John Bercow snubbed in New Years Honours Watch

Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by ColinDent)
I do think that they would be honest yes.
By the way whilst we're talking about top gear there was a cash cow that the BBC ****ed up because of their pc leanings, yes I know Mr Clarkson shouldn't have punched the guy but the BBC had been looking for an excuse for years.
Well I can tell you they wouldn't, if there actions was going to hurt the pay packet of their employers and thus their own pay packet, it just might make them be slightly more PC. Anyway it was a **** example if I'm honest, as you point out, correctly the BBC ****ed up because of their PC indenity political direction but that's more reason for what I'm saying about, bad management.

A nationalised service should never be above the public who owns them and they serve, this is the BBCs problem.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
No by being inconsistent with traditional he wants to preserve and "modernise" to the only consistency one could draw us the consistent supporting one side of the argument over the other. Also he silenced many parliamentarians, example, the same hard core remainers were called every debate. You of bren forgiven to believe there was only 20 MPs in parliament!

The speaker should be impartial are you seriously suggesting Bercow was impartial and acted honestly and properly.
I'm suggesting the way he acted allowed Parliament to express its will, which is his job. I dont think there is all that much precident for a Government who cannot operate business on its agenda. Not exactly sure what he did that was

I'd agree he did go to the same remainers, though mostly on the motions/amendments being brought they were the proposes, but had wider backing of the house.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
But as soon as you open it to the private market you, open it to corruption.
:rofl:


Because there is and was no corruption in public owned services.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by ColinDent)
I would argue that the least political of the main channels is ITV, it's certainly less so than the BBC or CH4 and is funded through advertising.
If there is a strong enough board in charge of the BBC and the rules on such matters are set out and adhered to from day 1 then why would those advertisers have any influence on the running of the BBC.
If it becomes funded privately, then in what sense does it remain a nationalised broadcaster? It just becomes a commercial enterprise.

I think it's a little naive to say that it's funders wouldn't try (and succeed) in influencing it's direction. Look at America, for example.


If the main factor is the issue of people facing criminal sanctions for not paying, that could be avoided by funding the BBC through taxation.

All in all its a very good service, that fulfils an important function as a state broadcaster. It's not perfect by any means but I think funding it through adverts just creates more problems than it solves.

The fact that so many people use some form of BBC service each week suggests that it is a lot more useful and important than its critics like to admit.
Last edited by DSilva; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by DSilva)
If it becomes funded privately, then in what sense does it remain a nationalised broadcaster? It just becomes a commercial enterprise.

I think it's a little naive to say that it's funders wouldn't try (and succeed) in influencing it's direction. Look at America, for example.


If the main factor is the issue of people facing criminal sanctions for not paying, that could be avoided by funding the BBC through taxation.

All in all its a very good service, that fulfils an important function as a state broadcaster. It's not perfect by any means but I think funding it through adverts just creates more problems than it solves.

The fact that so many people use some form of BBC service each week suggests that it is a lot more useful and important than its critics like to admit.
Again as with Burton I have to disagree, commercialism does not necessarily equal control of an organisation such as the BBC, no more than any bias that already exists anyway.
In what way do you feel the likes of James villas or Captain Morgan influence the direction of ITV or even Sky? Not every company has a political agenda.
And yet again I emphasise that I don't want to see the end of the BBC but it could easily be streamlined.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by ColinDent)
Again as with Burton I have to disagree, commercialism does not necessarily equal control of an organisation such as the BBC, no more than any bias that already exists anyway.
In what way do you feel the likes of James villas or Captain Morgan influence the direction of ITV or even Sky? Not every company has a political agenda.
And yet again I emphasise that I don't want to see the end of the BBC but it could easily be streamlined.
The concept of the public owning an organisation rests on that organisation being publicly funded though. If it isn't funded by the taxpayer, in what sense do the public own it? I don't think public-private partnerships do work well, as PFIs and the railways have shown. It allows different parties to shift the blame on to one another and reduces accountability.

I don't watch ITV much. In fact I would use the comparison of the shows produced by the BBC and ITV to highlight how much superior the former is. SKY certainly leans centre right, and has a very pro big business outlook. The difference is that the BBC has far greater responsibility than either SKY or ITV, and it should not be reliant on private funding to produce its programming, news and coverage.

I don't think it needs to be streamlined. It regularly produces shows that come at the very top for viewing figures. It also makes money by selling the rights of such shows to third countries. It's entertainment sector really is second to none. Just as one example, the recent Gavin and Stacey special was watched by 11.6 million viewers which was the highest viewing figure for any Christmas Day show in several years. The Strictly Come Dancing final was watched by 11.3 million viewers. By way of comparison, the ITV's Saturday Night entertainment show, the X-Factor, final was watched by 5.5 million viewers.



If your concern is people facing criminal sanctions, that could be addressed by funding the service through taxation.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by DSilva)
The concept of the public owning an organisation rests on that organisation being publicly funded though. If it isn't funded by the taxpayer, in what sense do the public own it? I don't think public-private partnerships do work well, as PFIs and the railways have shown. It allows different parties to shift the blame on to one another and reduces accountability.

I don't watch ITV much. In fact I would use the comparison of the shows produced by the BBC and ITV to highlight how much superior the former is. SKY certainly leans centre right, and has a very pro big business outlook. The difference is that the BBC has far greater responsibility than either SKY or ITV, and it should not be reliant on private funding to produce its programming, news and coverage.

I don't think it needs to be streamlined. It regularly produces shows that come at the very top for viewing figures. It also makes money by selling the rights of such shows to third countries. It's entertainment sector really is second to none. Just as one example, the recent Gavin and Stacey special was watched by 11.6 million viewers which was the highest viewing figure for any Christmas Day show in several years. The Strictly Come Dancing final was watched by 11.3 million viewers. By way of comparison, the ITV's Saturday Night entertainment show, the X-Factor, final was watched by 5.5 million viewers.



If your concern is people facing criminal sanctions, that could be addressed by funding the service through taxation.
I would say that ITV's and BBC's outputs are pretty comparable, most of the best television is produced by sky these days.
You didn't answer my question by the way, how exactly do the likes of James Villas and Captain Morgan steer ITV's and Sky's direction, I could add the likes of Iceland, British Gas and the Carphone warehouse.
Maybe sometimes some people just want to sell some stuff.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by ColinDent)
I would say that ITV's and BBC's outputs are pretty comparable, most of the best television is produced by sky these days.
You didn't answer my question by the way, how exactly do the likes of James Villas and Captain Morgan steer ITV's and Sky's direction, I could add the likes of Iceland, British Gas and the Carphone warehouse.
Maybe sometimes some people just want to sell some stuff.
The viewing figures suggest BBC is far ahead of ITV and has been for some time. What has ITV produced in the last year that has met the standard of Planet Earth, or Years and Years, or Strictly Come Dancing etc? Just to name a few.

I'm not saying every individual company will influence the BBC in a clear and obvious way. But those companies as a collective will, as companies generally do, aim to influence the direction in a more pro big business manner. That's in their interests to do so.

There's also the fact that big companies will be hugely overrepresented in the funding of the BBC. Far more so than trade unions, or charities etc.

It just seems inadequate to me that you can have anything like an impartial, inclusive and representative state broadcaster that is dependant on big business funding to exist.

You stated that your main issue was the criminal sanction for not paying. I've explained how that could be avoided without having to rely on adverts.

If you don't think there should be a state broadcaster (you have said that this is not your view) then that's fine and the argument to fund the BBC via adverts is logical. However if you do think there should be a publicly owned state broadcaster, it simply does not make sense for it to be funded through big business as it will, by definition, cease to be publicly owned.
Last edited by DSilva; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by ColinDent)
I would say that ITV's and BBC's outputs are pretty comparable, most of the best television is produced by sky these days.
You didn't answer my question by the way, how exactly do the likes of James Villas and Captain Morgan steer ITV's and Sky's direction, I could add the likes of Iceland, British Gas and the Carphone warehouse.
Maybe sometimes some people just want to sell some stuff.
How in your funding model are the following to be paid for:-

(A) Wall to wall coverage of Party Conferences
(B) Documentaries on BBC Radio Berkshire
(C) The Proms
(D) The Sky at Night
(E) UK Short Course Swimming Championships
(F) The Daily Service
(G) Carlisle United v Exeter City from an Exeter perspective
(H) World News in Swahili
(I) Garden Rescue

Saying “I don’t like the BBC’s politics and advertising can pay for Eastenders” doesn’t really get anywhere near the range of the BBC’s output.

The plain fact is we tax television to provide a range of cultural services and it isn’t really very different to taxing whisky to provide aircraft carriers or taxing house sales (stamp duty land tax) to fund the NHS.
1
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
:rofl:


Because there is and was no corruption in public owned services.
You need to re-read my messages, theres a pattern forming :rolleyes:
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by nulli tertius)
How in your funding model are the following to be paid for:-

(A) Wall to wall coverage of Party Conferences
(B) Documentaries on BBC Radio Berkshire
(C) The Proms
(D) The Sky at Night
(E) UK Short Course Swimming Championships
(F) The Daily Service
(G) Carlisle United v Exeter City from an Exeter perspective
(H) World News in Swahili
(I) Garden Rescue

Saying “I don’t like the BBC’s politics and advertising can pay for Eastenders” doesn’t really get anywhere near the range of the BBC’s output.

The plain fact is we tax television to provide a range of cultural services and it isn’t really very different to taxing whisky to provide aircraft carriers or taxing house sales (stamp duty land tax) to fund the NHS.
Okay I have already said that the BBC needs to be stripped back there really is no need for some of the niche examples that you highlighted.
If it were to concentrate on a smaller, but superior output then just maybe it could sell more of it's products to other countries.
There is also the new Britbox streaming service which will add to the coffers, alongside some advertising doing this could easily cover what is received from TV licence fees.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by ColinDent)
Okay I have already said that the BBC needs to be stripped back there really is no need for some of the niche examples that you highlighted.
If it were to concentrate on a smaller, but superior output then just maybe it could sell more of it's products to other countries.
There is also the new Britbox streaming service which will add to the coffers, alongside some advertising doing this could easily cover what is received from TV licence fees.
Getting rid of any of those things would make a big impact on those who take advantage of them. What you are advocating is a wholesale disruption of the provision of cultural services in this country because you don’t like the Today programme.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by DSilva)
The viewing figures suggest BBC is far ahead of ITV and has been for some time. What has ITV produced in the last year that has met the standard of Planet Earth, or Years and Years, or Strictly Come Dancing etc? Just to name a few.

I'm not saying every individual company will influence the BBC in a clear and obvious way. But those companies as a collective will, as companies generally do, aim to influence the direction in a more pro big business manner. That's in their interests to do so.

There's also the fact that big companies will be hugely overrepresented in the funding of the BBC. Far more so than trade unions, or charities etc.

It just seems inadequate to me that you can have anything like an impartial, inclusive and representative state broadcaster that is dependant on big business funding to exist.

You stated that your main issue was the criminal sanction for not paying. I've explained how that could be avoided without having to rely on adverts.

If you don't think there should be a state broadcaster (you have said that this is not your view) then that's fine and the argument to fund the BBC via adverts is logical. However if you do think there should be a publicly owned state broadcaster, it simply does not make sense for it to be funded through big business as it will, by definition, cease to be publicly owned.
Of the three examples you have given I would only agree with one ( Planet Earth) , but ITV has produced many great dramas such as Endeavour, Manhunt, Liar and Cold Feet, alongside entertainment programmes like The Chase, I'm a Celebrity, Who wants to be a millionaire and all those god awful talent shows that many people seem to enjoy, then there's the coverage of all but a few of England's football fixtures.
As I've said the outputs of both channels is comparable, but one of them doesn't make you pay for the service.
Sky does charge a fee, as do Netflix and Amazon prime etc, and I would argue that between them you are getting much better quality programmes, TV series that are more like movies, documentaries about pretty much any subject you can think of, actual movies starring some of the biggest names in the world wall to wall news coverage and more sporting events than you can shake a stick at.
So no I do not wish for there to be a state funded public broadcaster, but yes I do believe that there could be a publicly owned, commercially funded one, rules could even be set on the sort of companies that are allowed to advertise, I've given a few examples of companies that advertise on commercial channels that are non invasive ( to which you still haven't explained to me how they do) and there are many more like that.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Getting rid of any of those things would make a big impact on those who take advantage of them. What you are advocating is a wholesale disruption of the provision of cultural services in this country because you don’t like the Today programme.
No, they are niche programmes and unless they can be funded elsewhere then they shouldn't be produced.
It's the equivalent of saying that the NHS should provide free copies of the non league football paper for every patient because there may be 100 people who are in hospital at any given time that enjoy reading it, and copies of gardeners world, heat, Viz etc should also be provided for every patient just in case.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by ColinDent)
No, they are niche programmes and unless they can be funded elsewhere then they shouldn't be produced.
It's the equivalent of saying that the NHS should provide free copies of the non league football paper for every patient because there may be 100 people who are in hospital at any given time that enjoy reading it, and copies of gardeners world, heat, Viz etc should also be provided for every patient just in case.
The important difference is that non-league football newspapers haven't been provided to NHS patients for periods of between 40-90 years. These services have been provided by the BBC for those sorts of lengths of time.

The point here is that your proposed policy isn't to change the way the BBC is funded but rather to disrupt the entire provision of cultural services in this country and as soon as anyone reveals that as their true intention, then there is always a massive backlash when people see the things they treasure will disappear.

There are important questions to be asked about the future of the BBC but those questions won't be asked let alone answered so long as it is thought that those asking the questions want to destroy what the BBC provides.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The important difference is that non-league football newspapers haven't been provided to NHS patients for periods of between 40-90 years. These services have been provided by the BBC for those sorts of lengths of time.

The point here is that your proposed policy isn't to change the way the BBC is funded but rather to disrupt the entire provision of cultural services in this country and as soon as anyone reveals that as their true intention, then there is always a massive backlash when people see the things they treasure will disappear.

There are important questions to be asked about the future of the BBC but those questions won't be asked let alone answered so long as it is thought that those asking the questions want to destroy what the BBC provides.
Your first point is an extremely disingenuous one, please prove that all or even most of those services have been provided for 40 years plus.
I'm pretty certain that the country as a whole wouldn't bat an eyelid at the removal of the majority of the programmes you listed, in fact if it meant losing the licence then the vast majority would be in favour.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by ColinDent)
Of the three examples you have given I would only agree with one ( Planet Earth) , but ITV has produced many great dramas such as Endeavour, Manhunt, Liar and Cold Feet, alongside entertainment programmes like The Chase, I'm a Celebrity, Who wants to be a millionaire and all those god awful talent shows that many people seem to enjoy, then there's the coverage of all but a few of England's football fixtures.
As I've said the outputs of both channels is comparable, but one of them doesn't make you pay for the service.
Sky does charge a fee, as do Netflix and Amazon prime etc, and I would argue that between them you are getting much better quality programmes, TV series that are more like movies, documentaries about pretty much any subject you can think of, actual movies starring some of the biggest names in the world wall to wall news coverage and more sporting events than you can shake a stick at.
So no I do not wish for there to be a state funded public broadcaster, but yes I do believe that there could be a publicly owned, commercially funded one, rules could even be set on the sort of companies that are allowed to advertise, I've given a few examples of companies that advertise on commercial channels that are non invasive ( to which you still haven't explained to me how they do) and there are many more like that.
Yet when BBC and ITV both show a football match, people overwhelmingly choose to watch it on the BBC! Series like Gavjn and Stacey, The Thick of It, Bake Off, Bodyguard, Doctor Who, Line of Duty, Fleabag, Sherlock, Top Gear, Peaky Blinders, Fawlty Towers, the Office, Extras, Yes Minister, etc have all been highly successful, to name a few. ITV just doesn't compete, as the ratings and viewing figures show.

Not only that but 426 million people from abroad use the BBC! Whu does the ITV have nothing like those figures?

I have addressed your point. I'm not saying each individual company will influence the BBC in a clear and obvious way, but as a collective they will push it in a very pro big business and corporate manner, as they have done with Sky and American stations.

It will mean charities, small enterprises, trade unions etc are cut out as big business dominates. Fair enough for a commercial statement, but not so for a state broadcaster.

You haven't addressed how something could be publicly owned while being funded privately. The very essence of public ownership is public funding. Once it is funded privately, in what sense does the public own it?

I really do think that people are looking for something to complain about. If the license cost thousands of pounds, I may agree. But it's around £150 per household per year that can be split between housemates and paid in instalment. It works out at £12.50 a month per household which wouldn't get you 3 pints in most places. If people genuinely can't afford it, then it should be subsidised and I would support it being funded through taxation.

But ultimately, the amount we all watch and use BBC services shows it is far more popular and of a much better quality than its critics make out. I think Politically the BBC has behaved appallingly recently with unashamed Pro Tory bias. But privatising it is not the answer.

Logically, and by definition you cannot have a privately funded yet publicly owned state broadcaster. It's a contradiction in terms.
Last edited by DSilva; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by ColinDent)
No, they are niche programmes and unless they can be funded elsewhere then they shouldn't be produced.
It's the equivalent of saying that the NHS should provide free copies of the non league football paper for every patient because there may be 100 people who are in hospital at any given time that enjoy reading it, and copies of gardeners world, heat, Viz etc should also be provided for every patient just in case.
Absolutely no reason why the NHS shouldn't be allowed to provide such reading materials to patients in hospitals.

We can have nice things as a society.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by DSilva)
Absolutely no reason why the NHS shouldn't be allowed to provide such reading materials to patients in hospitals.

We can have nice things as a society.
At a totally unnecessary cost, that is the point I was making.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#80
Report 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by ColinDent)
Your first point is an extremely disingenuous one, please prove that all or even most of those services have been provided for 40 years plus.
I'm pretty certain that the country as a whole wouldn't bat an eyelid at the removal of the majority of the programmes you listed, in fact if it meant losing the licence then the vast majority would be in favour.
(A) Wall to wall coverage of Party Conferences-1957 http://www.election.demon.co.uk/pt2.html
(B) Documentaries on BBC Radio Berkshire-1970 (as part of Radio Oxford) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_Oxford
(C) The Proms 1927 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pr...Sir_Henry_Wood
(D) The Sky at Night 1957 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_at_Night
(E) UK Short Course Swimming Championships 1938 European Swimming championships covered on TV from the Empire Pool Wembley
(F) The Daily Service 1928 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Service
(G) Carlisle United v Exeter City from an Exeter perspective 1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_Devon
(H) World News in Swahili 1957 http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sp...ng/page3.shtml
(I) Garden Rescue 2016 but practical gardening programmes started on the BBC in 1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden..._Question_Time


There would be an element of fuss (as there always is) over the loss of any longstanding existing programme but what you are failing to understand is the level of opposition to to a wholesale dislocation of cultural provision. There would have been nothing like it since the Beeching Report into the railways and that is still shaping argument about the railways more than 50 years later.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever signed up for an open day and then not gone to it?

Yes (214)
52.97%
No (190)
47.03%

Watched Threads

View All