Kilroy-Silk and racism

To have to pay a licence fee just to use a TV is essentially a tax, and if that tax is to pay the BBC to provide a public service, then its products should be available to all. Many parts of the country can't get the digital channels that they are paying for. As far as revenue goes, it is also a monopoly. The BBC make programmes and operate the transmitters. I thought this was made illegal to stop exclusive channel packaging by digital TV companies to prevent monopolies on high demand programmes, like Granada's Coronation Street?
I think BBC funding will change very soon.

(((((((THE BBC)))))))

One of the few things that genuinely makes Britain special. If you don't like/understand it then watch ITV (which is how all TV would be if there was no license fee) or move to America.

Matthew

I agree with Mick that there probably isn't enough avertising revenue to go round, so allowing the Beeb to advertise instead of deriving its revenue from the TV licence would not only be unworkable, but the quality of programmes would deteriorate to include lots more imported American sitcoms and low-budget films, lots of repeats and gameshows.

However, we should consider pay-per-view or voluntary subscription as a viable alternative to the current system where we have to pay for the BBC's dogma and out-of-touch loony political correctness whether we like it or not.

I agree that the BBC's presenters such as Kilroy-Silk should be impartial when on air, but elswhere they should have the same rights of freedom of expression as everyone else.

The decision to get rid of him because he expressed a point of view that just so happens to go against those of its loony leftist directors who are completely unaccountable to its paymasters is reprehensible.

The paymasters should be getting rid of those directors.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 04:43.]

The BBC is probably our last stand against the total americanisation of British culture. There is no reason why we have to change its funding or how it is held accountable for its actions. I can't think of any other media organisation that receives so much public scrutiny.
Cheers
Simon

"we should consider pay-per-view or voluntary subscription as a viable alternative"

We should. And ideed we do. It's not viable though.

"where we have to pay for the BBC's dogma and out-of-touch loony political correctness whether we like it or not"

You pay for its programmes (which you can argue about). The BBC is not out of touch and its not loony PC. Give me some examples that aren't perverse corruptions of reality engendered by either the Daily Mail (etc) or else people with a blatant commercial interest in gettting rid of the BBC (The Sun, The Times, Sky News, etc).

"I agree that the BBC's presenters such as Kilroy-Silk should be impartial when on air, but elswhere they should have the same rights of freedom of expression as everyone else"

Nonsense. The point about BBC commentators,persenters and reporters is that they should be scrupiously fair and above reproach. They have every right to freedom of expression but expressingly strong political views in national media fundamentally undermines their position.

BTW Rod Liddle was sacked from his job as Editor of R4's Today becuase he wrote a political column in the Guardian (In which he said when he saw the sort of people on the Countryside Alliance march he remembered why he voted Labour). At the time -- pre Hutton as well -- this was not seen be the Daily Mail, Express, Times, etc as curtailing his freedom of speech or "PC Gone Mad" it was seen as scourging the BBC of evil lefties. In fact they basically campaigned to get him sacked so its a bit rich them complaining about RKS now to say the least.

"loony leftist directors who are completely unaccountable to its paymasters is reprehensible"

The directors are not loony lefites. They are extremely professional and capable people. The BBC is accountable to its "paymasters". Specifically its accountable to the Dept. of Culture, Media and Sport and Parliament via its charter and the rights that governemet has to monitor and investigate its behaviour, accounts, etc.

Matthew

quote:

---

One of the few things that genuinely makes Britain special. If you don't like/understand it then watch ITV (which is how all TV would be if there was no license fee) or move to America.

---

I think you're living in the past.

Producing public entertainment shouldn't be a public service, and the commercial Americans seem to be able to do a better job. BBC Current Affairs has deteriorated into badly written superficiality and even Sky News can do a better job.

The BBC should be producing programmes that will be watched by few at a time but will have a life of 100 years. And I don't mean 'Fawlty Towers'.

I have no objection to the licence fee in principle (although it does obviously breach the ECHR), just to its usage.

Paul

quote:

---

Many parts of the country can't get the digital channels that they are paying for

---

There is a precendence for the BBC introducing new technology with attractive programming

1 When the TV service was initially introduced it was only available in London, the TV set was very expensive. - equivalent to multiple weeks of average salary

2 It took many years for the tv service to be available throughout the country

3a The introduction of the commercial channel required an addon box or a new tv

3b When BBC 2 was introduced it required the viewing public to either get a set top type box to enable then to get the higher definition signal or go out and buy a new TV

3 When colour arrived on BBC2 they introduced it with very high standard program content that demonstrated the need for colour - each new technology required the viewer to spend money to enjoy the new technology and the attendant programing. OK the colour licence cost more but the mono viewer's program still cost as much to produce as the colour viewer so the mono viewer was subsidising the colour viewer

4 The introduction of the new broadcast tecnology standards did not appear over night it tool several years to propogate across the country - yet the licence was the same

5 the introduction of NICAM sound sound took years to be made available across the country - we in the south did not get it well in to the 90s - yet we all paid the same licence fee.

Re digital - most people can receive satellite Broadcast digital BBC programmes unless their house is has a hill or tall building shading them from the sattelite. It is available free once you have bought the satellite receiver and dish.

THe main reason people that don't get digital TV is beacause they cannot be bothered to get the additional equipment installed or they find it too complicated to understand.

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
THe main reason people that don't get digital TV is beacause they cannot be bothered to get the additional equipment installed or they find it too complicated to understand.

---

There really are places in the country that cannot get a digital signal for TV or digital radio yet by Freeview.

Derek

quote:

---

3b When BBC 2 was introduced it required the viewing public to either get a set top type box to enable then to get the higher definition signal or go out and buy a new TV

---

I don't remember any add on boxes at the time and as far as I'm aware the 405 line TVs just couldn't handle the 625 line broadcasts. Can you expand on this please.

Yours in Music

Syd

To answer

Rasher

Digital TV is available by satellite across the country, reception is not dependant on availability of Freeview - unless you have a hill or tower block in the line of site to the satellite

Syd - I may have misremembered - I thought that there was a way to get the 625 lines program on to a 405 line set - apologies for misremembering.

However the point is that the BBC has introduced new technology that initially is only available to the minority untill the service was made available across the country and the viewer invested in additional equipment. To encourage the investment in new equipment attractive programming was put on the the new technology

The only area were the BBC has not done this is with DAB were they appear to not consider providing a quality signal be worthwile ie the appalling bitrates supplied for the DAB stations. Almost as if they do not want DAB to flourish.

The only criticism I would have the BBC is that have not always gone for the best in new technology eg HDTV and full digital surround sound (whatever the correct acronym is) on the digital network. Also they do not roll outthe new technology very rapidly across the country on the terrestrial network - however that is now the responsibility of the transmission company which is probably dependant on the amount of money the BBC is prepared to pay to the transmission company.

Derek

<< >>

[This message was edited by Derek Wright on MONDAY 19 January 2004 at 10:50.]

I presume that all the intellectuals on the forum could not bring themselves to admit to reading 'The Sun' newspaper.

It's lead article yesterday ran along the lines that as of May or June there are thousands of gypsies/travellers in Poland and the other soon to join the EU Eastern European countries that are waiting to flood Britain for work, free housing, social benefits, schooling etc.

My conclusion on reading the article was that the Sun was in some way trying to warn us or trying to create a feeling of hysteria about this.

My point is that I find it stange that Kilroy's comments can whip up such rage but comments by the Sun seem to be perfectly acceptable.

I am not an interleckshual but I do read (at least superficially) The Sun 2 or 3 times a week and one of my best friends works for them.

Its coverage of the the Asylum issue is frankly a disgrace. They regularly print neo-racist, hate and hysteria articles based on half-truths and misinformation.

They also (or rather their editor) have a similar obsession with Paedophiles and their coverage is similarly awful. The recent "Ship, Ship, Hooray" headline and the piece encouraging Roy Whiting to kill himself were particularly nauseating.

In short this once great newspaper has descended to the unpleasant depths and low standards of the Daily Mail.

Matthew

(I should point out these are my views rather than those of my Sun employed friend who remains a staunch defender of his newspaper and his colleagues)

Matthew said....I am not an interleckshual

Well that is something we finally agree on.

Regards

Mick

Alan,
Having lived in the US for 3 years in the late eighties I totally agree with you. Many people in this country think the British way (or more likely the English way) of doing things is always best when nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of the Americans I came across were decent thoughtful people and not the lite-beer-guzzling rednecks of popular mythology. And as you say much recent quality television is produced in the US. One of the things that appealed most is that it’s quite acceptable to be successful over there and undoubtedly the potential rewards for getting the finger out and grafting a bit were far richer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamk:
I presume that all the intellectuals on the forum could not bring themselves to admit to reading 'The Sun' newspaper.

---

So it can be read now? That's an improvement.

Harry