Elite 11+ Part 75

lookinforabargain

aau1 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Savvybuyer

Bananababe wrote: »

You're right Savvy they produce some wonderful programmes but they also spend the licence fee very unwisely and it's time to stop ! no man/woman who doesn't save lives deserves the wages the bbc pays norton and previously Jonathan Ross. Its disgusting x

fairclaire wrote: »

Totally agree with you. The BBC is antiquated and needs a shake up. It's time they stopped holding people to ransom.

They're not even that good. They pick the most inappropriate people to present the events that they have a monopoly over.

Example......Chris Evans presenting the VE Day celebrations. I've nothing against him per se but he is very clown like and I can't help but see him with a giant toothbrush (TGIF) when I look at him. Loved the concert but such an inappropriate host. Not appropriate for the occasion in my eyes.

....there again if he'd been unavailable they'd have got Tess Daly to do it :rotfl::rotfl:

Just my opinion of course

That's your opinion. On the other side of it though, they're supposed to try to 'cater for everyone' at some point, which means all of us will find some things we like and other things we don't. I may agree with you on there, on the celebrities, and also disagree with you. The problem it has is that, even though it is funded by a licence fee and not by advertising (and advertisers demand audiences), the BBC still has to attract audiences for its programmes and if it tries too much to do stuff that is in the public interest maybe but gets lower audiences, we then have the Mail and others criticising that:( so that the BBC also has the pressures on it and then you get the celebrity-presented programmes.

I wouldn't go so far as to call something like that "disgusting" though - I tend to reserve strong words like that for things that are really far beyond bad TV presenting!:rotfl:

So, yes, it's the Daily Mail's fault!:rotfl:

On the other point, who's being "held to ransom"?!? I don't feel held to ransom!

But (I can relax my breath! Phew...!), it's your opinion!

I think DM is holding the BBC to random by preventing it producing better programmes.
(Ones that, unfortunately, fewer people then would watch:rotfl:.)
No, not dave morton, the Daily Mail!:D:rotfl:

Bananababe

Oh my god


I missed big brother !!!!!

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

TrulyMadly

Bananababe wrote: »

Oh my god


I missed big brother !!!!!

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

BB misses BB:rotfl:

fairclaire

Behind_The_Sofa wrote: »

And I suppose my posts were the unpleasant ones?:beer:

Well yes they were.

And before you call me any unpleasant names. I stuck up for you and asked people to make allowances. I know that with your condition it's hard to know when to stop. I also know a lot of newer people here aren't aware of your condition.

But you did go too far. You can't complain that people call you unpleasant names and do the same yourself. You called a good friend of mine an unpleasant name that you shouldn't have. Im sure you know that. You should apologise

You just have to accept that we don't all agree and just because people don't agree, it doesn't mean they dislike you.

Sunshinemummy

I survived Asda with mum... I told the SA that she had alzemiers and the lad at the till laughed .. mum thought he was lovely!

Then I had to drive to Tesco to buy... mint choc chip ice-cream and found the garlic bread x8... whoop whoop... I have something in my freezer.

Now I need to use the apg system... not used this since before the change...hot flush time!

Bananababe

Savvybuyer wrote: »

That's your opinion. On the other side of it though, they're supposed to try to 'cater for everyone' at some point, which means all of us will find some things we like and other things we don't. I may agree with you on there, on the celebrities, and also disagree with you. The problem it has is that, even though it is funded by a licence fee and not by advertising (and advertisers demand audiences), the BBC still has to attract audiences for its programmes and if it tries too much to do stuff that is in the public interest maybe but gets lower audiences, we then have the Mail and others criticising that:( so that the BBC also has the pressures on it and then you get the celebrity-presented programmes.

I wouldn't go so far as to call something like that "disgusting" though - I tend to reserve strong words like that for things that are really far beyond bad TV presenting!:rotfl:

So, yes, it's the Daily Mail's fault!:rotfl:

This is a debate that could roll on and on. It is my opinion and yes I think its disgusting to pay an entertainer millions and nurses and soldiers peanuts.

X

Bananababe

TrulyMadly wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

BB misses BB:rotfl:

Just all about my exam revision. X

Savvybuyer

Bananababe wrote: »

This is a debate that could roll on and on. It is my opinion and yes I think its disgusting to pay an entertainer millions and nurses and soldiers peanuts.

X

Ah! In that context, maybe...
(You didn't say that before, but, now you have, I can see where you're coming from!)

[EDIT: Just wanted to add not unique to the BBC - don't commercial broadcasters pay some of their presenters millions and thus fuel the market demand, pushing the costs of presenters up? And what about Sky Sports and the huge payments now for it to obtain football rights, which, I assume, then helps to go towards paying multi-million pound footballers? Which will, surely, push up the costs for subscribers and, in that way, perhaps make more difficult some of our money-saving efforts?]<-See, I managed to get it directly relevant to the purpose of the Elite thread again:D:rotfl:! Pure chance, Savvy, purely by chance:rotfl:.

And, I agree, could roll on and on, so I think that's where this one ends now.:)

Munqui

Just watched a bunch of people move into a new house share on CH5, do they still do a shopping list? how do they decide who their targeting :think: do they have access to msm :rotfl: