On Tue 18 Feb at 2:08pm Nevillman wrote:
Personally I really value the BBC and am happy to pay the licence fee as I feel it represents good value. The argument over it's apparent bias convinces me it is doing a fair job. Many disagree. I find that young people in particular, even if they like many BBC programmes, resent the licence fee and would not dream of buying one. This makes the current model of the BBC unworkable and some other way of paying for it must be found. Any views?
On Tue 18 Feb at 2:52pm Stephen Watson wrote:
In order for the BBC to be genuinely impartial and accessible, it has to be (a) free at the point of use (b) independent of both politicians and advertisers. One way to achieve this might be to fund it through direct taxation and place it under the control of a permanent, rotating Citizen's Assembly who would establish and oversee its terms of reference and appoint a Board of Trustees. The government should not be able to cut its grant without the approval of the Citizen's Assembly.
On Tue 18 Feb at 3:03pm Sleeveless wrote:
It needs a cull. It is too broad brush and has ventured into projects that many licence payers donít use. I donít have a solution though.
Maybe freeze the licence fee at current levels and therefore force the BBC to cut its cloth, or perhaps have a tiered licence system where you pay for what you get?
Having said all that, the BBC is basically the only broadcaster I watch but even then it is only limited (News / Current Affairs and the odd drama such as Bodyguard and The Capture)
On Tue 18 Feb at 3:27pm Blatant Liar wrote:
It ceased being thing of any use a long time ago.
Young people donít watch tv in the Ďconventional Ď way so, as nevillman says, donít buy a licence for something they donít use. I know my son has never bought one in the four years since left for uni. ĎPaying 150 quid a year to fund gary linekers pension pot is as stupid as buying a newspaperí as he puts it
On Tue 18 Feb at 5:46pm Mark wrote:
Like the NHS, it will die now. It's under attack and it won't be able to fight back effectively against what it's up against. Both of these institutions were superb, revolutionary ideas. Q: Why do we lead the world in terms of producing great pop music? Why should we? A: Because of Radio 1. Because we had a radio station that didn't just play bland commercial music. : Why do/did(?) we lead the world in medical research and healthcare provision? A: Because of the NHS.
On Tue 18 Feb at 5:52pm Sleeveless wrote:
Mark, I have asked before. What makes you happy?
On Tue 18 Feb at 10:00pm pickle wrote:
I think the current model for the BBC is outdated. I personally resent the idea of have to pay so much for a service I very rarely use. It has 40 local, 8 regional and 11 national radio stations, which surely is a bit ridiculous?
Mark, we donít lead the world in terms of music production and havenít for a while - technically, weíre 4th.
On Tue 18 Feb at 11:21pm Basil wrote:
Mark wrote: 'NHS... Both of these institutions were superb, revolutionary ideas.'
What absolute twaddle. Do you think te BBC was a 'revolutionary idea' when Reith said it would oppose the 1926 General Strike without being told to by the government? The BBC has constantly supported the neo-liberal project we've lived with since 1979, through Tory and Labour. And I bet, Mark, you love it for it's persistent pro-EU line. 'Revolutionary'? Do me a favour,
On Wed 19 Feb at 12:03am the old mayor wrote:
And is Zoe Ball worth £ 370,000 just to waffle on in the mornings ? Personally I think not. They are all over paid AND over exposed !!
On Wed 19 Feb at 7:40am Mark wrote:
"Revolutionary" in the sense of game-changing. Unique in the world. Like the NHS. Both are very special and hugely successful ideas created by bold, imaginative visionaries. Boris will chuck both in the bin.
On Wed 19 Feb at 10:56am Mark wrote:
Pickle, I'm well aware that we don't lead the world in terms of music production. I phrased that badly. I think that we do lead the world in terms of producing interesting pop music. Why us? We're a dull and conservative lot. It should be a country like Italy.
On Wed 19 Feb at 11:09am Sleeveless wrote:
Shoobie, doobie, do wop
Pop, pop, shoo wop
Shoobie, doobie, do wop
Pop, pop, shoo wop
Thank you BBC
On Wed 19 Feb at 3:34pm Hugh Janus wrote:
Personally i love a big black c@#k
On Wed 19 Feb at 5:21pm Sussex Jim wrote:
@Mark. We had great pop music from the rock and roll years and all through the early sixties. It was Radio Luxembourg and our own pirate radio stations that gave us the music we wanted to hear. Apart from the token Pick of the Pops on Sunday afternoons, and the short Top of the Pops on TV once a week; the State broadcaster did its' best to discourage popular music.
Radio 1 was introduced in 1967, officially to replace the hugely popular pirate stations that the Labour Government outlawed. The feeble attempt to give us an alternative only produced a banal (to use a favourite BBC term) output that was the laughing stock of teenagers at the time. And still is.
Where great acts like the Beatles, Rolling Stones or Elvis produced by it? No. It is Radio One too many- and should be culled.
On Wed 19 Feb at 10:59pm Mark wrote:
This is nonsense Jim. The shim daba doobbie music that Sleeveless parodies so entertainingly emerged in the 1940/50s. The Beatles and Rolling Stones imitated that sound. And there was Radio 1 and then was punk and John Peel. And then there was Britpop and Oasis and Blur. This is Radio 1's legacy.
On Thu 20 Feb at 11:08am Sleeveless wrote:
Not me Mark. They are genuine song lyrics and played on the BBC!
On Thu 20 Feb at 11:51am Mark wrote:
Probably not played on R1.
On Thu 20 Feb at 12:46pm Nevillman wrote:
To be honest mark, much as I like the BBC,I don't think that radio one is necessarily its finest achievement or is in any way responsible for the UK punching above its weight in music output but it is interesting to see your view. Personally I would be happy to see it go commercial and no longer covered by the licence fee but I accept that others may say the same about radio 4 which I prefer these days. Maybe trying to appeal to everyone is part of the problem. Does anyone disagree that the licence fee is an outdated way of getting revenue given that young people often refuse to buy it? Has anyone got a better idea?
On Thu 20 Feb at 1:15pm Sleeveless wrote:
Mark, it got to number 2 in 1979. It was on Top of the Pops and Iím sure it would have been played on Radio1.
On Thu 20 Feb at 1:57pm Mark wrote:
I'm afraid that I've also dropped 20 KHz, Nevilleman. It comes to us all!
On Thu 20 Feb at 1:59pm Mark wrote:
4 KHz rather
On Thu 20 Feb at 8:53pm Sensible wrote:
The elected government is taking the correct attitude towards the BBC: by-pass it. By communicating directly through social media with people who are British, Mr. Johnson is proving how pointless the organisation is. There is no room for disloyalty or obstruction. At the moment Mr. Johnson was elected, the organisation should have been taken off air by Statutory Instrument, its staff named and shamed, its archive burned, and its wavelengths auctioned to the highest (and therefore most responsible) bidder. It is a totalitarian, evil, leftist pollutant, and it does not speak for me.
On Fri 21 Feb at 8:56am Nevillman wrote:
A journalist who asks a politician a question is doing their job in helping to hold politicians to account for how they are spending our money or deciding on the laws which will affect us all. This idea that some Tory politicians have that anyone asking them a question is attacking them and biased is ludicrous and anti democratic to say the least. If politicians are no longer held to account in this way and communicate only by issuing statements or deciding which friendly journalists they will allow to ask them questions, we are on a very dangerous slippery slope.
All supporters of democracy and free speech (which really should be all of us) of whatever political view should be up in arms about this. The BBC must be allowed to continue holding politicians to account on behalf of all the electorate.
On Mon 24 Feb at 7:00pm dave wrote:
I suspect the BBC will privť to be worth itís weight in gold over the next few weeks