Bloomin' adverts! - Page 2

jambutty · 23-05-2006, 17:06

But you already pay towards an extravagant monopoly garinda. Taxes many and various to the government and there is no one more extravagant than them. But I agree with you the BBC like the NHS and many other organisations ARE extravagant and far too much money is spent on management rather than product/service.

I never said that you were ignorant. Do try and read and understand what was written. I stated:
“Have it your own way garinda, if you want to live in ignorance of the facts then that is your choice.”

The BBC negotiated an annual funding level until I believe 2010 when the funding and even existence of the BBC in its present form comes up for negotiation. In between times a Quango collects the license fees on behalf of the government. Whether the amount collected is enough to cover the BBC’s annual funding or not is irrelevant, the BBC will still get the agreed annual amount. There is no way that you can call that direct funding.

I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to sit at my computer to await your majesty’s reply.

Sheeeesh! Talk about delusions of self importance.

Neal · 23-05-2006, 17:17

Try to stick to the thread, not take it personal or attack others views.

The license is a waste of money. Why should I pay for someone in Africa to listen to BBC World Service?

As for adds, they sneak adverts into everything, just watch and see.

garinda · 23-05-2006, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

But you already pay towards an extravagant monopoly garinda. Taxes many and various to the government and there is no one more extravagant than them. But I agree with you the BBC like the NHS and many other organisations ARE extravagant and far too much money is spent on management rather than product/service.

I never said that you were ignorant. Do try and read and understand what was written. I stated:
“Have it your own way garinda, if you want to live in ignorance of the facts then that is your choice.”

The BBC negotiated an annual funding level until I believe 2010 when the funding and even existence of the BBC in its present form comes up for negotiation. In between times a Quango collects the license fees on behalf of the government. Whether the amount collected is enough to cover the BBC’s annual funding or not is irrelevant, the BBC will still get the agreed annual amount. There is no way that you can call that direct funding.

I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to sit at my computer to await your majesty’s reply.

Sheeeesh! Talk about delusions of self importance.

You say I live in 'ignorance of the of the facts' ergo I am ignorant of the facts in your opinion as I stated, though I will get back on thread and not argue semantics with you.

Thank you for your reply. I disagree with it and still think it is wrong for the BBC to blatently advertise Saga Insurance considering how the Corporation is supposed to be funded.

As for your majesty jibe please retire backwards from my presence whilst performing a sweeping bow.

Neil · 23-05-2006, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I'm more than happy to pay a licence fee that funds the regulatory bodies and infrastructure that is needed for broadcasting

I am not. Any company wishing to broadcast a TV channel should have to pay into a 'pot' to fund an independant regulatory body. As far as infrastructure is concerned they should be paying whoever owns the transmitters/repeaters etc for broadcasting the channel as Sky pay ASTRA for using their satellites.

jambutty · 23-05-2006, 18:12

I agree with you garinda, if the BBC is funded from public funds then there should be no commercial advertising at all. But if that happened there would be no sport on TV, films and outside broadcasts would have to be vetted to ensure that no corporate logo appears. East Enders and other soaps and sitcoms could not be broadcast because they are full of advertising in the background. The simple truth is that advertising is all around us whether we like it or not but at least on the BBC the programmes are not broken up with ads for whiter than white washing powder or whatever and that makes the BBC unique. I don’t see anything wrong in the BBC advertising its future programmes between programmes though.

Retiring backwards as ordered and also showing you that I can still use a longbow with either hand.

Madhatter · 23-05-2006, 22:22

yes, I agree with you jb but isn't this sponsorship the first step to the bbc having adverts. It is in effect an advert. no licence fee ever goes directly to what the licence is associated with. No tax does either. they don't have pots that say tv licence fee, same as they don't have refuse collection, council house repairs.etc

You two make me laugh.
I'd love to see you two with tealeaf in the big brother house.

garinda · 23-05-2006, 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madhatter

You two make me laugh.
I'd love to see you two with tealeaf in the big brother house.

That pool would be red now and I'd be sat rocking in the corner holding a knife.

Bad-Wolf · 24-05-2006, 22:33

I know that there is a great deal of debate as regards the license fee but so far as I am concerned Doctor Who alone makes the fee well worth while.

In fact, I would sell all have (except of course my tv) just to keep Doctor Who.

Doctor Who is a wonderful, timeless (no pun intended) work of art. A must for any tv viewer!

Long live Doctor Who, the greatest BBC production of all time!

Madhatter · 25-05-2006, 23:48

yes it's great but its old, and it take next to nothing to make, they hardly had to push the boat out to bring it back did they. They asked a few people realised it would be watched by a few and threw it together, hey presto quality program on a shoe string budget, and it was watched by ten times more people than they expected.