tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post4064097482082436149..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Jeremy Hunt Questions Future of BBC Licence FeeIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66598057111328327912007-07-27T16:30:00.000+01:002007-07-27T16:30:00.000+01:00If the BBC were run by Rupert Murdoch there would ...If the BBC were run by Rupert Murdoch there would [rightly] be complaints about it being very unhealthy for a broadcaster to be so dominant in the UK. So yes in the interests of plurality the BBC ought to be broken up into smaller competing units. Is drawing attention to this claim supposed to be some sort of devastating criticism? Yet another example of the double standards of the Left.wildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437167510102273197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3964852861697605722007-07-27T13:18:00.000+01:002007-07-27T13:18:00.000+01:00On John Redman's post:1. If you really only watch ...On John Redman's post:<BR/><BR/>1. If you really only watch DVDs, buy a screen with no tuner in it. If you have no device capable of receiving live broadcast TV signals, you don't owe a licence fee. No-one is taxing anyone anything for the right to watch DVDs. Although I'd still disagree with them, I have (a little) more sympathy with those who claim only to watch commercial TV.<BR/><BR/>2. Reach to BBC TV services (ie the proportion of people who use them) is *84 per cent*. Every week. To all BBC Services (ie TV, radio and online), the figure is 94 per cent. The figure you quote is share of viewing, which is something else entirely. <BR/><BR/>Happy to have the debate, but it'd be nice for it to have some basis in fact once in a while.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417486505570848011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-47133005147776892042007-07-27T12:42:00.000+01:002007-07-27T12:42:00.000+01:00Good to have a debate.The problem is the people wh...Good to have a debate.<BR/><BR/>The problem is the people who pretend to have a debate about the license fee, when in fact their objective is to break up the BBC.Matt Wardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326720801362744582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-33890189107085014762007-07-26T19:43:00.000+01:002007-07-26T19:43:00.000+01:00Nice to see a front-bench politician actually say ...Nice to see a front-bench politician actually say this publicly for once. Debate is always stifled on this very important subject.<BR/>Other people's TV and radio isn't important enough to demand a compulsory tax and in 5 years everyone will have to be digital so the possibility, for the ability of every household, to receive encrypted channels, becomes a reality. That means if people don't pay it, they can be denied BBC output. SIMPLE! If idiots like, Baldcockbaldrick, love the W*****rs so much, you can pay them double if you want and let others decide if they want to pay for blatant left-wing news propaganda and new cashmere socks for Terry Wogan or Wossy.Geezerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03642135656070350953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-58631253104936691062007-07-26T19:10:00.000+01:002007-07-26T19:10:00.000+01:0018 million quid for the foul mouthed idiotic Jonat...18 million quid for the foul mouthed idiotic Jonathan Woss?<BR/><BR/>no thanks.<BR/><BR/>abolish the license fee.John Trenchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18212068575561254839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-7253256311402567912007-07-26T18:00:00.000+01:002007-07-26T18:00:00.000+01:00Baldockbaldrick wrote:-...i don't mind paying for ...<B>Baldockbaldrick wrote:-</B><BR/><BR/><I>...i don't mind paying for the license fee is because we get an awful lot for it; the main plus being the website and it costs us just 36p per month each. Do people want the BBC to become like ITV and start using adverts between programmes and on its website?</I><BR/><BR/>"We" get an awful lot for it? <I>I</I> get nothing for it. I never watch TV, I just watch DVDs. For this, I pay £135 a year. <BR/><BR/>You can make any sum sound trivial just by dividing it by 365. £135 a year? Gosh, that's only 36p a day. Unfortunately for this argument, you can do it the other way round too. £135 a year is approximately £30,000 over 50 years. Doesn't sound so cheap now does it? Thirty thousand quid for CBeebies? Or indeed for nothing at all, in most cases. Everybody who pays a licence fee pays £30,000 for the privilege whether they watch it or not. My pension fund could do with that money.<BR/><BR/>The whole "it's good value" argument is based on extortion anyway. The BBC's market share is about 20 to 25% which means that in the this country it's "good value" because only one in five people who are forced to pay for it actually uses it. If the BBC were allowed to charge only those who use it, and let's face it the technology exists, then the "great value" fee of £135 would be five times that, or getting on for £700 a year. Would you still think it good value at £700 a year? No, thought not. <BR/><BR/>Also can we dispense with the laughable fiction that there are no ads on the BBC? The BBC is absolutely packed with ads: <I>for other BBC output</I>. Ads for BBC programmes, ads for the BBC website, ads for BBC competitions, and - until banned by a court - ads for the BBC <I>Radio Times</I>. In fact, until relatively recently, nobody was allowed to publish a full BBC programme schedule for the week ahead except the BBC, thus forcing you to either watch the ads or pay more for the BBC comic too. <BR/><BR/>You've been conditioned into not noticing that they're ads, because they're on the BBC and they're about the BBC, but ads they are.<BR/><BR/>I think the state should get back into making cars as well. If the principle is right for broadcasting, it's right for everything else. How it would work is the state would decide what sort of car we might like to drive and then about 1 in 5 people would go out and buy one. Its sales price ought to be £30,000, but because everybody pays for it whether or not it's the sort of car they want or not, it would only cost £6,000. 4 out of 5 people don't want one, but they'd still be forced on threat of prison to pay £6,000 for it. <BR/><BR/>It would be fantastic value for money for me - screw everybody else, of course - and they shouldn't complain because £6,000 is only £16 a day, and what could be fairer than that? And what a national treasure the cars would be too - the envy of the world!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11553163741320490361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-53529186701684145472007-07-26T17:39:00.000+01:002007-07-26T17:39:00.000+01:00Newmania said... ....It concerned the sensitive is...<I>Newmania said... <BR/><BR/>....It concerned the sensitive issue of the exponential rise of HIV in Britain since Labour was elected in 1997. <BR/><BR/>.......almost entirely driven by immigrants chiefly African coming here already infected and testing positive once here.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't it about time we had mandatory HIV testing of would-be immigrants? Canada, Australia, New Zealand and USA all have this requirement. <BR/><BR/>If necessary it could be targeted at immigrants from high-incidence countries.aardvarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315689139729375078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41814419580766333602007-07-26T17:32:00.000+01:002007-07-26T17:32:00.000+01:00newmania [4.18 PM] "Very many current affairs insi...newmania [4.18 PM] "Very many current affairs insiders at the Beeb have actually worked for the Labour Party at times, the Queen Bee being Polly T who was editor of Social Affairs."<BR/><BR/>Indeed. A grotesque appointment. But I suspect for people working at the BBC this demented woman is 'mainstream'.Trumpeter Lanfriedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098959760276109152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-53346900693404933342007-07-26T17:05:00.000+01:002007-07-26T17:05:00.000+01:00Hey N, the Americans do have a "home market advant...Hey N, the Americans do have a "home market advantage" in that their market is able to sustain companies putting a million bucks an episode into The Simpsons etc. our industry would never be able to do that.<BR/><BR/>The BBC is risk averse so often turns down good shows just in case they don't turn out to be good. Isn't that the supposed point of "the unique way we are funded"??Old BEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974090439936326476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-81781471286302797182007-07-26T16:54:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:54:00.000+01:00I see Labour Supporting Jimbo is still unable to d...I see Labour Supporting Jimbo is still unable to detect bias.<BR/><BR/>FancyNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-38783218274277465602007-07-26T16:52:00.001+01:002007-07-26T16:52:00.001+01:00Newmania would be too young to remember, but 12 or...Newmania would be too young to remember, but 12 or 15 years a...<BR/><BR/>Thanks I think , I`m 43 and I do remember . I wasn`t thinking along especially doctrinaire lines or of clever-dick satire just the general poverty of mass entertainment compared to the out put of the US , Frasier , 24 ,..loads of good stuff .The Simpsons in fact.<BR/><BR/>We have lost it and the Beeb cannot be touted as the guardian of our preminent position in this area as it often isNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60391010438036091322007-07-26T16:52:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:52:00.000+01:00Jim is onto something here: if Cameron and his lot...Jim is onto something here: if Cameron and his lot ever said or did anything politically serious, then it would be reported. But they never do and they never will, because they can't - such things are beyond them. The Hug A Hutu outing, like so much else, was unworthy of the BBC's attention, and therefore did not receive it. Take the hint.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-84954978560929688142007-07-26T16:44:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:44:00.000+01:00Resorting to blaming the BBC for all the Tory ills...Resorting to blaming the BBC for all the Tory ills is an admission that the game is finally up for Cameron. He had a very long honeymoon, and the BBC reported his many outings in detail; there were no cries of bias during this extended holiday period. If in doubt kill the messenger. Bad move, the messenger is your life blood, hack them off and you may as well cut your own ball off. The BBC is not bias. Did you all actually expect a day by day 10 minute update of Cameron in Rwanda on the 10 O clock news…. Don’t be ridiculous.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08154883691100377834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12953593900332861182007-07-26T16:43:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:43:00.000+01:00sockpuppet said... I stopped liking the BBC when t...<I>sockpuppet said... <BR/>I stopped liking the BBC when the newsreaders stopped wearing evening dress <BR/><BR/>July 26, 2007 1:54 PM </I><BR/><BR/>Newsreaders were expected to wear evening dress even on the RADIO.aardvarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315689139729375078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-36916270770912270932007-07-26T16:42:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:42:00.000+01:00This is a good example of the sort of bias the BB...This is a good example of the sort of bias the BBC habitually displays . Anthony Browne recorded an interview for the BBC`s today programme that did not get aired although it was due to be. Here is why it was cut <BR/><BR/>It concerned the sensitive issue of the exponential rise of HIV in Britain since Labour was elected in 1997 . This might seem a but much to be blaming on the Labour Party but in a sense it is their fault . Figures from the Government’s Public health Laboratory Services in 2006 were showing a 25% rise in one year with almost all the increase being among heterosexuals. The government and the media with the BBC to the fore had been warning for years about the danger of complacency among hetero sexual ever since the number of cases contracted swept past the number of homosexual cases and we can see that this fits the “progressive” soi disant BBC agenda well in any case. The government minister was responding on the Today programme with a new sexual awareness campaign for teenagers , a little like Gollum Brown`s hearts and minds millions squandered on the Muslims . Safe sex that sort of thing you probably remember it .<BR/><BR/>The truth is that the increase had nothing to do with this group and was almost entirely driven by immigrants chiefly African coming here already infected and testing positive once here . the BBC pulled this piece knowing full well that the evidence was irrefutable and in any case the truth could hardly be hidden for long . The Guardian and the BBC continued to run material attacking the position and even now there is a dimly remembered doubt . There is no doubt. The facts are there to be seen and the resources which could have helped have gurgled down the plug hole .<BR/><BR/>That is the BBC for you and the interesting fact here is the way they lied and lined up with the Guardian to defend their position. They knew they were lying but the attitude deep down is “pssssssst ..these people are too stupid to know the truth .... Nanny Beeb knows best”<BR/><BR/>PS yes I do blame the Labour Party . Immigration is at four times the rate now it was in the 90s ( when it was high) and it was the wider left constituency that were unable to face one unpleasant consequence of thatNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-68190772104994314002007-07-26T16:35:00.001+01:002007-07-26T16:35:00.001+01:00David Lindsay - have you not seen 'the thick of it...David Lindsay - have you not seen 'the thick of it'? Brilliantsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333603569294208240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78500370690709079362007-07-26T16:35:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:35:00.000+01:00£15 a month and see how many people sign upExactly...<I>£15 a month and see how many people sign up</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly! If enough people sign up there won't be any need for adverts. I reckon lots of people would sign up - just keep an eye out for satellite dishes and you'll get a good estimate of how many people pay good money for guff TV!Old BEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974090439936326476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89612419146393874462007-07-26T16:34:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:34:00.000+01:00Newmania would be too young to remember, but 12 or...Newmania would be too young to remember, but 12 or 15 years ago British satire was a nightly, primetime outpouring of the most hysterical abuse, directed towards the Major Government and all its works.<BR/><BR/>It then stopped more or less entirely, immediately after the 1997 Election and the death of Princess Diana (its other favourite target).<BR/><BR/>And now it seems to have come back as rubbish like 'A Very Social Secretary' (or 'Blind Man Has Sex Ha Ha') and 'Confessions Of A Diary Secretary' (or 'Fat Man Has Sex Ha Ha'). Will we ever have proper satire again?<BR/><BR/>But then, did we ever really have it in the first place? The "satire boom" of the early Sixties was an entirely self-falsifying affair, in which spilt sons of privilege illustrated just how spoilt and privileged they were by being given television studios and West End stages when just out of university (or even while still there), courtesy of older spoilt sons of privilge, but in order to bang on about how Britain was being run into the ground by spoilt sons of privilege.David Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06839882674758833524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35049661415605140922007-07-26T16:33:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:33:00.000+01:00Does he? Do you know this or are you just saying t...Does he? Do you know this or are you just saying that, because he wears a blue rosette, his personal view must be X?Old BEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974090439936326476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49155138225253762642007-07-26T16:31:00.001+01:002007-07-26T16:31:00.001+01:00Funny how all the politicians bang on about choice...Funny how all the politicians bang on about choice in the NHS, choice in schools etc but TV viewers have absolutely no choice in whether to subscribe to the BBC. <BR/><BR/>Here's the solution, sell BBC subscription for , say, £15 a month and see how many people sign up (even if only for their apparently wonderful website!) Yep we all know the answer to that one...SPAM ALERThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08295898936346097748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41739796047479220652007-07-26T16:31:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:31:00.000+01:00Ed - my point is that Jeremy does have a fixed, id...Ed - my point is that Jeremy does have a fixed, ideological view but he's afraid to speak it publicly.simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333603569294208240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24072704692338838262007-07-26T16:27:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:27:00.000+01:00Some interesting comments here. Personally I am a...Some interesting comments here. <BR/><BR/>Personally I am a little split on this one, depending on whether I listen to my head or heart.<BR/><BR/>In theory the fact that we all have to pay this subscription fee whether we like the BBC's output or not is ludicrous and the BBC really should be open to market forces like the rest of us. As Ed pointed out the arguments about whether the BBC is biased or not is completely irrelevant. If it is some social good, why is it not state funded rather than this funny TV licence thing.<BR/><BR/>Having said that personally I think the BBC offers great value for money to me with it's TV, radio and new media output and I would be very unhappy to see it lose it's funding. The BBC is one of the things that is great about Britain, this is why people from all over the world watch, listen and read to BBC output.Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00901853618033139515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-9543212336981741322007-07-26T16:26:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:26:00.000+01:00Oi! Don't knock Jeremy Hunt, he is a fantastic MP....Oi! Don't knock Jeremy Hunt, he is a fantastic MP.<BR/><BR/>I think "opening a debate" is exactly the kind of thing everyone of every allegiance should be doing. Accepting the status quo unthinkingly is exactly the kind of irrational "conservatism" that Blair railed against in his first term. "That's the way it's always been done" is the first argument of the intellectually weak.<BR/><BR/>Let's debate the issue, bring facts and figures out in to the open, have a discussion and then decide the way forward. To suggest that any party should have a permanently fixed position on every issue is ridiculous!<BR/><BR/>Well done Mr Hunt for opening the debate and Mr Dale for publicising it.Old BEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974090439936326476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-43146313018156633262007-07-26T16:25:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:25:00.000+01:00I think the execs getting hige bonus payments then...I think the execs getting hige bonus payments then having to own up to faking programmes is a huge waste of licence fee money.<BR/>If this is how it gets spent then yes scrap it <BR/>They Lord about in Taxi's,lunches,foreign trips lavish bonus's then cheat us <BR/>Who is the fool here ?Harriet Hamsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14081815172915802675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-84324429624474343372007-07-26T16:20:00.000+01:002007-07-26T16:20:00.000+01:00So what does Jeremy think? Should the licence fee ...So what does Jeremy think? Should the licence fee be scrapped? He won't say.<BR/><BR/>It's typical mealy-mouthed Cameroon try-to-have-it-both-ways stuff. If the Tories believe the BBC should be privatised, there is a respectable (though I think wrong) case to be made and they should come out and say it. But to witter on about "reopening the debate about the licence fee" in the hope that it will keep the Right happy without upsetting anybody else is feeble. What a Jeremy, as they say in Central Office.simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333603569294208240noreply@blogger.com