Impartial BBC?

Same_as_before said:
Could not agree more. The licence fee is pennies compared to SKY, BT and Virgin
Click to expand...
I used to agree with this but when you look at it as a breakdown it’s actually quite expensive.

The basic sky package less sports and movies is about £23 a month… that gets you a couple of hundred channels and access to radio stations plus the box sets usually.

bbc is £14 a month for three channels (plus bbc3) if you can count that… and a few radio stations… local radio used to be good and local… but has become more and more regionalised and nationalised in recent years.
 
Andrew Neil is on odd one. the disgusting Johnson was frightened to face him , but Corbyn did a pretty good job against him.

I have never watched the new channel
 
Boro1876 said:

BBC controversies - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

There's a lot in there. They need a change of tac where they aren't funded by the taxpayer. It's about time they privatised.
Click to expand...
As someone who travels around the world for work I can tell you now the BBC is an absolute bargain. For any faults it has it‘s a country mile better than all the dross out there so be careful what you wish for. Take the licence fee off the BBC and you’ll be getting 4 sets of adverts in a half hour of “Corrie” in the blink of an eye. And for all those who say “I only watch Netflix” if you think you’ll be getting for a tenner a month then dream on! If they doubled the licence fee it would still be a bargain!
 
WoodallServices said:
As someone who travels around the world for work I can tell you now the BBC is an absolute bargain. For any faults it has it‘s a country mile better than all the dross out there so be careful what you wish for. Take the licence fee off the BBC and you’ll be getting 4 sets of adverts in a half hour of “Corrie” in the blink of an eye. And for all those who say “I only watch Netflix” if you think you’ll be getting for a tenner a month then dream on! If they doubled the licence fee it would still be a bargain!
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong it puts put great content and you do get a lot for the fee but my argument is all about the controversial things that have happened, they shouldn't be funded by tax payers after what's happened through the years.
 
Youngie said:
I used to agree with this but when you look at it as a breakdown it’s actually quite expensive.

The basic sky package less sports and movies is about £23 a month… that gets you a couple of hundred channels and access to radio stations plus the box sets usually.

bbc is £14 a month for three channels (plus bbc3) if you can count that… and a few radio stations… local radio used to be good and local… but has become more and more regionalised and nationalised in recent years.
Click to expand...
Most of the ”hundreds“ of channels are News, +1’s, ssh1te and “gold” channels showing all the quality programmes the BBC have made over the years!
 
Youngie said:
I used to agree with this but when you look at it as a breakdown it’s actually quite expensive.

The basic sky package less sports and movies is about £23 a month… that gets you a couple of hundred channels and access to radio stations plus the box sets usually.

bbc is £14 a month for three channels (plus bbc3) if you can count that… and a few radio stations… local radio used to be good and local… but has become more and more regionalised and nationalised in recent years.
Click to expand...
The numbers are no replacement for the quality produced by the BBC.

Even though much of local radio quality has dipped I'm sure if we dig deep enough we'd find that this is also due to cronyism, dilute a service and the public won't complain when it disappears.
 
Boro1876 said:
They should go to subscription or I'm sure sky would take a punt on them. Anything funded by the tax payer needs to be squeaky clean.
Click to expand...
So if they go to subscription how do all the people who do not have access to fast enough/reliable enough internet access subscribe?

What about all the people who do not have and can not afford access to new TV's/Tablet/PC's/laptops that would be required subscribe?

What about the older generations who are not tech savvy enough to manage streaming etc, what do they do?

Do you think Sky is any less biased than the BBC?
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
So if they go to subscription how do all the people who do not have access to fast enough/reliable enough internet access subscribe?

What about all the people who do not have and can not afford access to new TV's/Tablet/PC's/laptops that would be required subscribe?

What about the older generations who are not tech savvy enough to manage streaming etc, what do they do?

Do you think Sky is any less biased than the BBC?
Click to expand...
If you look at my argument it is nothing to do with bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top