'Austerity' at the BBC

[Jimmy-J]

Just watching some of the threatening TV Licence ads makes me not want to pay it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xkQ6AD3gis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTIaVBnWzw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7luWzbouo

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Which is what the BBC should be told to do, that way they will need to produce good television or close...

BIB... very subjective.

... at the moment they produce some good and lots of crap...

I know this one! What you like is "good" and what you don't is "crap", right? Unfortunately for you, it's not all about just what you want or like.

... and then just hold the hat out and say "please sir give me some more"

Except that, right now, they're working with around 16-20% less.

---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I feel it is falling into the trap of cheap reality tv..

Prove it. Show me what "reality TV" they produce and how many more hours of that they do than anything else.

and endless repeats on the other bbc channels..

Again, prove it. Yes, they do repeat stuff on their digital channels. With the current real-word reduction in the LF they have to. But they still produce (and commission) a lot more new programmes than pretty-much any other broadcaster.

...to justify their existence whilst maintaining a standard of living for it's execs that would put the most greedy politician to shame

Another one that obviously doesn't read my posts.

---------- Post added at 23:19 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Its been like that for a while now.

And yet BBC1 and BBC2 remain the two most-watched pair of channels from any one broadcaster

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Another one that obviously doesn't read my posts

You make it sound like your essential reading, think again

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

You make it sound like your essential reading, think again

Well it is, in the context of this thread and the quote it was made in reply to.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carl waring

Well it is, in the context of this thread and the quote it was made in reply to.

Some of us make sure the thread is balanced otherwise we would have the sermon according to the book of Carl chapters 1 to 1000

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Some of us make sure the thread is balanced...

And that's what I was doing.

You claimed that the pay of the BBC's "... execs ... would put the most greedy politician to shame. But if you had read the links I posted earlier you would know that this is not the case at all.

That's called balance.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

"Detector" vans are simply empty white vans with dark windows with TV detector written on the sides usually parked in supermarket car parks to itimidate the proles. They rely on ignorance.

There was a time when the only source of radio emissions in the VHF and UHF bands in your house would have been a TV and then it was theoretically possible to detect it. Today there are so many sources of emissions right across the bands and TV can be watched on almost any electronic device, so to claim to detect a TV remotely is fanciful claptrap.

The reason a bozo is sent out to visit is because there is no remote way to detect actual watching of a TV broadcast and even if there was, remote detection evidence is inadmissable in court.

The BBC know this and so continue to pour your licence money away at TVL (A wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC) trying to keep up the pretence that they are all knowing and all seeing when all they really have is a database of all the UK addresses from the electoral register(s) and another of all addresses that pay the tax. The difference is where the bozoes and the intimidation come in.

In fact since we decided to take our names off the public register of electors the TVL letters are now addressed to "The legal occupier" Even the ones that pretend court action is imminent.

Now that makes sense, i have only ever seen two. One was parked in Morrisons and the other in tesco's.

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint..It would be nice if people could just for once in the spirit of good will to accept that and possibly,maybe step away from the thread before it descends into the usual flaming and baiting that threads like this seem to degenerate into.

Also let's not wander too far from the topic.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

sorry mate but it does , Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003. is quite clear on that



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

BR68 for my Amateur Radio licence states the following:

Standard Frequency Service

1(13) The Licensee may use the Station for the reception of transmissions in the Standard Frequency Service (a radio communication service for scientific, technical and other purposes, providing the transmission of specific frequencies of stated high precision, intended for general reception)

Note:I believe this includes broadcast transmissions as well as frequency standards such as WWV etc.

Section 363 is I believe deliberately misleading and we are now in a situation where people who have no TV can be led to believe they need a TVL for their mobile phone or computer.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I suppose it depends on what your used to, i certainly don't get the free facilities they get.

While I have been told by a friend (who has worked in various media companies) there is a lot of wastage at the BBC, it's worth remembering that in terms of production at least, they are generating a lot of HD (and even 3D) coverage that is then sold on to other broadcasters all over the world.

It's also not fair on the BBC to compare them to Channel 4. The BBC still produce a lot of their own output. Channel 4 doesn't. They act as a conduit for TV from other companies (including BBC productions from time to time).

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Wrong, the only reason this tax is imposed is to fund the BBC, if the BBC closed tomorrow there would be no need for this tax. So its a BBC tax

Look up the finances of Freeview.

Originally Posted by Escapee

BR68 for my Amateur Radio licence states the following:



Note:I believe this includes broadcast transmissions as well as frequency standards such as WWV etc.

Section 363 is I believe deliberately misleading and we are now in a situation where people who have no TV can be led to believe they need a TVL for their mobile phone or computer.

I don't see what is misleading about

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

It is a point of law ,believing it is misleading is down you mate but it is very clear and unambiguous ,if you own a device capable of recieving live tv transmissions then you need a licence and that does include mobiles and computers,that is very clear as well

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

I don't see what is misleading about



It is a point of law ,believing it is misleading is down you mate but it is very clear and unambiguous ,if you own a device capable of recieving live tv transmissions then you need a licence and that does include mobiles and computers,that is very clear as well

That law means that if you only ever watch ITV then the BBC still gets its tax.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

Look up the finances of Freeview.

The tv tax was increased to cover for that. The BBC still received the rest of the tax.

Originally Posted by Sirius

That law means that if you only ever watch ITV then the BBC still gets its tax.

Yes it does ,but because the device you only ever watch itv on is still capable of receiving live transmitions from BBC then you have to pay the TVL.That's why it is unfair imo

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

I don't see what is misleading about



It is a point of law ,believing it is misleading is down you mate but it is very clear and unambiguous ,if you own a device capable of recieving live tv transmissions then you need a licence and that does include mobiles and computers,that is very clear as well

It is obviously misleading and open for interpretation, as the quote differs from what you are saying. You are mentioning Live TV transmissions above, but the quote below you provided from the 2003 act makes no mention of Live TV.

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

Originally Posted by Escapee

It is obviously misleading and open for interpretation, as the quote differs from what you are saying. You are mentioning Live TV transmissions above, but the quote below you provided from the 2003 act makes no mention of Live TV.

No it is not ,how does a television receiver, receive non live transmissions,it can't, it can only receive live transmissions .The reason that distinction is made is to make it clear that watching only on demand content does not require a licence .Make no mistake the law is clear