I'd even question the number of people still claiming for black and white sets given we've now 'switched over to digital' and freeview boxes or similar would be necessary.
It used to be that if you feed a black and white telly with the output of a video recorder you needed a color licence. Presumably that has changed, unless somebody has brought out a monochrome set top box?
It used to be that if you feed a black and white telly with the output of a video recorder you needed a color licence. Presumably that has changed, unless somebody has brought out a monochrome set top box?
It is (or was) possibly to buy Freeview boxes that had an RF Modulator in them, then you can use it with the tuner in the older black & white TVs - the TV just sees it as another UHF channel.
Some black and white TVs may require a colour licence if they can receive and record programmes in colour, for example when using a Personal Video Recorder (PVR) connected to a black and white TV.
The key word appears to be "record". You won't be able to record on a budget Freeview box that just receives a signal that it can't keep.
Interesting - I thought the colour licence was required because the VCR was passing a colour signal to the set.
I though that was the case in the 90s/00s.
RO
Ronnie_1990
Quote:
The BBC hired one of the world’s most expensive photographers to take portraits of its staff - even as bosses were complaining to MPs that it could not face any more cuts.
Rankin, who charges upwards of £20,000 a day, was booked for a photo-shoot with Yalda Hakim, a presenter on BBC World News, as part of a marketing campaign designed to boost the BBC brand overseas.
Miss Hakim, who was born in Afghanistan and brought up in Australia, is one of the main presenters on the BBC global news channel and has also fronted reports for Newsnight.
Conservative MP Andrew Percy added: ‘This sort of extravagance proves how far removed from their viewers some at the top of the BBC are.
The BBC hired one of the worldâs most expensive photographers to take portraits of its staff - even as bosses were complaining to MPs that it could not face any more cuts.
Rankin, who charges upwards of £20,000 a day, was booked for a photo-shoot with Yalda Hakim, a presenter on BBC World News, as part of a marketing campaign designed to boost the BBC brand overseas.
Miss Hakim, who was born in Afghanistan and brought up in Australia, is one of the main presenters on the BBC global news channel and has also fronted reports for Newsnight.
Conservative MP Andrew Percy added: âThis sort of extravagance proves how far removed from their viewers some at the top of the BBC are.
DAILY MAIL.
Money well spent.
Are you serious? BBC Global News, part of the
commercial
arm of the BBC, funded by international subscriptions and advertising and whose profits are returned to the domestic BBC for the benefit of the UK licence fee payer, hired an industry photographer for an undisclosed sum.
But when did the facts get in the way of a Daily Mail story?
Deliberately incompetent, integrity-deficient, willful ignorance + a
not at all
subtle hint of xenophobia = all the ingredients of your standard readership baiting, bile-filled Mail article. A blinding example of the sort of filtered misinformation we could expect if news was exclusively the preserve of privately influenced organisations.
A disgrace to journalism and exactly the sort of article the BBC needs to be challenging head on with the facts.
RO
Ronnie_1990
Quote:
Last night, MPs and campaigners accused the corporation of a ‘baffling’ and ‘wilful’ waste of public funds, totally out of kilter with its poverty plea.
Conservative MP Bill Cash said: ‘Nobody exercised restraint – this is a wilful waste of money. It’s beyond imagination, but not apparently the BBC’s limitless pockets.’
The BBC confirmed the photoshoot took place and would be used as part of a marketing campaign ordered by BBC Worldwide, the Corporation’s commercial arm, which exists to top up its funding.
It would not reveal the cost of the project, but said it had been in the planning for around a year.
It also defended the decision to hire one of the world’s most expensive photographers on the basis that it had come out of BBC Worldwide, rather than directly from the licence fee.
A spokesman said: ‘Quest is a non-licence fee funded BBC Worldwide marketing initiative for international audiences that will build awareness of the unique talent behind BBC content - and showcase British creativity to the world.’
Last night, MPs and campaigners accused the corporation of a âbafflingâ and âwilfulâ waste of public funds, totally out of kilter with its poverty plea.
Conservative MP Bill Cash said: âNobody exercised restraint â this is a wilful waste of money. Itâs beyond imagination, but not apparently the BBCâs limitless pockets.â
The BBC confirmed the photoshoot took place and would be used as part of a marketing campaign ordered by BBC Worldwide, the Corporationâs commercial arm, which exists to top up its funding.
It would not reveal the cost of the project, but said it had been in the planning for around a year.
It also defended the decision to hire one of the worldâs most expensive photographers on the basis that it had come out of BBC Worldwide, rather than directly from the licence fee.
A spokesman said: âQuest is a non-licence fee funded BBC Worldwide marketing initiative for international audiences that will build awareness of the unique talent behind BBC content - and showcase British creativity to the world.â
This was funded entirely by the commercial side of the BBC. The highly profitable commerical side of the BBC, that returns 100% of those profits to the domestic, licence fee funded BBC each year.
Should the sums of money other commercial organisations (such as ITV, Sky, Viacom, UKTV, et al) spend on marketing photoshoots be questioned too? That would be utterly absurd, but by this logic they should be headline news.
So, the article is ridiculous nonsense but I shall humour it further. You say "it is still a lot of money to spend on a photoshoot". Can I just point out the article makes no specific reference to the actual amount the shoot cost BBC Worldwide, just that the photographer charges "up to £20k/day". Given the Mail's tendency for hyperbole and deliberate misinformation spreading, it is not too much of a stretch to assume this may have been exaggerated just a tad.
It still doesn't change the fact the BBC's separate commercial arm funded this - if they believe this is the best way to utilise their marketing budget who is anyone outside to argue with them, especially when said commerical organisation is posting positive financial returns?
The BBC does some bloody stupid things but this is nothing more than a lazy, willfully ignorant Mail story designed to enrage those who are already cemented in their views against the licence fee funded BBC. They're preaching to the misinformed choir, who don't care if their reasoning is based on falsehoods so long as articles like this reinforce it.
The entire article is rendered null and void by its own final paragraph... not that many readers will get that far...
Last edited by Jonny on 23 July 2015 12:26pm
RO
Ronnie_1990
Its a lot of money for a photoshoot, regardless of where the money came from for a start.
Who made the choice to spend this amount, does this person have influence on the BBC and make the same sort of choices regarding spending for the BBC.
There are other examples.
Quote:
The BBC has come under fire over the revelation that it has spent nearly £35,000 of licence-fee payers' money on external PR agencies, despite having over 140 communications officers.
Tory MP Rob Wilson told the Press Gazette: "It beggars belief that the BBC sees fit to spend licence fee payers' money on slick PR men rather than on the TV and radio programmes people know and love."
Andy Silvester, campaign manager at the Taxpayers' Alliance, told the Huffington Post UK: "Taxpayers expect their licence fee to be spent on high-quality programming, not an army of spin doctors. Adding even more to the taxpayers' bill by engaging external firms is rubbing salt into the wound. What can they possibly offer that the BBC's own bloated PR department can't?
"The BBC needs to stamp out wasteful spending, or sympathy for the outdated tax that is the licence fee will continue to wane."
It was last year but, still, you have to ask who makes these choices.
But let them get on with it. They have done themselves in.
You say "it is still a lot of money to spend on a photoshoot". Can I just point out the article makes no specific reference to the actual amount the shoot cost BBC Worldwide, just that the photographer charges "up to £20k/day". Given the Mail's tendency for hyperbole and deliberate misinformation spreading, it is not too much of a stretch to assume this may have been exaggerated just a tad.
You say "it is still a lot of money to spend on a photoshoot". Can I just point out the article makes no specific reference to the actual amount the shoot cost BBC Worldwide, just that the photographer charges "up to £20k/day". Given the Mail's tendency for hyperbole and deliberate misinformation spreading, it is not too much of a stretch to assume this may have been exaggerated just a tad.
No.
Quote:
Rankin’s representative confirmed that the
photographer’s day rate usually starts at £20,000
and that the portraits are part of a large-scale marketing project to be overseen by the world famous artist.
She did not say how long the project took, but said
Rankin had offered the BBC a special price.
