Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 84

Thread: Scrap the BBC

  1. #21
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    6,870
    From a personal perspective I don't watch BBC very often and don't listen to it at all on radio.

    My regular programmes are This Week (which they are axing shortly - incredible as it peaks out at above 1,000,000 viewers close to midnight) and Politics Live most lunchtimes.
    Even QT is becoming unbearable.

    I get my news from Sky, my sport mostly from Sky, BT and ITV and documentaries and films from the internet based providers.

    But I have to pay the license.

    At 13 ish a month "so what?" one might ask. But that's more than Netflix, some of the NowTV packages.... and if it wasn't universal and people could opt out, I can well imagine over half would, so the real rate would be more like 25-30 per month.
    It's only so cheap because it is universal.

    I would not pay the current fee if I had the option.

    It's also (supposed to be) a public service broadcaster. So why has it increasingly paid a fortune to cover expensive commercially driven sports like F1, Match of the Day, London Marathon, Great North Run..... paying a fortune to outbid the commercial channels and then paying a fortune for their "star" presenters.
    Lineker is often mentioned, but Shearer gets over 400K per year, which probably works out at around 10K per hour, and he isn't that good.

    It also has a politically driven editorial. I'm not sure it was always thus, but it certainly seems so today.

    If they have a discussion on Climate Change, they now have a policy of banning anyone with even a slight scepticism, as they consider the matter settled.

    We see lots of coverage of crashing out and cliff edges around Brexit. I've yet to see one interviewer appear to take the other position, even as a devil's advocate, with only one exception and that is Andrew Neil.
    I wonder why he's being cut
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  2. #22
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post

    If they have a discussion on Climate Change, they now have a policy of banning anyone with even a slight scepticism, as they consider the matter settled.
    That is just plain wrong I remember reading they got in trouble for not challanging the nonsense that Nigel Lawson, was coming out with in a climate change interview.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ange-interview
    Last edited by DrPatrickBarry; 12-06-2019 at 07:01 AM.

  3. #23
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    6,870
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry View Post
    That is just plain wrong I remember reading they got in trouble for not challanging the nonsense that Nigel Lawson, was coming out with in a climate change interview.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ange-interview
    Firstly that's a year ago.

    Secondly, note that it's climate change sceptism that should be challenged, no such declaration on the consensus opinion.

    As soon as we start driving the group-think unchallenged we are in big trouble.

    From a BBC memo after the Lawson interview.
    "“Be aware of ‘false balance’: as climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  4. #24
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post

    It's also (supposed to be) a public service broadcaster. So why has it increasingly paid a fortune to cover expensive commercially driven sports like F1, Match of the Day, London Marathon, Great North Run..... paying a fortune to outbid the commercial channels and then paying a fortune for their "star" presenters.
    Lineker is often mentioned, but Shearer gets over 400K per year, which probably works out at around 10K per hour, and he isn't that good.
    I agree.

    Not to mention the inflated salaries of its executives. The BBC has over 100 managers earning more than 150,000, in same cases much more.

    https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/staff#h

    The BBC is effectively a public sector organisation that wants to pay out private sector salaries but without being subject to the associate risks that private sector companies face.

    I think it is time the licence fee was scrapped and the BBC generated its own income like any other broadcaster.

    The logic of the licence fee where you can't watch a television set without having to pay for the BBC (whether you want to watch it or not) is completely out of date. The BBC is not like the armed forces or emergency services. We don't have to have it so we shouldn't be compelled to pay a tax for it.
    Last edited by Muddy Retriever; 12-06-2019 at 12:48 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Dave_Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    the Moon
    Posts
    614
    As soon as we start driving the group-think unchallenged we are in big trouble.
    so does that apply to other "theories" like gravity, evolution and particle physics?
    ....it's all downhill from here.

  6. #26
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Mole View Post
    so does that apply to other "theories" like gravity, evolution and particle physics?
    Of course not. It only applies to climate change, because that is the one we can change, by making unpalatable changes to our nice comfortable lives. Much easier to: deny it exists/they are not doing anything so why should we/it is caused by the sun.

  7. #27
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    6,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Mole View Post
    so does that apply to other "theories" like gravity, evolution and particle physics?
    Very witty Dave - unlike you.

    I once sat through a maths class where the teacher "proved" that 1+1 = 3

    However, back to reality. I am convinced that we have climate change. I'm not convinced as to the degree of man's effect on climate change at the moment.

    As older predictions of damnation from the Global Warming era have receded, a new wave of scaremongering has come forward under the guise of climate change. Of course something has to drive the revenue streams of Siemens, Statoil, EDF etc.

    That it is man-made is the big question still for me, not that it is there. At the height of the industrial revolution, the eruption of Krakatoa had a greater impact than all the mills and coal burning. Minimally 1% almost instantly and much greater based on some assessments.

    Personally I would start a huge drive starting in schools towards environmental responsibility. I think we need to look after our planet better than we have. Regardless of the climate, the pollution, the waste, the trashing of our environment is appalling and all this man-made climate change stuff is a false flag to suck in subsidies for many old carbon based companies looking to invest elsewhere.

    I also think we are backward on energy. The dithering by Govts of the last 15 years has left us in a perilous state if we don't move fast on nuclear and tidal and continue to resist fracking, which would buy us a decade if managed properly.

    For every 1 invested in Green technology there is a 9% return. That's a very high figure compared to current returns elsewhere and also very safe, underpinned by Govt subsidy, policy and the propaganda put out by the media without challenge.
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  8. #28
    Senior Member Dave_Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    the Moon
    Posts
    614
    You’re conflating two things here: man made climate change and natural events which have a short-term effect on climate. Of course the climate changes naturally, no one debates that. Other natural events also cause changes in the weather pattern, over the relatively short term (volcanic eruptions being one of them). Krakatoa caused a global climate dip for around five years, then temperatures returned to normal. This was largely due to particulates in the atmosphere. No one debates the effect of natural processes on the climate either.

    There is scientific consensus that humans are affecting the climate. This is largely due to CO2, rather than particulates. CO2 levels since the 1950s have increased massively, way beyond any natural variation. CO2 is proven to trap heat and affect the transfer of infra-red energy through the atmosphere. The only cause of such rapid increases in CO2 is human beings. I’d be interested to hear how else you think it got into the atmosphere.
    Last edited by Dave_Mole; 13-06-2019 at 03:11 PM.
    ....it's all downhill from here.

  9. #29
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Mole View Post
    CO2 levels since the 1950s have increased massively, way beyond any natural variation.
    Just been to google, had not realized it was so dramatic
    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_res...arbon-dioxide/

  10. #30
    Master noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mountains of Cheshire
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
    I am convinced that we have climate change. I'm not convinced as to the degree of man's effect on climate change at the moment.
    It seems the propaganda of climate change deniers is working then. Or would you say I'm biased the other way in that I think it's an open-and-shut case that the climate is changing due to man's actions?

    Maybe we need a separate thread on this. In fact there probably is one already.
    No longer "resting"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •