Blimey, that was a pile up!
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Am I getting older ...
Next: Top Gear
From: Hog on 2 Aug 2010 09:36 Jim wrote: > On 02/08/10 14:18, Hog wrote: >>> Maybe it's similarly OK to nick the products which pay for >>> commercial free-to-air TV channels through advertising...? >> >> What I said was; socially and economically it is a bad system. > > Would you prefer the BBC to be funded via general taxation or by > advertising revenue? The Beeb licencing nazis assume every home in the UK has a TV and targets all those who do not register so add it to the Council Charge perhaps. That then exempts those people who get CC relief. -- Hog
From: stephen.packer on 2 Aug 2010 10:01 Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > > >> > Given that the BBC has, and still does, produce some of the best TV > >> > in the world, it's a charging model I'm happy to support. > > >> The TV licence is also a metric shitload cheaper than the cost of TV > >> advertising to the average household. > > > How do you define and calculate the 'cost of advertising to the average > > household'? > > You could just look at the total ad revenue for the main terrestrial > commercial channels, and divide by the number of households and get a > figure that - even with the massive downturn over the last couple of > years - is not a million miles from the TV licence fee - but that's a > massively over-simplistic answer, since it ignores all the costs of > production etc. How much is it then?
From: ginge on 2 Aug 2010 10:08 On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:17:33 +0100, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >ginge wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:06:17 +0100, "Hog" >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>> >Mostly unemployed single parents. Nobody is forcing them to have a TV they can't afford to run. And before you suggest I'm heartless for leaving them with no entertainment, they could listen to rasdio 4 for free instead.
From: Krusty on 2 Aug 2010 10:23 ginge wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:17:33 +0100, "Hog" > <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > ginge wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:06:17 +0100, "Hog" > >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Mostly unemployed single parents. > > Nobody is forcing them to have a TV they can't afford to run. No, they're being forced to pay for a service they may not want just because they've got a TV. I think the only reason people accept (& defend) that is because it's what we're used to. If the government introduced a Jeremy Kyle channel & said everyone with a TV had to pay 50 quid a year to pay for it, I don't suppose you'd be too happy about it. -- Krusty Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Tiger 955i Tiger 885 Fantic Hiro 250
From: steve auvache on 2 Aug 2010 10:34
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:27:53 +0100, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: >Given that the BBC has, and still does, produce some of the best TV in >the world, it's a charging model I'm happy to support. Yes, ok, we all know Our BBC is outstanding but there is a knock on effect which you lot tend to forget, it brings the commercial stations screaming and kicking along with them. The very fact they have a commercial competitor with product as good as the Beeb forces them to raise their game. Which means we get quality and then some and all for the same payment. -- steve auvache |