Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517486)

The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds". They're paying in line with others. Whether that is "over the odds" is merely personal opinion.

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)

...but it is a minority view.

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517486)

The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds".

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517469)

BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517384)

well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)

Well that may be your opinion, and of course you are welcome to it, but it is a minority view.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517462)

Would you like to show proof ?

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517469)

BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread :)

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)

but it is a minority view.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517534)

The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517384)

well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517538)

It's not essential but I do think it's important. The BBC has been a strong developer of British writers, directors, comedians and actors. It's presence has a positive effect on all the other channels who need to keep to a certain standard in order not to be absolutely trounced by the Beeb. It also allows other channels not to take advertising revenue for themselves, if the BBC went to an ad-supported network ITV and Channel 4 would find it very difficult indeed.

Go to France and look at the quality of their TV. It's awful. This is a country with a good artistic culture and yet their TV is so devoid of any creativity it's shameful. It's very bad. We would probably follow to extremely cheap to produce TV Studio shows and American importants.

Monty Python?
Yes, Minister?
In the Thick of It?
Planet Earth?
So many of the BBC's nature, science and history series?

The list goes on and how many of those shows would be commissioned when advertising money is king? Planet Earth is simply not possible, it's ratings were never, ever, going to be good enough to recoup the vast investment had. Especially in a country whose population isn't large enough to make enough money from anything considered to be a niche market. We couldn't make a British HBO work for example...

So it's not essential but I think it's very important.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517537)

But giving that money away in high pay offs to managers and directors because they are not good enough or drop the BBC in the poo is a waste of our licence tax as well.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35517519)

These are also merely your "personal opinions".

I strongly advise you stop rubbishing other peoples opinions in every other post.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35517548)

Given they are the custodians of so much heritage and a good deal of public money they really ought to be beyond reproach in their financial arrangements, ensuring the public value for money and not being seen to reward failure.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517534)

The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517237)

So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35517611)

Nope, they also won't even believe you if you say its only on for the dog

http://s1.postimage.org/5z5luyhwv/image.png

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35517605)

So is over paying for inept people who cannot do the job.;)

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517639)

Then the dog can pay his own BBC tax :)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517652)

Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC. The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpin scandal.