like a wild elephant, and just sometimes I love to see the reactions.
But as for my political views, or anything on a serious topic, I always say what I think, and more importantly....what I believe to be right.
My question to those who think my stance is tooooo hard line is this......as a society it is obviously apparent to most, that it has gone very wrong. Is that because we as a society have become toooo soft?
The young lad who was shot dead in Liverpool, look at the weak sentences the courts gave to them. Now ask the question had they have been given 20 years like they should have done, would it be a serious deterent to others? I think it would.
Does that answer your question Blonde? wink

You need to look at the sentencing guidelines for that crime, with those defendants, before commenting. Courts have to pay attention to those guidelines. They have little choice, since if they do not the appeal courts will. As for it being a deterrent, it would not. If people thought (those with an ability to think that is) before committing a crime then there would be a lot less crime. Unfortunately drink, drugs and sex tend to produce gibbering idiots, not people capable of cerebration.

Apart from the above, other countries have a wide range of methods used to pay for "public service" televisions and radio. extra taxes, levies on utility bills etc.
I did and have. The judge COULD have given them the maximum term, which was ten years.
Can you imagine the parents having to face those scum bags in court everyday, and then when the sentence was read out, had to watch as they " whooped " with joy?
Put yourself in those parents shoes. Ten years would have been way too short a sentence. They will be out on the streets, in less than three years.....superb justice system, we have.
I must say though, I have just had a browse on the BBC i player, and very good it is too.
Anyone reading this 'argument',and I use the word advisedly, would find it obvious why John Gaunt has his fans and what his appeal is to those people.
He replaced a long line of similar broadcasters(eg James Whale, Richard Littlejohn etc) who achieve a certain level of success due to their lowest common denominator approach to audience.
I dont suggest that he and men of his ilk dont on some level truly believe what they state, its not even for me to say that they are bad broadcasters - that would be conceited and arrogant of anyone - what I can say with a fair amount of confidence is that the media in all its forms is largely a meritocracy to the core. As such history has shown us that people who broadcast on this level have almost always reached a certain level of success and notoriety and then gone no further. We can fairly assume that this is dictated by the consumers of media as a whole and so it would once again be wrong to contradict it as a judgement of their true merit.
The problem with the 'giving people what they want' approach to broadcasting and media is very similar in my mind to what I think of as the Tesco mentality. Tesco used exhaustive monitoring of statistics to establish what they believed were the most popular products (common denominators)then they set about pressuring producers to supply vast amounts of these products at low prices. What we have ended up with are low quality versions of the original products and because of economic pressures, suppliers who are unable to provide any real alternatives which limits our choice and prevents any like Sky work on similar principles by providing huge chunks of programming that will appeal to as many people as possible. This of course means anything new or experimental or original is vastly approach is what the BBC remit specifically forbids.
I for one am sad that my young son will possibly live in a world where he will taste golden delicious instead of coxs orange pippins and may have to make do with the latest clone of Friends rather than the next Monty Python.I can only rely on my faith that human nature and intelligence will win out over those that promote short sighted ill informed views because they shout the loudest.
Quote by Silk and Big G
I can only rely on my faith that human nature and intelligence will win out over those that promote short sighted ill informed views because they shout the loudest.

Human nature may well win-out over short-sightedness and ill-informed views BG, but it will never win-out over greed and corruption. As you doubtless know, politics and the "meeja" are rife with both.
I never watch sky or itv....I loathe advertising with a passion previously reserved for politicians. With sky I not only have to be insulted by adverts for products but products .
I do not mind the few quid a week to enable me to watch the bbc, sometimes.
I resent paying it to not-watch itv and sky, but since the licence is not to watch bbc, but to operate the receiver, I shall put-up with it.
As I pointed-out above, most countries have a public service system that they pay for one way or another.
If the beed goes advertising, I'll simply not watch it.
And given the quality of programming (big-bollocks et-al) I do not think I shall be missing much.

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.
Quote by kentswingers777

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.

Yes, ok, agreed.
And also on this thread there's loads of examples of how for all its flaws the BBC also provides the finest television and radio service in the world.
Sky
The Sun
'Gaunty'
or The BBC?
I know which one I'd choose!
Quote by niceandgentle

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.

Yes, ok, agreed.
And also on this thread there's loads of examples of how for all its flaws the BBC also provides the finest television and radio service in the world.
Sky
The Sun
'Gaunty'
or The BBC?
I know which one I'd choose!
So on that basis YOU never ever watch anything other than BBC 1 then?
Sky and the Sun and yes even Gaunty are, unlike the BBC answerable to others.
The BBC are answerable to nobody, because whatever they do or how much they spend, they are not vilified at all. Because the money.....public money, will keep rolling in no matter what.
IF the Sun readership dwindled, they would strugggle. If Sky's advertisers decide to pull out because of the credit crunch, Sky would suffer. Gaunty was sacked for his views, so he paid the ultimate price but....the BBC? oh yes the company that is answerable to nobody, except itself.....got it now. wink
Quote by kentswingers777

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.

Yes, ok, agreed.
And also on this thread there's loads of examples of how for all its flaws the BBC also provides the finest television and radio service in the world.
Sky
The Sun
'Gaunty'
or The BBC?
I know which one I'd choose!
So on that basis YOU never ever watch anything other than BBC 1 then?
Sky and the Sun and yes even Gaunty are, unlike the BBC answerable to others.
The BBC are answerable to nobody, because whatever they do or how much they spend, they are not vilified at all. Because the money.....public money, will keep rolling in no matter what.
IF the Sun readership dwindled, they would strugggle. If Sky's advertisers decide to pull out because of the credit crunch, Sky would suffer. Gaunty was sacked for his views, so he paid the ultimate price but....the BBC? oh yes the company that is answerable to nobody, except itself.....got it now. wink
I meant the BBC as a whole not just BBC 1
I agree the BBC does make some BBC does waste some money.
But compared to Sky, The Sun, and your rather nasty bigoted hero Gaunty Kent, I'll take the BBC over those any day!
I am not sure how productive Gaunties ideas are in this case. If he's having a go at fat cats in the media or the principle of it, he may find himself considered for a salary reduction, or reduction in his allowance of media usage.
But like anything in the media and especially the press, he writes to sell newspapers, because he has an audience who wants that kind of viewpoint and opinion. Is that really him? we wouldn't know unless he had us round for Sunday lunch maybe.
The BBC has to work like any other successful business. It has to charge in excess to keep ahead of its demands and expectations. But it has generally been a worthwhile and succesful enterprise, providing something for just about everyone.
Quote by niceandgentle

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.

Yes, ok, agreed.
And also on this thread there's loads of examples of how for all its flaws the BBC also provides the finest television and radio service in the world.
Sky
The Sun
'Gaunty'
or The BBC?
I know which one I'd choose!
So on that basis YOU never ever watch anything other than BBC 1 then?
Sky and the Sun and yes even Gaunty are, unlike the BBC answerable to others.
The BBC are answerable to nobody, because whatever they do or how much they spend, they are not vilified at all. Because the money.....public money, will keep rolling in no matter what.
IF the Sun readership dwindled, they would strugggle. If Sky's advertisers decide to pull out because of the credit crunch, Sky would suffer. Gaunty was sacked for his views, so he paid the ultimate price but....the BBC? oh yes the company that is answerable to nobody, except itself.....got it now. wink
I meant the BBC as a whole not just BBC 1
I agree the BBC does make some BBC does waste some money.
But compared to Sky, The Sun, and your rather nasty bigoted hero Gaunty Kent, I'll take the BBC over those any day!
You don't like him then? :wink:
Quote by kentswingers777

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.

Yes, ok, agreed.
And also on this thread there's loads of examples of how for all its flaws the BBC also provides the finest television and radio service in the world.
Sky
The Sun
'Gaunty'
or The BBC?
I know which one I'd choose!
So on that basis YOU never ever watch anything other than BBC 1 then?
Sky and the Sun and yes even Gaunty are, unlike the BBC answerable to others.
The BBC are answerable to nobody, because whatever they do or how much they spend, they are not vilified at all. Because the money.....public money, will keep rolling in no matter what.
IF the Sun readership dwindled, they would strugggle. If Sky's advertisers decide to pull out because of the credit crunch, Sky would suffer. Gaunty was sacked for his views, so he paid the ultimate price but....the BBC? oh yes the company that is answerable to nobody, except itself.....got it now. wink
I meant the BBC as a whole not just BBC 1
I agree the BBC does make some BBC does waste some money.
But compared to Sky, The Sun, and your rather nasty bigoted hero Gaunty Kent, I'll take the BBC over those any day!
You don't like him then? :wink:
I think its more a case of that he wouldn't like me Kent lol!
Gaunty loves everyone,
Unless they are leftie, politically correct peeps. wink
Quote by Silk and Big G
and thats Fact ! lol :lol:

Of course it is. wink
Quote by kentswingers777
Gaunty loves everyone,
Unless they are leftie, politically correct peeps. wink

The list is bigger than that.
Quote by essex34m
Gaunty loves everyone,
Unless they are leftie, politically correct peeps. wink

The list is bigger than that.
Yes it is..........much bigger. The way some go on is you would think he is in a massive minority. Well his listening figures proves otherwise. :wink:
Well that seems a near perfect time for an example. What are his listening figures , and what is the source ? cool
Quote by kentswingers777

Just one of the BBC's missuse of PUBLIC finds.

Yes, ok, agreed.
And also on this thread there's loads of examples of how for all its flaws the BBC also provides the finest television and radio service in the world.
Sky
The Sun
'Gaunty'
or The BBC?
I know which one I'd choose!
So on that basis YOU never ever watch anything other than BBC 1 then?
Sky and the Sun and yes even Gaunty are, unlike the BBC answerable to others.
The BBC are answerable to nobody, because whatever they do or how much they spend, they are not vilified at all. Because the money.....public money, will keep rolling in no matter what.
IF the Sun readership dwindled, they would strugggle. If Sky's advertisers decide to pull out because of the credit crunch, Sky would suffer. Gaunty was sacked for his views, so he paid the ultimate price but....the BBC? oh yes the company that is answerable to nobody, except itself.....got it now. wink
The Sun and Sky are answerable to Rupert Murdoch who loves this country so much he moved to avoid tax,he isn't interested in making money from either of these ventures he keeps them to maintain political influence (he's frequently thrown cash at both -and lost it- in vain attempts to crush his opposition)
When people like Murdoch attain his position wealth ceases to be the motivation he wants power,and gets it through pedalling the influence of his media companies to politicians.......I do feel I'm stating the obvious here, but it often seems that the threat of the worlds Murdochs is either ignored or goes un-noticed.
As for Gaunt it seems he was answerable to someone