'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

I think what you need to understand is that you and others find it difficult to accept an argument contrary to your position without categorising it as part of something that Rupert Murdoch is doing. Let me ask you, if you're not obsessed with it as I said, what reason is there to mention it in this forum topic at all? The only reason can be that my opinion, and others have been swayed by Rupert Murdoch.

What is ridiculous is that you are so annoyed about it, when you are the one that brought it up in the first place. The only reason I have mentioned the apparent influence of Rupert Murdoch on the first place is in response to the many comments, including yours, about it.

Lets get it straight. My opinion has nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch or some campaign, conspiracy or not, against the BBC. It is purely to do having to pay only the BBC to watch TV when they make mostly rubbish TV. If you don't want to get annoyed I suggest you stop mentioning Rupert Murdoch, and let other people's opinions stand on their own merit.

As for your comment about people on benefits, you can try to get out of it by saying that what you said was based on your own personal experience, but you know what you said and if you're annoyed it should be at yourself for the way you expressed yourself.

What you have said in reply to my pointing out your comments my well be what you meant to say, but it isn't what you actually said. Why don't you read your soundbite again to yourself and try to understand how it comes across?

Or you could just say "oh ok sorry, you didn't mean it in the way I twisted it to mean, I understand that" Yet again you ignore everything that's said. I bet no one dares get into a debate with you elsewhere! You're absolutely awesome at twisting things and avoiding almost every point. Are you a wind up robot only capable of saying "choice" and "conspiracy" and insulting people.

Rupert Murdoch = Sky, newspapers and online content. That's why he's mentioned. Isn't that obvious? He's the one key player that can affect the prices we pay. Or have you not heard of him. My points all along (on that subject, as if you look I say way more things that don't mention him!) are about money and power. Most other people at least acknowledge that fact. Perhaps you don't know much about it. So I'll leave it there.

I think I've expressed myself in sensible ways, the only thing I'm annoyed about is the way you take snipets of conversations and twist them to try and make others look bad. It's beyond ignorant. Don't force the views you may have on the rest of us. Everyone is equal money or no money, it's a shame your own views warp those of us who believe that. . Have a nice day. Our conversation is over. Thank goodness we're all not like you.

rapido

. .

rapido

. .

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

As I've said before, ALL the channels are available via satellite to the whole of the UK.



Not sure why you have decided to use childish offensive terms, but I have reported this post to MSE Martin, as it's not appropriate for use in this forum.

-rapido

OH NO! please don't! Perhaps if you listened i wouldn't be such a nasty man. You still don't seem to understand what i'm getting at. but let's just agree to disagree eh?!

Mary_Hartnell

The National Health Service is also a bloated organisation and there are some bloated salaries being paid there too.
Most of the patients are getting the service because they are young old or have self inflicted illnesses.
Why the hell am I paying for this service that destroys choice?
I think it should be scrapped.

Mary_Hartnell

Oh I forgot - the American health care system is so much better - it costs three times as much per person; and you just have to look at its citizens and you can see they are three times as healthy.
Just as they are three times better informed about world affairs from their wonderful media..

rogermunns

I'd like to see a lot more information on how much programmes cost to make. I think most people would be horrified to learn how much presenters are paid and how, in general, it's all got completely out-of-hand.

square-eyes

I am surprised about the 50% of people who want adverts funding the BBC. We all moan about the advert pop-ups on our PCs. The BBC is so much more than TV. You have the Internet, radio, cultural events like The Proms and Radio road shows, the orchestras, DVD, CD and books. I watched Sky for a year and I was not impressed. The continual adverts and repetitious output was not worth the money. I defy anyone who says they only watch Sky to go through their life and see if it is really BBC free.

JAYJ_2

With all the tecnology available, they should now be able to sell tv's and radios without any bbc stations added, so we have a choice it, I see it as a form of dictatorship
we have to pay regardless of whether we watch the bbc

Cleany

square-eyes wrote: »

I am surprised about the 50% of people who want adverts funding the BBC. We all moan about the advert pop-ups on our PCs. The BBC is so much more than TV. You have the Internet, radio, cultural events like The Proms and Radio road shows, the orchestras, DVD, CD and books. I watched Sky for a year and I was not impressed. The continual adverts and repetitious output was not worth the money. I defy anyone who says they only watch Sky to go through their life and see if it is really BBC free.

Its an interesting point about adverts on your PC, I really don't like them, but I can avoid them and am used to it. I suppose I don't mind adverts on the TV because I am used to them, and they're quite handy if you don't have a means of recording tv or live pause if you need to toilet etc.

I watch both Sky and BBC programmes, but most of the programmes I watch, and certainly my favourite ones are on the independant channels. I have 20 or 30 things I really enjoy watching over the year, and will record and watch a whole series (series link on Sky, now available on Freeview with a different name is fantastic for this). Of these only 1 programme is made by the BBC, that's QI.

The lowest quality TV isn't made by the BBC, but nor is the highest. It's made by US producers, and some independant UK ones. You get a lot of rubbish but also very high quality, plus, you get to choose what you watch so hey presto purely high quality TV. With the BBC you get blandness, perhaps not so much rubbish, but nothing that really stands out.

So for me, if you don't mind adverts, and choose what to watch, perhaps with a hard disk recorder, then the more choice you have the better.