Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_hitch
My points were rhetorical, perhaps I should have mentioned that. They were not meant to cause debate.
Since you have mentioned it though, I can drop my package, but I lose my HD channels. The principle of the argument is the same. I have to pay for channels I don't watch watch. It's not a problem for me though, as I know many other people enjoy them.
Again, the smoking point was rhetorical, I know a number of smokers and I want them to stay as healthy as they can, for as long as they can. In theory though, I could use the argument that I am paying for a nhs service I have never used or intend to use - why should I pay for that service?
Nope, you can be as vocal as you want. I hope this does not mean I am not to allowed to challenge people on their views though?
Again, not looking to cause a debate on this, will welcome any further comments from your goodself though.
|
You can drop your package and lose your hd channels, but there is nothing to stop you then getting hd channels elsewhere.
If you want to consume tv or radio from ANY source you must pay the licence fee regardless of whether or not you consume any of the products it pays for.
I'm fine not debating, but I simply do not see them as the same thing.
---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
I think one great advantage it gives the programme is that a rapidly-increased audience size should make it attractive to sporting personalities to appear on. As a new show, it started off with bundles of goodwill but to guarantee high calibre guests, it needed to up its ratings significantly. I think the money involved will be pretty insignificant compared to the benefits of increased viewership.
---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------
In fairness, that was commissioned by the BBC's regulator, the BBC Trust and not the BBC itself. In the future, Andrew Marr has suggested that regulation could be taken over by Ofcom. And the BBC itself did not dismiss it either. The article you linked to quotes a BBC spokesman as saying ""We agree it is always vital to guard against unconscious bias or 'group think' and will continue to do so and we've committed to a number of actions to improve our coverage even further." Committing to a number of actions is obviously not dismissing the report; I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
|
Mainly because they haven't set out what they are!
Re. your first point, insignificant or not, I am uncomfortable with an on going subscription channel being allowed a weekly half hour long advert on the national broadcaster and being paid public money for the privilege. Using the licence fee to pay for a full length repeat of a show broadcast the night before on a subscription channel is not the same as the BBC buying in content from private content producing companies.