blandy Posted March 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 10 minutes ago, bickster said: Isn't that the tourist attraction one somewhere near Stoke? Trentham Garden ways? Kelvedon Hatch Nuclear Bunker but don't tell anyone! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 8 minutes ago, bickster said: Not to mention most of the music industry indie and major relies on the BBCs patronage to promote their wares. I doubt there are many succesful UK based musical artists in the last 50 years that hasn't been given exposure by the BBC at the start of their career And that really isn't an exageration They've certainly helped or boosted plenty, but I think it might be a stretch to claim "not many haven't". It all depends I guess, but there's quite a significant number who "made it" via non broadcaster routes - Arctic Monkeys, Lilly Allen style. Oftentimes it's true the Beeb or XFM or whoever then starts playing them, but they're already on the trajectory by then, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 11, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 7 minutes ago, blandy said: Arctic Monkeys Not true at all, definitely played on BBC before they ever released an album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 19 minutes ago, tinker said: The whole world has access to these technologies yet they haven't paid a penny to the licence fee. They should be helping to produce and support local based media and news, they are nowhere near doing that. The Oxbridge leaders of it all are so out of touch the whole thing is 90% irrelevant to 95% of the population. I don't watch it or listen to it at all. Do you mean they haven't paid for the tech developed by BBC and so have got it for free? Because that tech will likely be licensed out so they will have paid. Or do you mean they don't pay a licence fee in their country like we do, because that's not always the case either. Plenty of countries in Europe have some form of TV licence, whether that be a standalone licence, covered in general taxation, or bolted onto electricity bills. Less common outside Europe, but still happens in a few places. For those countries where there is no taxation based funding, you are looking at lots and lots of adverts. Completely agree on your second point btw (well the first part), my best mate works in local radio, and they are going completely the opposite way, cutting down the regional content, and having regions share shows. Apparently this is to 'modernise' local services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Risso Posted March 11, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted March 11, 2023 6 minutes ago, bickster said: Not true at all, definitely played on BBC before they ever released an album. Add that to the charge sheet then! 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 There are certain acts where you could swear someone inside the BBC is being paid to promote them. Wolf Alice for example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 11, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 8 minutes ago, Risso said: Add that to the charge sheet then! Well yes quite, I'm not exactly a fan either but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 23 minutes ago, bickster said: Not true at all, definitely played on BBC before they ever released an album. Maybe so, but they were already a phenomenon. Massive word of mouth reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 11, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 Just now, blandy said: Maybe so, but they were already a phenomenon. Massive word of mouth reputation. Yeah but I didn't say any act got where they are because of the BBC, I said they helped. i'm not saying they wouldn't have been succesful if there was no BBC, I said the BBC helped. They helped with that word of mouth reputation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted March 11, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2023 Being suggested that MOTD will be a touch over 20 minutes long tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 11, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 11, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2023 2 hours ago, FLVillan said: Forgive my out-of-touch/out-of-date question, but is there still a TV licence fee in the UK? If yes, is that not exclusively for the "privilege" of watching the BBC? Which essentially makes them a government entity.. It's a common myth (even here) that you only need a licence if you watch the BBC channels. Not so. You need a licence if you have a TV capable of receiving any broadcast channels. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 How many piece of evidence do we have now that the BBC have f**ked up? Well over 100 I expect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 33 minutes ago, mjmooney said: It's a common myth (even here) that you only need a licence if you watch the BBC channels. Not so. You need a licence if you have a TV capable of receiving any broadcast channels. Hasn't it changed a bit, Mike? I had an idea that you don't need a license to have and use a TV (for example to watch Netflix) but it mustn't be connected to an aerial in that case. And you do need a license to watch BBC iPlayer on anything - it always nags me to tell it if I've got a license or not. Dunno how it works for ITV or CH4 internet player. I guess you maybe don't need a TV license to stream them? [edit] turns out half of that is wrong! see Harkanon's post. Live and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 I think part of the problem is celebrity pundits have "an excessive" access to the ears of the people. If Lineker was espousing say anti-vaxxer rhetoric I don't think people would be as keen to deride BBC's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 20 minutes ago, mjmooney said: It's a common myth (even here) that you only need a licence if you watch the BBC channels. Not so. You need a licence if you have a TV capable of receiving any broadcast channels. This is wrong. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence Quote The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to: watch or record TV on any channel - via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat) watch TV live on any streaming service (e.g. ITVX, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go) watch BBC iPlayer*. On any device. It is clear, even on their website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 (edited) How’s this gonna be resolved the? 1) The BBC sack Lineker? 2) Lineker apologises? 3) Someone at the BBC apologises for making an error of judgement? 4) BBC chief resigns? 5) Sunak steps in and says something helpful? My money is on 3) or 4). Edited March 11, 2023 by Genie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 11, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Genie said: How’s this gonna be resolved the? 1) The BBC sack Lineker? 2) Lineker apologises? 3) Someone at the BBC apologises for making an error of judgement? 4) BBC chief resigns? 5) Sunak steps in and says something helpful? My money is on 3) or 4). Good question 1) unlikely - he hasn't done anything wrong or certainly not wrong enough to be sacked for it. And if they did pot him, look at the problems caused already with his colleagues supporting him. 2) Not going to happen. He's already (we're told) rejected anything on those lines. 3) They should, but won't. 4) Should but won't - not for this mess, but for the non-declaration of the loan stuff, plus this. 5) Nice idea, I'd never have thought of that. Everyone would win that way. I guess the likely outcome is he (GL) is back on air next week, and no one does anything else about it. Come contract renewal time, the BBC might try and insert a clause(s) to explicitly forbid comments on social media or etc. but will freelancers want to sign up to that level of restriction? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 11, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2023 11 minutes ago, Harkanon said: This is wrong. https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence It is clear, even on their website Yeah, sorry. My point stands though, that "I only watch ITV" won't wash. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 15 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: I think part of the problem is celebrity pundits have "an excessive" access to the ears of the people. If Lineker was espousing say anti-vaxxer rhetoric I don't think people would be as keen to deride BBC's position. Well that's very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts