# BBC



## c1973 (Feb 3, 2015)

Now that they have lost the Open, football is more or less non existent and they are pretty much only left with Wimbledon and a couple of snooker tourneys, the question has to be asked are they catering for (top level) sports fans anymore? 

They are meant to cater for all (granted that's a difficult task) licence fee payers. But sadly it seems they can't or perhaps don't want to when it comes to sport (unless it's part of the crown jewels).


Is it now time that the fee was done away with and this bloated corporation was forced to stand on its own two feet?


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 3, 2015)

To be honest it wouldn't make any difference other than having adverts on all channels. 
ITV can't afford to go up against Sky for sport, Channel 4 and 5 are the same which leaves just BT sport to try and break the Sky sport stronghold. 
I refuse to pay Â£20 a month for a few channels that I won't watch that often and watch for free online through Sky broadband!


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Feb 3, 2015)

They just spent a rumoured Â£210m on Match of the Day, doesn't seem like football is more of less non existant. Don't they have tbe football league show as well? (


----------



## Tongo (Feb 3, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			They just spent a rumoured Â£210m on Match of the Day, doesn't seem like football is more of less non existant. Don't they have tbe football league show as well? (
		
Click to expand...

Its alright, they're televising the Hockey European Championships this summer! :thup:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 3, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			They just spent a rumoured Â£210m on Match of the Day, doesn't seem like football is more of less non existant. Don't they have tbe football league show as well? (
		
Click to expand...

I would be interested to see what happens next time round and whether anyone else bids. Don't forget ITV nabbed the Saturday highlights for several seasons. I wonder how safe Wimbledon is. They've lost cricket and horse racing already. Would snooker be a huge loss?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Now that they have lost the Open, football is more or less non existent and they are pretty much only left with Wimbledon and a couple of snooker tourneys, the question has to be asked are they catering for (top level) sports fans anymore? 

They are meant to cater for all (granted that's a difficult task) licence fee payers. But sadly it seems they can't or perhaps don't want to when it comes to sport (unless it's part of the crown jewels).


Is it now time that the fee was done away with and this bloated corporation was forced to stand on its own two feet?
		
Click to expand...

They cater for everyone - not just sports fans

World Cup
Prem highlights
Euro Champs
Olympics
Cycling Champs
Skiing
Winter Olympics
Rowing
World Athletics
Horse Racing
F1
Commonwealth Games
Snooker
Wimbledon,French Open, Queens
Ladies Open 
Masters ( Sat and Sun )
6 Nations
Hockey

For a channel that isnt dedicated to sport they still seem to be able to cover a lot


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Tongo said:



			Its alright, they're televising the Hockey European Championships this summer! :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Think its great that Hockey is finally getting shown on telly


----------



## Tongo (Feb 3, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I would be interested to see what happens next time round and whether anyone else bids. Don't forget ITV nabbed the Saturday highlights for several seasons. *I wonder how safe Wimbledon is*. They've lost cricket and horse racing already. Would snooker be a huge loss?
		
Click to expand...

Isnt it on the list of crown jewels? The govt are to blame as much as the beeb, they keep bowing to the pressure of the business people and taking stuff off of the protected list.


----------



## c1973 (Feb 3, 2015)

Yeah, but how much 'top level' football are they showing. 

It seems to me (and I may well be wrong here) that top level sport is either out of their price range or they're just not that interested in it.  And I reckon that the money they generate could be utilised better, hence my question on should they stand on their own two feet.

Edit: in response to Cheltenham hacker


----------



## Tommo21 (Feb 3, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Now that they have lost the Open, football is more or less non existent and they are pretty much only left with Wimbledon and a couple of snooker tourneys, the question has to be asked are they catering for (top level) sports fans anymore? 

They are meant to cater for all (granted that's a difficult task) licence fee payers. But sadly it seems they can't or perhaps don't want to when it comes to sport (unless it's part of the crown jewels).


Is it now time that the fee was done away with and this bloated corporation was forced to stand on its own two feet?
		
Click to expand...


100% correct.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Yeah, but how much 'top level' football are they showing. 

It seems to me (and I may well be wrong here) that top level sport is either out of their price range or they're just not that interested in it.  And I reckon that the money they generate could be utilised better, hence my question on should they stand on their own two feet.
		
Click to expand...

What do you class as "top level"

The BBC is not just a sports channel


----------



## Tongo (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Think its great that Hockey is finally getting shown on telly
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm a big Hockey fan, watch games down at Fareham a few times a season. Tis a great sport, fast with plenty of goals. I can remember watching GB win the Olympic gold when i was 9 and i've loved it since. (Another example of how kids get into sport when they see it on tv!)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Tongo said:



			Indeed. I'm a big Hockey fan, watch games down at Fareham a few times a season. Tis a great sport, fast with plenty of goals. I can remember watching GB win the Olympic gold when i was 9 and i've loved it since. (Another example of how kids get into sport when they see it on tv!)
		
Click to expand...

Yep

My wife plays in the top level of hockey in the country and also a few internationals - once a year for one game hockey is televised.


----------



## Tongo (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yep

My wife plays in the top level of hockey in the country and also a few internationals - once a year for one game hockey is televised.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, thats a bit of a claim to fame! Was she in the GB squad at London 2012? 

I saw 3 games at the Olympics. What an experience that was!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 3, 2015)

Wasn't the Grand National part of the Crown Jewels. I thought as long as it was shown on terrestrial TV it didn't matter. I may be wrong but technically nothing to stop C5 (god forbid) bidding the next time the TV rights at SW19 are up for negotiation


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They cater for everyone - not just sports fans

World Cup
Prem highlights
Euro Champs
Olympics
Cycling Champs
Skiing
Winter Olympics
Rowing
World Athletics
Horse Racing
F1
Commonwealth Games
Snooker
Wimbledon,French Open, Queens
*Ladies Open *
Masters ( Sat and Sun )
6 Nations
Hockey

For a channel that isnt dedicated to sport they still seem to be able to cover a lot
		
Click to expand...

Golf? Really?


----------



## c1973 (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What do you class as "top level"

The BBC is not just a sports channel
		
Click to expand...

I never said it was just a sports channel. I think I did mention that it has to cater for all and that it's a difficult task. 

The question was should it be self funding (licence fee scrapped) and standing on its own two feet.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Tongo said:



			Wow, thats a bit of a claim to fame! Was she in the GB squad at London 2012? 

I saw 3 games at the Olympics. What an experience that was!
		
Click to expand...

No she didnt make the 2012 GB squad but has took part in Commonwealth Games ( she is Irish )


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I never said it was just a sports channel. I think I did mention that it has to cater for all and that it's a difficult task. 

The question was should it be self funding (licence fee scrapped) and standing on its own two feet.
		
Click to expand...

Then it becomes just like ITV with Adverts every 10 mins - not for me


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 3, 2015)

They used to show MotoGP but couldn't be bothered covering it properly and didn't seem bothered about losing the rights, preferring to pay a fortune for F1 instead.


----------



## Tongo (Feb 3, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Wasn't the Grand National part of the Crown Jewels. I thought as long as it was shown on terrestrial TV it didn't matter. I may be wrong but technically nothing to stop C5 (god forbid) bidding the next time the TV rights at SW19 are up for negotiation
		
Click to expand...

True. Sorry, i automatically, and incorrectly, thought you meant Sky when you asked how safe is Wimbledon! ITV4 already televise the French Open so i would reckon they'd be up for it.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They cater for everyone - not just sports fans

World Cup
Prem highlights
Euro Champs
Olympics
Cycling Champs
Skiing
Winter Olympics
Rowing
World Athletics
Horse Racing
F1
Commonwealth Games
Snooker
Wimbledon,French Open, Queens
Ladies Open 
Masters ( Sat and Sun )
6 Nations
Hockey

For a channel that isnt dedicated to sport they still seem to be able to cover a lot
		
Click to expand...

But how much of that will attract a worthwhile audience. Sorry but hockey, skiing etc are even more niche than golf. I *agree* that there is an awful lot of good in there but I really can't see how losing the golf makes a huge difference to that list.


----------



## richy (Feb 3, 2015)

Makes me glad I don't pay the licence fee


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

richy said:



			Makes me glad I don't pay the licence fee
		
Click to expand...

Not have a telly then ?


----------



## richy (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not have a telly then ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm watching it now


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

richy said:



			I'm watching it now
		
Click to expand...

? So how come you dont pay for a telly license ?


----------



## Piece (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			? So how come you dont pay for a telly license ?
		
Click to expand...

Doesnt watch live TV?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Piece said:



			Doesnt watch live TV?
		
Click to expand...

Even if its recorded you still need a telly license


----------



## Piece (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Even if its recorded you still need a telly license
		
Click to expand...

On demand or catchup TV doesnt need a license.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Feb 3, 2015)

He's over 75 ? 

He paid cash for his telly and lives in a high rise with "buzzed" access..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Piece said:



			On demand or catchup TV doesnt need a license.
		
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure it does. On Ctah up


----------



## richy (Feb 3, 2015)

Or just doesn't pay for one


----------



## ger147 (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Im pretty sure it does.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't.


----------



## Piece (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Im pretty sure it does.
		
Click to expand...

Not according to TV license webby...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

richy said:



			Or just doesn't pay for one
		
Click to expand...

Ah right - so you watch live telly but decided not to pay for the license .


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Piece said:



			Not according to TV license webby...
		
Click to expand...


Sorry was getting confused with the sky planner recording stuff


----------



## richy (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ah right - so you watch live telly but decided not to pay for the license .
		
Click to expand...

I think this is getting off the OP


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

richy said:



			I think this is getting off the OP
		
Click to expand...

Or possibly very valid to the topic as the Op was talking about the no longer paying the license fee - so your situation is very valid 

Im guessing your not the only one who doesnt pay so maybe if everyone who did pay the BBC could have a bit more money - know they have just got loads of the military guys to pay a license fee.


----------



## richy (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Or possibly very valid to the topic as the Op was talking about the no longer paying the license fee - so your situation is very valid 

Im guessing your not the only one who doesnt pay so maybe if everyone who did pay the BBC could have a bit more money - know they have just got loads of the military guys to pay a license fee.
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe there shouldn't be an enforced tax to be able to watch a few crappy channels


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

richy said:



			Or maybe there shouldn't be an enforced tax to be able to watch a few crappy channels
		
Click to expand...

Do you want to be given it for free then ? How would they then pay for things ?

If you dont want to pay then dont watch - but if you want to watch then pay - quite simple really.


----------



## Birchy (Feb 3, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you want to be given it for free then ? How would they then pay for things ?

If you dont want to pay then dont watch - but if you want to watch then pay - quite simple really.
		
Click to expand...

Not that easy though is it?

They could quite happily shove the terrestrial channels for all i care but whether i watch them or not i have to fund them to watch other stuff thats worth watching.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Birchy said:



			Not that easy though is it?

They could quite happily shove the terrestrial channels for all i care but whether i watch them or not i have to fund them to watch other stuff thats worth watching.
		
Click to expand...

I dont make the rules - its a tenner a month - and i reckom through the 12 months people will watch something on BBC1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or listen on the radio to any of the channels or 5 live or use the website or i player. 

I want to use some of their services so i pay for it 

If people dont and get caught then they either pay for it or fined a grand.


----------



## Birchy (Feb 3, 2015)

The trouble is there's no choice.

I'd be happy to have all them you mention cut off and keep the money.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Birchy said:



			The trouble is there's no choice.

I'd be happy to have all them you mention cut off and keep the money.
		
Click to expand...

So you dont watch or listen to anything from the BBC - no watching World Cup with them or Olympics 

Not one single thing on BBC 

Like i said though i dont make the rules - but maybe if more did pay as they are supposed to then the BBC could get more money in to pay for more sport.


----------



## Qwerty (Feb 3, 2015)

Birchy said:



			The trouble is there's no choice.

I'd be happy to have all them you mention cut off and keep the money.
		
Click to expand...

Me too and I'd imagine plenty more would do also if given the choice. 

Whether it's viewed as value for money or not is irrelevant, just the fact they've got us by the balls is plain wrong IMO


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 3, 2015)

Guess there needs to be a way to stop people being able to watch or read or listen to BBC services if they wish not to pay the license fee ? So they give people the choice ?


----------



## JustOne (Feb 4, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Yeah, but how much 'top level' football are they showing.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the thuggish footie fans need to get off benefits and buy Sky, no need for them to have it for free anymore. :mmm:


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 4, 2015)

richy said:



			Or maybe there shouldn't be an enforced tax to be able to watch a few crappy channels
		
Click to expand...

We pay even higher "enforced taxes" to drive on crappy roads...


----------



## richy (Feb 4, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			We pay even higher "enforced taxes" to drive on crappy roads...
		
Click to expand...

True, but I can't get away with not paying road tax due to all the number plate recognition technology etc they have now.


----------



## c1973 (Feb 4, 2015)

JustOne said:



			Maybe the thuggish footie fans need to get off benefits and buy Sky, no need for them to have it for free anymore. :mmm:
		
Click to expand...


So all footie fans are thugs, on benefits and can't afford sky? :rofl:

Wonder how they can afford all that Aquascutum and Stone Island gear.........


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 4, 2015)

As a defender of the BBC (most of the time) I'm happy paying the license fee for all the content I get.  When you compare with how much you pay for Sky IMHO it is great value.  I am not just talking the sport part for the whole package.  Said it before many times but it is not the fault of the BBC that the sports rights are so expensive.  And the people that sell the TV rights of the particular sports are the ones that are to blame/praise.  Bernie ensured that some F1 was on terrestrial TV as he saw the benefits of doing that.  Any other sport could do the same if they wanted, they could split the package and some on terrestrial and some on pay TV.  But they don't and just chase the big pay packet in return for a reduced amount of viewers.

I think a lot of brits vastly underestimate the benefits of a commercial free public broadcasting channel that does not have to pander to the political leanings of it's owners or the whims of the sponsors.  I do a lot of travelling and have seen a lot of TV overseas and most of it does not hold a candle to the BBC. Try watching a TV station in the US and you will be driven mad with the amount of adverts or blatant political bias.  Also BBCs news output is trusted throughout the world and when I want an unbiased view as possible of what is happening in the world then it is the place to go to.

I could also make a coherent argument to say that BBC radio has been one of the major factors why the British music scene punches way above its weight in the world. The value of having a national radio station that does not play highly formatted music to please the sponsors from just one genre is immense, opening up many different types of music to many people.  Again, listen to most commercial radio stations, it't mostly dull as dishwater as they are so frightened of upsetting the sponsors and just play the same limited number songs that have no doubt been proven to appeal to the specific target audience they are after on heavy rotation.


----------



## bluewolf (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm a supporter of the concept of the BBC.. If only to provide a News channel that brings balance to the other commercially available News Channels. I also predominantly listen to BBC Radio (whether it be R1, 2 or 5). I use the Iplayer quite often. I still believe that the BBC provides some of the best Drama on TV, and that one of the reasons for this is the fact that it doesn't have to justify its broadcasting to an advertising department..

It has dropped the ball recently with its Sports coverage though. Prioritizing Football is a mistake IMO. It should be using its unique income stream to provide exposure to plenty of Sport that does not get decent coverage.

Damn.. I've just realized that I agree with Hacker T Dog on nearly every point he made above...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 4, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Or possibly very valid to the topic as the Op was talking about the no longer paying the license fee - so your situation is very valid 

Im guessing your not the only one who doesnt pay so maybe if everyone who did pay the BBC could have a bit more money - know they have just got loads of the military guys to pay a license fee.
		
Click to expand...

One of my old golf partners was a TV licence 'enforcer' he could tell some great stories.

Remember no licence is a criminal charge and you go to court.......sticks with you for a long time.
Stops you from doing a lot of things and can be very expensive.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm a big supporter too. Aside from purely the content, the BBC sets the standard in nearly every area. Even sport is still good...and uninterrupted. The effect of this on other broadcasters cannot be underestimated. Without the BBC providing the service it does Sky, ITV and other commercial stations (radio too) would pretty soon plummet to the standards prevalent in most other countries. Anyone who thinks that we could ditch the BBC or change the system and happily watch Sky just as it is now is frankly in cloud cuckoo land.....it would change, massively. Do you think Sky would be covering the Open with 4 add breaks an hour if the BBC wasn't competing?  No chance.


----------



## jp5 (Feb 4, 2015)

Whilst the principle of having to pay both the BBC and Sky in order to be allowed to watch Sky TV is a touch antiquated, in reality for Â£10 a month the breadth and quality of content the BBC is fantastic so no complaints from me. BBC has certainly opened my eyes to a whole world of sports, let alone the documentaries and dramas it produces. And that's not even starting on the excellent content on the radio and website.

So keep going BBC :thup:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 4, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I'm a supporter of the concept of the BBC.. If only to provide a News channel that brings balance to the other commercially available News Channels. I also predominantly listen to BBC Radio (whether it be R1, 2 or 5). I use the Iplayer quite often. I still believe that the BBC provides some of the best Drama on TV, and that one of the reasons for this is the fact that it doesn't have to justify its broadcasting to an advertising department..

*It has dropped the ball recently with its Sports coverage though. Prioritizing Football is a mistake IMO. It should be using its unique income stream to provide exposure to plenty of Sport that does not get decent coverage.*

Damn.. I've just realized that I agree with Hacker T Dog on nearly every point he made above...

Click to expand...

Probably true.  But in the public interest it would never get away with it as every man and his dog would be complaining they don't pay their licence fee to watch yachting. I'd personally love to see loads of badminton on the BBC and they could probably get the TV rights for tuppence ha'penny, but realistically know it would never wash.

I think the BBC is over a barrel with the football, as it has to try and get it just so it can fulfill it's public remit.  Football, rightly or wrongly is by far the most prominent sport in this country so the BBC is under a lot of pressure to show it.  And I suspect the price it pays to get these rights mostly blows its budgets, leaving less and less left for innovative improvements to the actual coverage.


----------



## Snelly (Feb 4, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I do a lot of travelling and have seen a lot of TV overseas and most of it does not hold a candle to the BBC. Try watching a TV station in the US and you will be driven mad with the amount of adverts or blatant political bias.  Also BBCs news output is trusted throughout the world and when I want an unbiased view as possible of what is happening in the world then it is the place to go to..
		
Click to expand...



You must be joking!  The BBC is just as biased as the worst of Fox News!  It is just that you don't see it because you share the same world view.   

The news output is little more than a mirror of the Guardian.   Very left leaning, pro EU and with a skewed climate change agenda to boot.  Just about every programme drips with the same myopic agenda.

It is an over-funded, bloated, self-serving monopoly and the sooner it is privatised the better.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Feb 4, 2015)

Snelly said:





You must be joking!  The BBC is just as biased as the worst of Fox News!  It is just that you don't see it because you share the same world view.   

The news output is little more than a mirror of the Guardian.   Very left leaning, pro EU and with a skewed climate change agenda to boot.  Just about every programme drips with the same myopic agenda.

It is an over-funded, bloated, self-serving monopoly and the sooner it is privatised the better.
		
Click to expand...

If you stand far to the right and listen to something in the centre it will appear on your left. Though I think there maybe sometimes a valid argument in what you are saying I also think you are overstating it massively. Overall I think the BBC does a good job on being impartial. It really is a "can't please all the people...." situation though. You are obviously one of them.....your comparison with Fox News is probably the only joke I've seen on this thread.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 4, 2015)

Snelly said:





You must be joking!  The BBC is just as biased as the worst of Fox News!  It is just that you don't see it because you share the same world view.   

The news output is little more than a mirror of the Guardian.   Very left leaning, pro EU and with a skewed climate change agenda to boot.  *Just about every programme drips with the same myopic agenda.*

It is an over-funded, bloated, self-serving monopoly and the sooner it is privatised the better.
		
Click to expand...

Look, I've told so lots of time to not believe everything you real in the Daily Mail, it just makes you seem paranoid

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-press-baron-foe-evidence-Left-wing-bias.html

Also I've honestly never voted labour in my life so that stuffs that argument slightly as well.


----------



## pendodave (Feb 4, 2015)

My understanding is that the BBC is legally obliged to report the news in an even handed fashion. Don't you think that the Tories would be straight in there if they felt that there was a "left wing bias". They're not, so I'm thinking that silence speaks for itself.

The majority of media in this country is controlled by right wing, self interested 1% ers. Even if the BBC were a little left, it would scarcely be enough to balance things up. 

Just because is it is flawed (and I agree with many of the points) doesn't mean that it needs to be destroyed. 

And a final point. Does anyone think that the wholesale selling off of every asset of value that the country ever had has led to the UK being a much better place for all? Me neither....


----------



## Snelly (Feb 4, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			If you stand far to the right and listen to something in the centre it will appear on your left. Though I think there maybe sometimes a valid argument in what you are saying I also think you are overstating it massively. Overall I think the BBC does a good job on being impartial. It really is a "can't please all the people...." situation though. You are obviously one of them.....your comparison with Fox News is probably the only joke I've seen on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

The BBC only advertise their jobs in two places.  Internally and in the Guardian Classifieds.  This isn't made up, it is a fact.  Consequently, they see themselves as impartial, probably because they live in a like-minded bubble. 

Just this weekend, Countryfile stated that last year was the hottest on record in the UK as this "fact" fitted the item they were presented and neatly slotted into their climate agenda.  Unfortunately, it is a complete fib. 

There are dozens of examples of this every day on the BBC.  As an organisation it is simply not neutral on the EU, Israel, climate change, gay rights or big business.  

The FT is impartial and does a brilliant job.  The BBC is not and has lost its way.

All that said, I don't begrudge paying the licence fee really. Test Match Special makes it worth the money on it's own.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Feb 4, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Just this weekend, Countryfile stated that last year was the hottest on record in the UK as this "fact" fitted the item they were presented and neatly slotted into their climate agenda.  Unfortunately, it is a complete fib.
		
Click to expand...

Are the met office telling fibs as well then?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Feb 4, 2015)

Snelly said:



			The BBC only advertise their jobs in two places.  Internally and in the Guardian Classifieds.  This isn't made up, it is a fact.  Consequently, they see themselves as impartial, probably because they live in a like-minded bubble.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmmm......http://careerssearch.bbc.co.uk/jobs/search/-1/




			Just this weekend, Countryfile stated that last year was the hottest on record in the UK as this "fact" fitted the item they were presented and neatly slotted into their climate agenda.  Unfortunately, it is a complete fib.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.......http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2913633/It-s-official-2014-really-hottest-year-record-World-temperatures-climbed-highest-134-years.html   Surely not a fib in the good old Daily Mail?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 4, 2015)

Snelly said:



*The BBC only advertise their jobs in two places.  Internally and in the Guardian Classifieds.  This isn't made up, it is a fact.*  Consequently, they see themselves as impartial, probably because they live in a like-minded bubble. 

Just this weekend, Countryfile stated that last year was the hottest on record in the UK as this "fact" fitted the item they were presented and neatly slotted into their climate agenda.  Unfortunately, it is a complete fib. 

There are dozens of examples of this every day on the BBC.  As an organisation it is simply not neutral on the EU, Israel, climate change, gay rights or big business.  

The FT is impartial and does a brilliant job.  The BBC is not and has lost its way.

All that said, I don't begrudge paying the licence fee really. Test Match Special makes it worth the money on it's own.
		
Click to expand...

But that is because the Guardian is seen in the industry as the place where media related jobs are advertised.  It is where any media outlet advertises if it wants to reach the highest potential audience in that field.  Much the same as the biggest concentration of teaching jobs are found in The Times Educational Supplement. So are you telling me that the teaching profession is mostly right wing?


----------



## Farneyman (Feb 4, 2015)

Remember you only need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast - if you only watch catch-up, you won't need a licence. This includes watching from the bbc iplayer.


----------



## Andy808 (Feb 4, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			They used to show MotoGP but couldn't be bothered covering it properly and didn't seem bothered about losing the rights, preferring to pay a fortune for F1 instead.
		
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with the beeb I'm affraid as Dorna, like the FA, the R&A etc, liked the look of the Â£'s BT sport were willing to pay to take it away from BBC AND Eurosport. MotoGP really has suffered more than most sports with the live rights going to BT and highlights to ITV who show it very late in the evening on ITV4. Like the golf from the USPGA Dorna show what they want to and when with the TV companies having to show it to suit. 
To be honest I've got right back into world and British superbikes again and last season was awesome for both with the class of the ax murderers still as brilliant as it ever was. It's also the reason riders don't do well when the go from superbikes to MotoGP as they aren't allowed to be as aggressive which makes for poorer racing.


----------



## JustOne (Feb 5, 2015)

c1973 said:



			So all footie fans are thugs, on benefits and can't afford sky? :rofl:

Wonder how they can afford all that Aquascutum and Stone Island gear.........



Click to expand...

Obviously drug money


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 5, 2015)

Andy808 said:



			Nothing to do with the beeb I'm affraid as Dorna, like the FA, the R&A etc, liked the look of the Â£'s BT sport were willing to pay to take it away from BBC AND Eurosport. MotoGP really has suffered more than most sports with the live rights going to BT and highlights to ITV who show it very late in the evening on ITV4. Like the golf from the USPGA Dorna show what they want to and when with the TV companies having to show it to suit.
		
Click to expand...

True enough but, in fairness, the BBC coverage was so bad that it would have been impossible to renew their deal whatever the money involved. Taking it away from Eurosport was a tragedy. I haven't seen any coverage since then because I'm not prepared to pay for both Sky and BT sports.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 5, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			True enough but, in fairness, the BBC coverage was so bad that it would have been impossible to renew their deal whatever the money involved. Taking it away from Eurosport was a tragedy. I haven't seen any coverage since then because I'm not prepared to pay for both Sky and BT sports.
		
Click to expand...


BT coverage is dire with a capital D...


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 6, 2015)

It's a choice thing for me. It really annoys me that we are FORCED to pay for something that we can get for free elsewhere or pay for elsewhere (and get a better product) The sooner we are allowed to make this choice the better. I for one will drop the BBC, and all its useless tosh programs, like a hot brick.


----------

