Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

Defiant_3

nothingisforfree wrote: »

You continue to prove you're a complete retard

Comment reported for personal abuse & and suggest all those who don't work for the BBC do the same thing

nothingisforfree wrote: »

You have constantly quoted BBC programmes as having a cost of £4.5 billion,

You have problems understanding that the tv licence went up £5 and 25 million households are forced to pay that extra money. You also forget to add the bbc worldwide revenues no you go on and on about last years

nothingisforfree wrote: »

The BBC broadly gets income from 3 sources: -
1. TV Licence £3.1 billion -- paid for by licence payers
2. World Service £260 million -- paid for by central government
3. Commercial business £620million --external income generated from exploitation of BBC programmes, other assets and its skill base.
www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/annreport/report06/16.financialstatements.pdf

Yes 2005/06 thanks for proving my point, TROLL

nothingisforfree wrote: »

''However, the courts are required to take into account the means of an offender in imposing any fine and, if a fine remains unpaid, the courts may resort to imprisonment only if satisfied that non-payment is due to the offender's wilful refusal or culpable neglect and if all other methods of enforcement have been tried or considered.''

Are you going to try and deny people are sent to prison for refusing to pay the BBC TV Licence now ?

nothingisforfree wrote: »

On that note, I'll leave you and this thread to your Daily Mail and BNP membership.

also reported for slander even though it's no surprise coming from a lefie BBC employee & again I'd hope all the other members here who are against the BBC TV Licence do the same

ckerrd

Defiant wrote: »

I'VE POSTED PROOF WITH LINKS YOU'VE JUST GIVEN AN OPINION PUT OVER AS A FACT. WHY DON'T YOU READ THE DVD RUNTIMES AND THEN CHECK THE TIMESLOTS IN THE US AND UK INSTEAD OF TROLLING THIS FORUM WITH YOUR BBC FRIENDS BETTER STILL STAY ON TOPIC.

REMEMBER PEOPLE THIS IS WHAT YOUR TV LICENCE PAYS FOR SO ITS NO WONDER THE BBC DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE GET PAID FOR

Tut tut no need to shout.

Once again you have proved nothing and confused running times of a programme with the amount of advertising time allowed.

Simple figures do seem to be beyond your grasp.

Nice to see you haven't given up on the paranoia though, must be what keeps you going.

Chin up.

Defiant_3

ckerrd wrote: »

Tut tut no need to shout.

Chin up.

Sorry I have to shout and yes I know the fact is they're both the same but that wouldn't fit into your agenda would it :rolleyes: anyway let me repeat myself and give the proof while he just sits talking rubbish as usual

Hex shown on UK TV (skyone)

Lengh 45 minutes with adverts taken out & 60 minutes with them

http://www.nforce.nl/index.php?switchto=nfos&menu=quicknav&item=viewnfo&id=98830

Stargate Atlantis shown on US TV (Scifi)

Lengh 43.32 with adverts taken out & 60 minutes with them

http://www.nforce.nl/index.php?switchto=nfos&menu=quicknav&item=viewnfo&id=110725


The Truth Hurts

ckerrd

You never did address my point about restricted (UK) and unrestricted (US) amounts of advertising time but no matter, your example will do for now.

Now these are the figures you provided

UK running time of programme 45 minutes
UK timeslot for programme 60 minutes
Time left 15 minutes

US running time of programme 43.32 minutes
US timeslot for programme 60 minutes
Time left 16.28 minutes


So 15 = 16.28

Similar yes, equal to - no.

(Except in Defiant world I assume)

This proving you wrong is getting far to easy.

Don't despair though you are just doing your best.

EDIT - just another small mistake - the UK running time you provided doesn't match the link.

westernpromise

impy78 wrote: »

As for it being calculated by people who want it, can I therefore pay no tax for the military/nuclear arms, nuclear power, roads, quangos, the olympics, the royal family, Ken Livingston, Academy schools, Craft, design technology lessons in schools hospital admin idiots and crazy millennium dome type projects, please, as I do not use any of these, I do not want them, I did not ask for them, and I don't want to pay for them.

I don't want to pay for all of those either. Whether one agrees or not with the specific policy followed, however, there can be little disagreement that it is the business of government to ensure that the country is defended ("military/nuclear arms"), that we have a national energy strategy ("nuclear power"), that our governmental institutions are preserved ("the royal family"), that there is some sort of local government infrastructure ("Ken Livingston") and that health services ("hospital admin") and education to secondary level ("Academy schools", "design technology lessons in schools") are available to all.

If those weren't in place in some shape or form, the country would more or less collapse. We'd turn into Zimbabwe. We can quibble about the exact form they take, but no serious person would argue that none is required in principle.

What, on the other hand, is the state doing in the entertainment business?!?

There are plenty of private unsubsidised TV stations, theatres, and cinema chains, so why do we need a "service" used by 20% of the viewing public and funded by an extorted tax? Why can't you pay for your own, like I have to do if I want to see a movie?

Tell you what. You reckon £135 is trivial, right? OK - please would you pay my licence fee for me? After all, you don't think it's a lot of money and I do, and you think it's good value and I don't. So surely you'd agree it's worth £270 for the BBC? You're still getting a 60% subsidy, which is more than fair, and I'd be getting fairer treatment because I don't use it at all and I shouldn't have to pay for state entertainment.

What do you say? :rolleyes:

newcook

Sorry to sound a bit dense (its been a long day!) but when people are referring to the american run time that it is the amount of time the programme is shown? So for example of an episode from my Friends dvd it states run time 23 minutes - when its shown on C4 it takes up a half hour slot so say it starts dead on 9pm, you get about 2 minutes before it goes to the music which is 30 seconds long (they even had to trim off a couple of the 'I'll be there for yoouuuu...' to make sure it fit to 30 seconds - sing it in your head and time it if you dont believe me!), they have approx 9 minutes of the show then goes to adverts for 3 mins and comes back on at 9:14:30 (promptly!) then the rest of the show which is 11 minutes 30 seconds which takes us to 9:26:30 plus another 30 seconds of music. Leaves 3 minutes for adverts and the next show to start promptly. Which to me sounds about right!

Now then, (if you are still reading this!!!) if I am right and people are saying the adverts in america are up to 7minutes, then am I right in thinking that a show such as friends would take up a slot of 40 minutes (including 7mins worth of adverts before next show)?????

ckerrd

Run time is the programme duration including (on TV) the titles and end credits.

Posts #119 highlights the difference between the amounts of advertising allowed in the UK and US.

If a show was in a 30 minute slot and was only 5 minutes long in the US they could have 25 minutes of adverts. In the UK they could not.

Defiant_3

You are spot on newcook but alas the BBC employee's wont admit their wrong even when you give them proof and they have diddly lol

EDIT: oh look ckerrd has replied with yep his opinion rather than actual facts like we've given oh dear

Anyway time to ignore them because they want to take this off topic which is why they keep going on and on refusing to backup the rubbish

ckerrd

What BBC employees are these? Have you been talking to them?

And what about the time differences I highighted - ignoring the facts again?

Defiant_3

ckerrd wrote: »

What BBC employees are these? Have you been talking to them?

You are one or do you spend all this time on the subject just for the fun of it ? You did try comparing vital public services before to a ruddy TV station duh

ckerrd wrote: »

And what about the time differences I highighted - ignoring the facts again?

We've provided proof you have given nothing other than what you think so please go away and tell your line member to send the next one :rolleyes: