Guest Posted June 7, 2016 As I said above, I like Top Gear, but I''m capable of distinguishing between programmes and services that benefit me personally, and those which I feel the BBC should be focusing on. Never been a fan of period dramas either.If the "populist" programmes fund the loss-making programmes, then what on Earth is the point of the license fee? Surely the whole point of the BBC is not to concern itself with making profits and obtaining the latest smash TV shows, but to focus on valuable public-service broadcasting for the British people? Obviously we could argue about what one considers valuable until the cows come home, but the point remains that I don''t feel that it is anywhere near the BBC''s remit to focus on commercial successes, whilst also helping to fund the lifestyle of corporate bigwigs and the latest media luvvies with inflated salaries equivalent to many, many times those of the people who are collectively paying for it.I would certainly not be against seeing a reduced license-fee, which covers the really good and essential services (such as local radio/TV, global news/radio, the World Service etc.), and then an additional optional top-up which people like you and I could pay if we so desired to watch the rest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,562 Posted June 7, 2016 [quote user="Ian"]As I said above, I like Top Gear, but I''m capable of distinguishing between programmes and services that benefit me personally, and those which I feel the BBC should be focusing on. Never been a fan of period dramas either.If the "populist" programmes fund the loss-making programmes, then what on Earth is the point of the license fee? Surely the whole point of the BBC is not to concern itself with making profits and obtaining the latest smash TV shows, but to focus on valuable public-service broadcasting for the British people? Obviously we could argue about what one considers valuable until the cows come home, but the point remains that I don''t feel that it is anywhere near the BBC''s remit to focus on commercial successes, whilst also helping to fund the lifestyle of corporate bigwigs and the latest media luvvies with inflated salaries equivalent to many, many times those of the people who are collectively paying for it.I would certainly not be against seeing a reduced license-fee, which covers the really good and essential services (such as local radio/TV, global news/radio, the World Service etc.), and then an additional optional top-up which people like you and I could pay if we so desired to watch the rest.[/quote]The "populist" programmes go TOWARDS funding the BBC. Those sales bring in some hundreds of millions of pounds. The licence fee brings in a few billion (£3.6bn at the last count).As to the rest, the BBC is not focusing on commercial successes. I wouldn''t like to quantify it, butI suspect a vast majority of what the BBC produces, for TV and radio, does not fit that description. And the moment the BBC stopped producing those populist programmes that do rake in cash certain politicians and rival media owners would have more ammuntion for their fight to destroy the organisation.You have your definition of "good and essential". I might even agree with it. But others would have very different definitions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,166 Posted June 7, 2016 Agreed,Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.'' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted June 7, 2016 The BBC''s online presence is also far far better than any of its competitors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Well I Never 0 Posted June 7, 2016 [quote user="BroadstairsR"]Agreed,Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''[/quote]Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grant Holts Moustache 105 Posted June 7, 2016 BBC provides so much more than TV and Radio. As mentioned there''s web content and the vast network of news reporters across the world. They also offer funding for local arts and start schemes like this, which are only possible when making those profits; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31834927 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,166 Posted June 7, 2016 "Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?"In most countries and they are flooded with advertisements.Pay per view value puts the Beeb at number one. Compare with Sky over here. I pay £50 odd quid a month (my choice) and it has adverts.The only thing wrong with the BBC system is the lack of an option to opt out. This isn''t right, IMO, but it appears to be a necessary requisite of things as they stand at the moment.It''s actually a fee for owning a television rather than watching a television.The overall result is pretty good though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rock The Boat 1,332 Posted June 7, 2016 [quote user="Well I Never"][quote user="BroadstairsR"]Agreed,Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''[/quote]Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?[/quote]Yes and it shows in the quality of the programming and the quantity of the commercials Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,166 Posted June 7, 2016 We''re in a minority, but there are a few countries with a system similar to ourshttp://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-197787,00.htmlThe Germans seem to come off worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2016 Again, the BBC gets a lot right.But, you have to question whether it is within its remit as a public-service broadcaster to spend x millions on individual salaries and programmes simply to attract viewing figures and commercial interest worldwide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Well I Never 0 Posted June 7, 2016 [quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="Well I Never"][quote user="BroadstairsR"]Agreed,Besides the tv licence is good value for what you get.The best value for money television in the World, and I''ve come across many of the ''others.''[/quote]Really? You do realise that in many countries there is no fee required to own and watch television?[/quote]Yes and it shows in the quality of the programming and the quantity of the commercials[/quote]Does it? I agree that the BBC has a history of providing high quality programming and have enjoyed many of its products myself.However, there seem to a fair amount of misguided opinions about how good the BBC really is in comparison to other international television networks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Well I Never 0 Posted June 7, 2016 Sorry- ''there seems to be'' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,300 Posted June 7, 2016 Wow this has gone serious, I just think Top Gear has run its course and the presenters and producers haven''t done a very good job!As Bor and others said I don''t have to watch it so defo won''t be! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Well I Never 0 Posted June 7, 2016 I think a lot of the problem is that by watching a certain show for a prolonged amount of time endears you to the central characters. There was always going to be adverse reactions to the format once the personalities everybody was used to were replaced. Dare I say it, but I guess that if the current guys had popularised Top Gear and now been replaced by Clarkson, Hammond and May, there would be a similar amount of negative comments about the new guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0 Posted June 8, 2016 [quote user="Ian"]Again, the BBC gets a lot right.But, you have to question whether it is within its remit as a public-service broadcaster to spend x millions on individual salaries and programmes simply to attract viewing figures and commercial interest worldwide.[/quote]When they''re earning revenue to fund more diverse content, and expand on-line platforms (which as Bor mentions above is simply world-class), I can''t see how anyone has a problem with it.Except for the tabloid "Fred Smith earns x million pounds of your hard earned TV licence! You should be outraged" garbage. As Purple describes above. The bigger picture is much more complex.As someone who didn''t grow up in this country, I love the BBC. I honestly don''t think you know how lucky you are. As government cuts continue to hit the BBC, them being able to self-find from their commercial arm will become much more important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,531 Posted June 19, 2016 Decent show tonight. Still not as good as the previous incarnation, but improving. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted June 19, 2016 Not watching the footy LDC?You''re not missing much!😄 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted June 19, 2016 [quote user="Vanwink"]Not watching the footy LDC?You''re not missing much!😄[/quote] oh I don''t know, I''m quite enjoying Albania v rumania. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted June 19, 2016 Yes I watched the wrong game.👍 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Number 9 0 Posted July 4, 2016 Ha! There you have it, the people have chosen by not watching it.Chris Evans quits and future of Co presenters in doubt asviewing figures plummet.Not surprised, it was shockingly bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
If wed only kept Howie.. 3 Posted July 4, 2016 Nation of bottlers.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,531 Posted July 4, 2016 [quote user="Vanwink"]Poor show.[/quote]Indeed. The series has been self-indulgent in the worst possible way, the humour forced and the many presenters lacking in the ability to sound convincing. Clarkson and co were self indulgent, but it was always self-deprecating and nearly always funny. The star in a "rally car" turned an ostensibly genuine competition for a fast time into a pantomime. The overly self-indulgent and embarrassingly contrived car jup at the end was just the final straw. Am looking forward to seeing Clarkson and co on Amazon. They are self-indulgent, contrived and embarrassing too, but somehow, they have the ability to take you along with them and that is what matters, in a show about cars most of us will never be able to afford. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted July 4, 2016 Don''t have Amazon but would really like to see the new series. Will have to tune in to some of Rons'' tutorials and try to sort it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
? 0 Posted July 4, 2016 Lol, VW. By the way folks, Modbro have just done an update and it is now available to Chromecast! Awesome! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wcorkcanary 4,334 Posted July 4, 2016 Good riddance to bad rubbish. Cars!!!pffft!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites