Tories: We would shut down BBCi & Three

Yes perhaps, but it is also used in plenty of other European Countries, do you hear them moaning so much?! And we have one of the cheaper ones...



No, they may not be forcing me to watch, but they are forcing me to pay for them and the rest of the BBC empire, regardless of my useage of the service.[/quote]

I don't watch BBC Four, or CBeebies, or listen to any BBC Radio 3 - yet I can still appreciate the need for them - if you only watched 10 series a year on the BBC it'd still be cheaper than buying them all on DVD.

The license fee is extremely good value. I have friends in the US and Europe who wish they had a tv station as good as the BBC - why do you think people flock to BBC World News or BBC America in the states?! It's because their own news service (Fox) is so terrible that they see the BBC as the only non biased channel.

Would you want to see a US style TV market being introduced over here, where the programmes are less important than the adverts?! Where TV isn't (AFAIK) regulated to make sure it conforms to the highest standards.

Oh and I've had a thought. I buy Coco-cola. They use my money to advertise on ITV1. I don't watch ITV1. I'm still paying for the programming though...

Oh, and the BBC wanted to introduce a digital only license fee, but who stopped them? Remember that...

Stu

I would love to see those BBC propaganda trailers again, such as 1997's 'Perfect Day' promo.

Actually the BBC's trailers between 1991-2000-ish, were very well made. The only trailer from this period still in occasional use is the Subtitles promo with those swoshes of smoke and the '888' figures swirling in the background.

Actually I think that trailer pre-dates even the balloons, because the '888' is highlighted with the old BBC coloured bars.

Still, it's a nice promo - even if it is blighted by on-screen subtitles itself nowadays.

Bring back decent trailers and self-promoting propaganda, BBC! I need to be reminded of how 'unique' the way I fund you is.

well i thought that - but then you have to ask yourself, what use is the trailer to a deaf person who doesn't know about teletext subtitles if they cant hear the nice lady speaking (due to their deafness)?

Ison - "when most people are interested in something decent on a Saturday night"

Find me one thing decent on ITV on Saturday night - there's sweet zip all!

"Can you really not deal with a short 3 minute break? Whenever I have watched F1 coverage on ITV, I have always found it to be more than sufficient."

My issue is not with the length of the breaks, it's the timing of them that bothers me, as well as running the risk of vital action being lost like (deep breath) Rubens Barrichello's big shunt at the start of the Hungarian GP, Michael Schumacher's tyre bursting and subsequent loss of championship at Suzuka in 1998, Ralf Schumacher crossing the finish line at the French GP this year, Michael Schumacher's victory lap in 2000 when he bought the title back to Ferrari after 21 years; ITV chose not to show this in full and slapped an ad break over it which totally ruined my and many other Ferrari fans from savouring the moment and many others. ITV also totally wrecked coverage of the historic first-ever GP at Indianapolis in 2000. Not a single minute of the race weekend was broadcast live by ITV and what action there was was inconsiderately broadcast late at night when most younger F1 fans were in bed asleep. We are missing half of all live qualifying this season because it's spread over two days and ITV can't be bothered to show the Friday qualifying live, but tape-delay it and broadcast it ridiculously late at night.

There is also the issue of the post-race drivers' interview with the top three finishers which I believe ITV are contractually obliged to show but HOWEVER, ITV seldom show this IN FULL. They seem obsessed with getting off air as quickly as possible (to please Corrie fans) after a race and fail miserably to get reaction from drivers and team members. It falls short in manifold ways and ad break wise, it contains a gaffe history which Frank Spencer would even be jealous of!! Finally, I resent not being able to have the choice of a pay-per-view option which Bernie foolishly took off air as a silly knee-jerk reaction to Michael Schumacher's dominance last year. It was coverage me and many dedicated 'petrolhead' F1 fans absolutely loved AND NO AD BREAK TO BE SEEN. We saw everything, INCLUDING all the practice sessions as well as qualifying. I certainly oppose your proposition that the BBC would do a lesser job - at least we'd live safe in the knowledge we'd see the FULL race with no action lost. No doubt there'd be a good interactive service based around F1 Digital Plus as well.

I do not trust ITV with F1 coverage and I will not see a single moment of it. Sufficient for a casual viewer, but crap and woefully inadequate for petrolheads who want more from our coverage! I know that quite a few people are seeking alternative means of viewing F1 like getting a second dish set up to receive F1 coverage from RTL in Germany who, despite being a general commercial channel, manage to produce something like seven hours of coverage on an average GP weekend. A lot of people are also fed up with James Allen's 'gibberish' commentary too, which is another reason they're getting RTL. Ben Edwards (F1 Digital Plus - IMO better than Murray) is mentioned time and time again as his replacement all over F1 message boards.

The whole of ITV's F1 coverage is a shambolic, incompetent mess. A thought to go out on from one of my friends in F1 circles...

Typical isn't it - 2002 a boring season made into something quite excellent to watch care of F1D+, while this year a great season made dull and uninteresting by ITV.

Billy Mayes!!

You should hear him when he's not dubbed, it's actually quite scary.

Pat Murphy-Stark is in the club, by the way. I saw her advertising the Miracle Tummy Trimmer on ABC.

Remarkably, that was not a joke.

Just to clarify, I the licence fee isn't or at least wasn't paid to the Beeb for the Beeb. It's to the government for the right to own equipment able to recieve television transmissions. In turn that money raised from the tax goes to fund the government provided broadcaster, in this instance the BBC.

So, you aren't paying for Eastenders, you're paying for the right to own equipment that allows you to recieve it, which in turn pays for what you're watching on there anyway. Logical? No, perhaps not, but I think that's roughly correct.

Read the Peacock Report, or whatever, bit out of date now but still worth a browse.

Re: The Tory party. Hague was a funny man, but couldn't do much for the party. Clinton, Bush (Jnr) and Reagan were/are all using the power of laughter to make their point. If you saw the Alex Pelosi documentary (Journeys with George?) about the buildup to Election 2000, you'll realise that he's a very quick witted man, and idiot, but quick witted.

Reagan was brilliant on that level too - can't remember whether it was in China or the then USSR but his joke about the plumber/car delivery, which I really can't arse myself to repeat, was brilliantly powerful.

Labour can't lose anyway. They'd just have a coalition with the Lib Dems if they got close to the Tories on election night.

eh ? Strewth talk about off topic, the issue here is about the Tories valid argument of reigning in some of the BBC services which have been introduced at the expense of the taxpayer. Please do not trivialise the debate with your petty small minded loathing of ITV. The fact of the matter is that prior to ITV winning the F1 contract, the sport was low profile, often sandwiched between table tennis and curling on Sunday Grandstand, with little more than the race covered. Anyway, enough of that pointless diversion.

No, the bigger issue here is regarding this poll tax levied on owning a television capable of receiving a broadcasting signal. This, in order to build an ever expanding portfolio of media services including a website for heavens sake !!!!

If the tax is simply levied on owning a television and receiving a signal, why should the proceeds be used to fund a website ? The issue of how excellent the website may be is frankly irrelevant. I could be a very heavy listener of BBC Radio, and spend all day on BBC Online, but I could get away without contributing a single penny towards these services.

Yet, if I just want to watch Channel 5 and Sky One, never utilise BBC Online or listen to BBC Radio, I have to pay the television tax. That can't be right. Linking the funding of the BBC to the owning of a television set is completely skewed, some kind of subscription service based on useage would be more appropriate.

Times have changed, the BBC no longer runs 2 television stations and a handful of radion stations. The system is not taking into recognition the changing complexion of the media landscape, and needs to be modernised.

Oh, and Katherine, stop getting your KNICKERS IN A TWIST, with all the random CAPITALISATIONS. Strewth

To be fair ITV do a decent job with F1. They are a commercial channel, they need to show ads, and the fact that there are so few incidents that you can name them all is credit to them.
ITV have done a fairly good job with F1, they are showing more of it than the BBC did previously and whether you like it or not F1 Digital + is gone, it wasn't viable, it is a pitty it could have grown over the years, but for now it is gone.
However I would like F1 and infact Test cricket to return to the BBC. On reflection the BBC loosing both has been good, it has increased the overall quality of the output, however as both ITV and C4 are loosing interest, the rights going back to the BBC would help again.

Yes but the same happens all over Europe, the rest aren't nearly as good value, and most of the Public Service channels still shows commericals even though your paying a TV license!

Stu

The fact that it happens in other European countries is frankly irrelevant. I am talking about this country, and the system that we have here.

It is of no consolation for me to find that it goes on in other countries, doesn't make an unjust system acceptable.

It depends on your definition of decent and what sort of programmes you want to watch


You can't really base your argument on something which happened up to 5 years ago!

Please do not trivialise the debate with your petty small minded loathing of ITV.

I will, when you stop your petty small minded loathing of the BBC - stop moaning and pay the fee like anyone else.

ITV have done a fairly good job with F1, they are showing more of it than the BBC did previously and whether you like it or not F1 Digital + is gone,
Or so you think - it might be re-appearing on our screens as early as 2005!!

Don't be absurd. Of course I have to pay the licence fee. If I didn't I could end up in prison. And just how ridiculous is that, in the 21st century ?

My "loathing" of the BBC is about the unjust way the service is funded, this may or may not be the fault of the corporation, however they are certainly milking it for what it's worth by creating wasteful and unnecessary services. At the same time the commercial sector is battling in a fiercly competitive market when advertising revenues are at an all time low.

I am quite happy for the BBC to exist under a revised funding regime, with a reduction in duplication and the removal of a multitude of unecessary services. Expensive flirtations, such as BBC Online should not be funded by a television tax.

At least I am objective in my criticism, so how about you get your blinkers off then dear ?