Television Licensing

[Deleted User]

Nilrem wrote: »

Nice to know you can google my name (if a little creepy).

You don't suspect you have already had altercations with this poster over on the other website?
Your user name may be the same here as there, but that does not mean the same is true of the user you are addressing!;)

Nilrem

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You don't suspect you have already had altercations with this poster over on the other website?
Your user name may be the same here as there, but that does not mean the same is true of the user you are addressing!;)

I don't know whol he is, although he posts links to a website where apparently I'm down as a "BBC employee" along with a bunch of other users from digitalspy who have dared question some of the stuff posted, things like pointing out that articles in the DM are factually very incorrect about such things as "BBC salaries"*, or basic aspects of employment law, or that if the BBC were trying to hide something they wouldn't have put it on their website for the world to see.
It seems all you have to do to become a BBC employee these days is question articles (reposted gleefully) that have glaring factual errors (or contain outright lies), or to point out things like in a company of however many thousands of people, it's a statistical certainty that in any given period some of the staff will commit crimes. It doesn't mean that the employer had any idea what was going on (especially if the employee did it outside of contracted hours and off site).

At one time it annoyed me a bit, now I tend to take it as a sign he's lost any attempt to debate, or discuss logically when he starts to call people "beeboids" or starts to go on about "you know a lot about the BBC..."

[edit]
The amusing thing is, that if it wasn't for the stuff that's posted by people who are so vocally opposed to the TVL/BBC that they'll jump on anything to bash the BBC, even if it's glaringly obvious that it wasn't the BBC's fault, or that what they're suggesting would have had the HMRC down on the BBC's heads in seconds, I probably wouldn't know half as much about the BBC as I do.
I've always had a tendency to read stuff and if something catches my eye (IE "that doesn't sound right", or "that's interesting"), I'll tend to read up on it - and a lot of the stuff some of the vocal anti BBC people post is interesting enough, and easy enough to check with google (especially when the BBC posts stuff online), or based on knowing a bit about other broadcasters (or even just basic employment law, and expense rules from the HMRC). I'm surprised there hasn't been the annual "disgust" at the number of staff the "BBC take to glastonbury for jollies" - which usually works out about twice as many to cover it from nothing in a muddy field over a weekend, as it takes Sky (as used in Sky's own adverts) to cover a 90 minute football game, where all the facilities are pretty much ready to go when the Sky broadcast team turn up (I'm always amazed at how few it takes the BBC's contractors to do the job in comparison, given the time period and space they're covering).

*One of my recent favourites was, from memory Graham Norton,, where the DM article stated that he was paid something like 2.4 million by the BBC - another article in a slightly more reliable paper had that down as the amount his production and distribution company paid him (his company produced some shows for the BBC, but also distributing content for other companies, and presumably his DVD's, books etc which have nothing to do with the BBC at all).

System

Nilrem wrote: »

I don't know whol he is, although he posts links to a website where apparently I'm down as a "BBC employee" along with a bunch of other users from digitalspy who have dared question

Dare question, we're talking about some of your buddies there with 40,000 posts all defending the BBC. Hate to tell you this but normal people start to suspect things when that happens :whistle:

Nilrem wrote: »

some of the stuff posted, things like pointing out that articles in the DM are factually very incorrect about such things as "BBC salaries

Yes and you and the rest of the Beeboids would know they're wrong how.....................no one noticed you slipped up again

Anyway thanks once again for showing everyone how obsessively in love with the BBC you are.

For those who think something isn't quite right here this is why he does it

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beeboid

Notice how they don't have any issues attacking any other broadcast, mainly Sky because Sky have people voluntary subscribing without threatening them with fines unlike the BBC

Nilrem

Would those be "my buddies"*, who have been posting there for over a decade across the whole of the forum? (of whom I think only one has that many posts, and from memory he's a heavy poster in one of the non broadcasting sections).
Hint 40k over ten years across a large forum is not much - it's about 10 posts a day, I know people who racked up 10k posts in a year on some forums because they were chatting about stuff they were interested in** (but hey don't let facts get in the way of the conspiracies).

If there is anyone being obsessive, I would respectfully suggest it's not myself.
I would also suggest that I probably spend more time replying to your insults and thinly veiled insinuations than I do on anything about the BBC.

TheWise1 wrote: »

Yes and you and the rest of the Beeboids would know they're wrong how.....................no one noticed you slipped up again

What's a slip up?
Being able to read that the DM says someone is paid X by the BBC, then reading in another paper that the person is paid by their production company and the amount came from the companies annual filings?
IE one article makes out he's paid a sum just by the BBC, when he's not even being paid directly by the BBC at all, and the amount he's getting is from a company for which only part of it's income is from providing content to the BBC, with potentially far more being from the sales of content via other outlets? (IIRC the DM claimed Norton was paid 2.4 million by the BBC - a sum that co-incidentally was what Norton's production company, which also distributes his non BBC work, and work from other companies paid him, as laid out in the companies records and reported slightly more accurately in some other papers).).

Really it's not rocket science to be able read two conflicting reports, one of which goes into more detail and guess that one of them is wrong. Especially when one of them doesn't bother to mention where they got the sums they are talking about from, and is known to be quite casual with the facts.

*Of whom I've met none, and know about as much about them as I do about you? (hint just because I share some opinions with people online doesn't make them buddies - I might respect some of them for their technical knowledge but that's about as far as it goes).

**Let alone because people were having multi way conversations.

wiogs

TheWise1 wrote: »

And I say you and the rest of your tight clique prove my point. I could reverse your spin and say you lot need to seek medical help because you object so much to people critical of the BBC :whistle:

As I said - paranoia.

I am not a member of a "tight clique" and I have no objections to people being critical of the BBC.

"Notice how they don't have any issues attacking any other broadcast, mainly Sky because Sky have people voluntary subscribing without threatening them with fines unlike the BBC"

Not sure once again who "they" are but as this is a thread that was started about TV Licensing I assume that it why most people are confining their comments to the BBC.

If you wish to start a thread on the merits and value or otherwise of companies like BSkyB then go ahead.

Cornucopia

FWIW, I don't think that the majority of people that post overwhelmingly positive stuff about the BBC are employed by them. Nor do I think that there is anything particularly wrong about hitting the keys as a warrior for something you believe in.

What I would question is the judgment of people who can only/mostly see good things about the BBC (or, in fact, any large organisation). It's a sad fact that such organisations routinely lose touch with their stakeholders and often with their very purpose for being. Very often, the theme of this loss of touch is self-aggrandisement for the organisation above the needs of customers/stakeholders.

In the case of the BBC, it's become clear that there are significant questions to be answered with regards to Licence Fee enforcment. There are also questions to be answered about executive pay-offs (which hopefully have now been stopped by the new DG). There are further questions about the extent to which the organisation (historically) provided sanctuary to sex offenders, and to what extent senior managers were complicit enablers of offending.

And that's before you get to the more general questions of "how big?", "at what cost?", "to do what?", and "accountability?".

If this were the NHS, we would probably accept the claims from senior managers that they were very sorry and would improve things. That's because the NHS is an important organisation that does a vital job. We overlook its flaws because of that.

The BBC does nothing that is not/could not equally well be done elsewhere. Can we overlook these (and other) serious flaws in a mere purveyor of TV/Radio/Websites?

Personally, I don't think so.

almillar

And who pays their wages, oh yea the TV Licence payer

Precisely! Glad we're agreeing. They're accountable to us, commercial stations are accountable (that's accountable, not regulated by) their shareholders.

Actually its Ofcom but don't let your BBC PR get in the way
I'm guessing you must hate people like me who haven't contributed towards your beloved BBC

No, OFCom are communications regulators, who enforce broadcasting standards rules, for all TV. ITV and Sky are judged on profit ultimately by their shareholders, not programme quality. (Good programmes may of course lead to profit). (thank you for making my point for me too Nilrem)
I certainly don't hate anyone who chooses not to contribute towards the BBC. The rules are there, and should be followed.

This thread is just another example that certain individuals refuse to have anything bad said about the BBC

Says the hilarious paranoid hypocrite who can't hear anything GOOD said about them!

System

almillar wrote: »

Precisely!

So they're not going to rock the boat when they are happy to have the public forced into funding them, if they wish to watch live feeds!

almillar wrote: »

Glad we're agreeing.

I never agree with Beeboids

almillar wrote: »

They're accountable to us, commercial stations are accountable (that's accountable, not regulated by) their shareholders.

commercial channels don't send me threatening letter, harass me or try intimidating me unlike the mighty BBC which cannot be criticised to a certain clique here.

Have to admit you are pitch perfect.

almillar wrote: »

No, OFCom are communications regulators, who enforce broadcasting standards rules, for all TV. ITV and Sky are judged on profit ultimately by their shareholders, not programme quality. (Good programmes may of course lead to profit). (thank you for making my point for me too Nilrem)

Will you stop it with the pitches, you know its already been discussed, the Trust is a waste of time so talk is of Ofcom taking over.

almillar wrote: »

I certainly don't hate anyone who chooses not to contribute towards the BBC. The rules are there, and should be followed.

Good because I never have and got countless people over the years to stop funding them too, all legally. One day you might be paying it by yourselves if you love the BBC so much that is

almillar wrote: »

Says the hilarious paranoid hypocrite who can't hear anything GOOD said about them!

Oh and the insults continue, has the bad man still carried on criticising the BBC

System

Nilrem wrote: »

Hint 40k over ten years across a large forum is not much - it's about 10 posts a day

So you think someone with over 40k posts all defending the BBC isn't strange, even a decent PR company would stay clear of that

Nilrem wrote: »

I would also suggest that I probably spend more time replying to your insults and thinly veiled insinuations than I do on anything about the BBC.

Once again they say people who criticise the BBC are insulting, hmm

Nilrem wrote: »

What's a slip up?

Simple, the BBC/Guardian loving fans always attack whats critical of the BBC as you guys show here. You also made out you know more about the inner working of the BBC than the rest of the media thats critical of them, now how would you know this.

You guys to know it isn't just the DM that prints those articles don't you................watch it go quite now

Nilrem wrote: »

Really it's not rocket science to be able read two conflicting reports

But you guys will always trust the positive one wont ya,

Anyway it looks like you and your buddies run this forum. Anyone reading who's critical of the BBC should think twice about saying anything here, you've seen what happens. I would recommend you just hit them where it hurts, stop funding the BBC

System

wiogs wrote: »

Not sure once again who "they" are but as this is a thread that was started about TV Licensing I assume that it why most people are confining their comments to the BBC.

I agree but your buddies have changed comparing FTA and voluntary subscription broadcasters with the BBC. Perhaps you should have a chat with them to get organised instead of saying it was me..................again this thread proves that!

wiogs wrote: »

If you wish to start a thread on the merits and value or otherwise of companies like BSkyB then go ahead.

I'll leave that to you, I have no issue with any other broadcaster being criticised, I'm neutral