Turn on thread page Beta

B121 - Abolition of the Television License Bill 2009 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    That doesn't really answer the points, though, does it? I mean, surely you appreciate the need for commercialised television too - else there'd be a single channel that was effectively funded by (and thus controlled by the government); And I'm sure you agree with this. That said, commercial stations offer a good thermostat for what the people actually want to watch, rather than want the apparent tele-social elite here on TSR think they should be watching; Is this not, still, an entirely legitimate analogy with our current House system? All the benefits and weaknesses of the BBC can be equally applied to the Lords, and similarly with commercial stations to the commons. I don't see how you can support one and not the other, unless you also have the following view, such as myself...

    What the hell does the government think it's doing in the entertainment sector? And it is the government. Does it publish a newspaper? Does it publish a series of books? Why on earth should a bunch of ultimately unvirtuous, lying, hypocritical ***** be telling us what we watch in our spare time? "Ensuring people have good TV to watch" is way, way beyond the reasonable remit of any government. Shrink, government. Shrink!
    Unfortunately that's ignoring my reasoning in support of the BBC completely, unfortunately the use of advertising will have an effect on what the channels would be able to show, if Channel4/ITV/C5 showed a programme saying that two products that contribute greatly to their profits (coca cola/pepsi co spend thousands/millions each year in advertising) are effectively the same then they will lose advertising revenue making the programme unprofitable to air, even though there may be a great demand for such a television show.

    Yes there does need to be quality control within the BBC, but making them reliant on advertising is not the way to go about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're absolutely ignoring my points.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    You're absolutely ignoring my points.
    No, i understand your points but i think the psychological repercussions of a wholly commercial television are too severe
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC must Broadcasting Act of 1990 source at least 25% of it's content from independent production companies, would this also be repealed?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by paperclip)
    The BBC must Broadcasting Act of 1990 source at least 25% of it's content from independent production companies, would this also be repealed?
    Well, seeing as if the Broadcasting Act was repealed then the BBC would become an independent production company itself, that seems irrelevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommm)
    Well, seeing as if the Broadcasting Act was repealed then the BBC would become an independent production company itself, that seems irrelevant.
    Okay, i'm surprised you got what i meant from that sentence...wasn't entirely sobar lol.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Okay, i'm surprised you got what i meant from that sentence...wasn't entirely sobar lol.
    Is the honourable member admitting to being intoxicated in the House?

    Shaaaaaaame!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Is the honourable member admitting to being intoxicated in the House?

    Shaaaaaaame!
    Meh, i'm always drunk, you should know this by now :p:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Meh, i'm always drunk, you should know this by now :p:
    I suppose if the people elected you in the full knowledge...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I suppose if the people elected you in the full knowledge...
    The people didn't elect me, the party did :no:
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    I haven't read the full thread here, but I have to say that this bill would be a disater is passed. Nothing would get me to vote for it and I call on all other people to oppose it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    I haven't read the full thread here, but I have to say that this bill would be a disater is passed.
    Even if the television was to disappear entirely tomorrow, I suspect it is something of an overstatement to call the situation a 'disaster'.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I dont agree with the BBC not receiving government aid no longer
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by RK)
    I haven't read the full thread here, but I have to say that this bill would be a disater is passed. Nothing would get me to vote for it and I call on all other people to oppose it.
    May I ask why?

    The BBC becomes reliant on its status and thus the expectancy that It can assure itself of the big carp in events. For example, the BBC assures itself of one of the World Darts Championship sporting but the coverage was very poor. A more popular example could be the FIFA World Cup, where they use part of their funding from the government, whereas ITV have to bid for the rights to show some of the event. -Perhaps if the BBC needed to be competitive then it may sharpen them up, an effective kick up the backside
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So is the issue here:

    1. It's not right the BBC gets funding over other stations

    or

    2. The BBC isn't good enough

    ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the issue was ever that the BBC isn't good enough, was it? The lack of quality was merely cited as a retort to those backing the BBC on the grounds of its quality, rather than its actual justification for existing otherwise.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    So is the issue here:

    1. It's not right the BBC gets funding over other stations

    or

    2. The BBC isn't good enough

    ?

    Now point two isnt the issue, what I am saying is that the BBC disrespect their contracts that they feel they are given an automatic right to, e.g. the World Snooker, will be cut short to make way for a Dad's Army repeat or whatever, but other events e.g. World Cup football will be shown to their conclusion, bulldozing whatever schedule.

    And why should the BBC be given funding throughout and the other bodies not?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    the BBC disrespect their contracts that they feel they are given an automatic right to, e.g. the World Snooker, will be cut short to make way for a Dad's Army repeat or whatever,
    I don't think that has ever happened. I watch the Snooker quite a lot and it always plays to its conclusion.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    I don't think that has ever happened. I watch the Snooker quite a lot and it always plays to its conclusion.
    I do, are you using the "red button" to answer that point out of interest?

    What I am looking at is that from the original face value tv set, BBC, ITV C4 and C5, the snooker only reaches its conclusion when its the final, I know the red button service is good but it cannot always be relied upon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    This bill has been sent to a 7 day cessation period.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.