Scrap TV license fees?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by scastle

Hollywood does produce tens of thousands of hours of TV a week. Bear in mind that generally, we only see the better ones.

Now there's a worrying thought

Originally Posted by Bifta

Hmm 24, ER, West Wing, CSI .. the list is pretty extensive (even compared to the BBC)

I wouldn't judge American TV based on the tiny proportion of it that finds its way over here. It might look like a long list, but the list of dross is even longer. All we generally get in the UK is the good programmes from the US, cherry picked from the very wide choice available. Thankfully we are never exposed to the majority of American TV output. Just try finding decent drama or comedy mid-evening most nights of the week on American telly. It's all local news, chat shows and shoddy documentaries. HBO has a decent stab at producing an eclectic schedule, but let me tell you, most of it is not up to the standards of Sex and the City.
__________________

Originally Posted by danielf

Now there's a worrying thought

I promise you, when you're stuck in a hotel room all evening with nothing else to do, it's a very depressing thought indeed.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I promise you, when you're stuck in a hotel room all evening with nothing else to do, it's a very depressing thought indeed.

I know...

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I wouldn't judge American TV based on the tiny proportion of it that finds its way over here. It might look like a long list, but the list of dross is even longer. All we generally get in the UK is the good programmes from the US, cherry picked from the very wide choice available. Thankfully we are never exposed to the majority of American TV output. Just try finding decent drama or comedy mid-evening most nights of the week on American telly. It's all local news, chat shows and shoddy documentaries. HBO has a decent stab at producing an eclectic schedule, but let me tell you, most of it is not up to the standards of Sex and the City.
__________________

The really scary thing is do you have any idea how many films are actually released by Hollywood? When I worked for Blockbuster, we were told that Hollywood released about 150 movies a week. Only a small percentage of which suceed, but they generate enough money to pay for the failures. They make TV shows based on that principle.

I promise you, when you're stuck in a hotel room all evening with nothing else to do, it's a very depressing thought indeed.

I know. I have an Aunt that lived in Barbados. I went to stay with her, and the TV was a combination of English repeats, local news & shows and American shows. God they showed some crap. Although I did p*ss myself laughing at how bad "Days of our lives" was.

[sonygeezer]

All this could be Irrelevant soon any way.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/03/pc_tax/

Originally Posted by orangebird

Because I was born here, so was my father, so was his.

And so were the people you mention. Why should *you* consider yourself more important than them?

Why should I have to leave a country that I've worked ghard and paid my way in.

Why should *anyone* have to leave a country just because *YOU* don't like them?

[Pierre]

I think your being a bit harsh

Originally Posted by Graham

And so were the people you mention. Why should *you* consider yourself more important than them?

I think the point OB was making is that she believes that as someone already paying a lot of taxes and making a positive contribution to society and to others less fortunate that may not be making the same positive contribution, she feels aggrieved by having to pay a further tax for television channel she doesn't particularly want to watch.

I don't think she thinks herself more important, just ****ed off

Why should *anyone* have to leave a country just because *YOU* don't like them?

I don't think she said anyone shouldleave the country - that was you, in fact telling her to leave the country.

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm not sure it was wise for the BBC to pay Fearon although there is a logic to it in the context of providing a rounded picture to ensure a rounded debate. I'm certain though that picking up one tiny element of BBC programme decision making does not constitute a solid argument against the licence fee.

Sorry, no logic to it at all, Fearon is a **** sucking toerag with a conviction list as long as your arm and we (yes, we -it's our money) are paying him £4,500 grand. Thats approx 450 licence payers' money going out of their bank account into his. It's disgusting and dispicable.

And it's not just this single point that is the argument against the Licence fee, this is just one of many.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think your being a bit harsh
Sorry, no logic to it at all, Fearon is a **** sucking toerag with a conviction list as long as your arm and we (yes, we -it's our money) are paying him £4,500 grand. Thats approx 450 licence payers' money going out of their bank account into his. It's disgusting and dispicable.

And it's not just this single point that is the argument against the Licence fee, this is just one of many.

I'm no apologist for Fearon but he was paid because he was the only other person present when a 16 year old boy was shot in the back (not a typical self defence strategy hene Tony Martin's conviction). Without his input rounded coverage of the event would not be possible because Fearon's voice had not previously been heard. Martin's version of events, on the other hand, have been widely publicised and one newspaper paid him a six figure sum for his story.

The answers aren't easy and as I said I'm not sure it was wise to pay Fearon, precisely because of the media furore that has transpired. Not to have paid him though, would have meant the rug would have been pulled from under the reasoning behind the programme in the first place, so it would have had to have been pulled.

[Pierre]

Not to have paid him though, would have meant the rug would have been pulled from under the reasoning behind the programme in the first place, so it would have had to have been pulled

Fine, then don't do the programme. Is this programme in the public interest anyway. Everybody knows what happened.

Martin had been robbed umpteen times, he'd had enough. These two toe rags decide to try and rob him, he's waiting for them and disturbs them. They run away and he shoots one of them.

We all know what happened after that.

Whether you think him right or wrong.

But you can see what angle the PCBBC are going to be playing this one before they've made it.

You can see who the poor victims are going to be.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think your being a bit harsh

I don't. I think OB was being totally excessive.

I think the point OB was making is that she believes that as someone already paying a lot of taxes and making a positive contribution to society and to others less fortunate that may not be making the same positive contribution, she feels aggrieved by having to pay a further tax for television channel she doesn't particularly want to watch.

So she doesn't like the taxes she has to pay. Tough. That's a fact of modern life. You don't get to pick and choose what you do or don't pay for and trying to blame this (as it seems) on people who are less well off seems unnecessarily petty.

I don't think she said anyone shouldleave the country - that was you, in fact telling her to leave the country.

I was quoting her words from another thread (the Muslim/ school clothing one IIRC). What's sauce for the goose...
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

Fine, then don't do the programme. Is this programme in the public interest anyway. Everybody knows what happened.

[...]

But you can see what angle the PCBBC are going to be playing this one before they've made it.

You can see who the poor victims are going to be.

Excuse me, but this seems to be saying that your objection to the programme is that it isn't going to portray the story in the way that *you* think it should be.

[SOSAGES]

as long as im not left with another itv1 im happy i couldnt handle more rubbish appealing to LCD

Bit off topic but I'm a little annoyed. I've been red repped because of my opinions regarding the Tony Martin programme on the grounds that "I'd change my mind if I was robbed at 2 a.m" For the record I've had three cars stolen (only one recovered) and been burgled 3-4 times (one time disturbing the the buggers) assautled on the street and assaulted in my mate's home by strangers who knocked on the door. So my opinion is grounded in a fairly active reality of the impact of criminal behaviour.

(I should point out that not all these things happened in Bury; wouldn't want to upset the tourist people!).

Rant over.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

Excuse me, but this seems to be saying that your objection to the programme is that it isn't going to portray the story in the way that *you* think it should be.

Not at all, I'm all for a balanced programme, my point was that the BBC is so preoccupied with taking the PC role I predict that it make Tony Martin out to be the bad guy.

We all now know the facts of the Martin case. I cannot condone what he did, but I can sympathise.

Fearon and his accomplice went into that house knowing it was not their property and to steal from it.

They had a choice from the outset.

Martin who had been broken into many times also had a choice.

Make no mistake, Martin deserved to be charged and convicted for what he did, but also make no mistake Fearon and his accomplice had it coming.

So if it is portrayed like that I'll have no complaints.