|
|
:bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob: :bob::bob::bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob: :bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob:
:bob::bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob::bob:
:bob: :bob:
:bob: :bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob::bob::bob::bob:
:bob::bob: :bob: :bob: :bob::bob:
:bob::bob::bob::bob::bob: :bob::bob::bob::bob::bob:
So very sad.
David Wulff Born and Bred.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow... a metabob!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
|
|
Beeb, BBC, free-interest media - they are all the same thing here in the UK, they are all the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I'm sure some of you have been following Paul and my own discussions about the BBC over the past months, with somewhat limited interest, and in particular those related to the license fee which is in my opinion widely and horrendously misunderstood by the more recent generations, so this is for the benefit of you few as well as for Paul and me. I want to take you on a journey – it won’t feature fame, fortune or even sheep and I can’t promise that it will be fun, but I can guarantee it will give you something worthwhile to occupy your lunch hour or evening with.
- - - - -
To start on a simple analogy: think of media in the United Kingdom as a stick balancing on a stone inside a glass tank which we use to observe it. The two extremes of commercialised and free-interest media are ants standing on the two ends of the stick: the free-interest end sports only a single ant whilst the commercialised end is swarming, so in order to create equilibrium the stone must be placed nearer to the commercialised swarm. However on this stick the free-interest ant is one of those big buggers from the rainforest and hence the stone can be placed in the centre to balance the system. What are the similarities you ask? Well the big ant doesn’t have to fight for air (programmes/sponsorship/etc) like the swarm on the other end of the stick, having instead the time, resources and means to create them in addition, and our chubby insect friend doesn’t need to farm many aphids (shareholders) in order to get the food (money) he requires – this is because we regularly supply him with sugar.
Now take away the sugar and the ant will loose weight; he will loose time to farming vastly greater amounts of aphids to provide his food and loose incredible means to keeping the aphids healthy… shortly the stick will tilt over to the commercialised end and our poor ant friend will slide down the stick and into the swarm, creating a frenzy. The swarm will promptly take advantage of his misfortune as they gorge on his aphid farm and steal his air, polluting what he does manage to breathe with their waste gases (commercial-interests) and tipping the stick further and further till it falls from the stone all together.
The poor fellow will no doubt manage to survive, but as the runt of the swarm not the alpha ant, and his dedication and servitude to his keepers will be gone for good.
- - - - -
Okay, so now lets talk about why this is important.
I have been researching for a little while now, through various mediums and sources ranging from newspapers to the Internet, comprehensive information on the BBC that covers all of what I have been trying to explain and more on the issue of what it means to have the BBC and why it must remain publicly funded. I've looked at British Telecom, I've looked at the Post Office, and I have looked in part at our National Health Service and railways. I have also looked at how they have changed and are changing to remain viable entities in competitive markets and how some have adapted to provide profits for their shareholders time and time again ultimately at the expense of the services they are responsible for providing.
My conclusions are clear: forcing the BBC to compete on a commercial level by abolishing the mandatory low license fee for non-unprivileged television subscribers would cripple it on many fronts. No other commercial service in the world is currently able to offer the same level or sheer range of services, so there are none to draw comparisons with. The rest of this thread however aims to explain why I have drawn this conclusion.
I am a strong believer that the BBC should stay publicly funded through the low and rationally targeted license fee system currently in use today, and should not be offered on an opt-in basis. The BBC is not simply another ITV, Channel 4, Fox Network or CNN, the BBC *is* free-interest media for the United Kingdom and the BBC is a British heritage we should not be so quick to disregard. I put it to you that if the BBC was forced to become a viable commercial entity it would firstly and fore mostly fail to meet it's obligations under the Royal Charter, both in services and free-interest media and entertainment, and thus would fail as a true "service of and for the public interest". I also put it to you that the fall of the BBC would be a great loss into a shareholder and profit driven market and a tragedy to the United Kingdom equal in consequence to the removal of the kingdom itself.
- - - - -
Whilst all of the following links are selected from the BBC web sites alone, I believe these to be the most significantly important, most comprehensive and most worth special mention (although I urge anybody with any real interest to research for themselves as far and wide as their means will allow. Be warned though: it has taken me now well over a week to do just this – and I’m still going – so don't make the same mistake I did in thinking it would be an easy topic to conquer). This thread is not designed to trigger debate or conversation; it is designed to inspire thought before blindly repeating the habitual rhetoric that is fashionable to churn out against the BBC; it is designed to make you question and draw your own conclusions using the facts - for yourself. In order to do this I will require your unrestricted concentration. And a Tablet PC (wink, wink).
So without further ado, I now present you with the information I believe to be of most use via a handful of links to documents or web pages listed below. This should take an average reader (like me) about ninety minutes to two hours to complete, so sit comfortably and have snacks on hand. Beware the curious mind for it can take you away for hours! As I said above, there is a *lot* of information here, some of it is mandatory reading some of it is merely supportive or expansive; I’ve tried to annotate them as appropriately as I can to help you choose...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/acc_how.shtml [^]- A wonderful introduction to the way the BBC is structured and the differing services they provide. If you are going to read only one of these links, make this the one, and make sure you read *all* of the pages linked off the main body.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/charter.shtml [^]- The Royal Charter and the Agreement (which currently come to an end in 2006 and make very good reading). The Agreement itself is of more significant note.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/1833738.stm [^]- A webcast by the Chairman of the Board of Directors regarding the beeb’s governance, and highly relevant to what myself and Paul have been discussing of late. The further links on this page are also of relevance but essentially just reiterate the same principles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/lic_advert.shtml [^] - Simply titled "Why doesn't the BBC take advertising?". In a simplistic way this is the "short course" version of my argument on this topic. If you only read two items on this list, make this the second.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/commercial/index.shtml [^] - The beeb’s commercial policy guidelines. These will take a while to get through and some of it is as tedious as a Microsoft EULA, but they are still in my opinion worth the ordeal. The justification for paying millions of pounds to show the first Harry Potter film this Christmas, for example, is covered here in detail. If you only read three items from this list, make this your third, and read *all* of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consult/ [^] - The beeb's proposals for current and future services. Very interesting if you are looking forward to the future of British media and what license money will be spent on. Probably not of much use if you're not though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/consult/ns_results.shtml [^] also has many interesting links to follow (linked from the previous document).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/app_index.shtml [^] - The BBC's charity work (both airtime and production). This is something that would be impossible to move to commercialised television to the level the beeb currently take it. This is on the list as an example of a service currently provided that would not survive a transition to competitive commercial media.
And lastly...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/thenandnow/ [^] - The BBC Then and Now. An interesting read if you are interested by the history of the corporation.
There are discussions aplenty on the links, documents and videos listed above as to what the licensing fee is spent on and why it is needed; there are discussions aplenty with regard to what it means to have free-interest (non-commercialised) media in an increasingly commercialised market; there are discussions aplenty telling why and what services the BBC provides, both through it's publicly funded and separate commercial divisions. In short, there are discussions aplenty which provide ample evidence to support my claims and my conclusions. If any changes need to be made, they should be made to the terminology of the way we fund the BBC – it should not be a “license fee”, it should be a “mandatory donation for the good of the state” like enlistment during the last World War.
The BBC sum it up themselves perfectly in their own Commercial Policy Guidelines, I'll leave the reader to add the appropriate emphasis at the end:
"The BBC’s core purposes are those of public service: seeking to satisfy audiences with services that inform, educate and entertain; and that enrich their lives in ways the market alone will not."
The defence rests. (Literally!)
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
|
|
|
|
|
Why should my tax money and license fee go towards supporting the beeb when I can't get the reception, nor does it enhance my culture. !!!
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said by Roger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you really required to pay our licensing fee? I wouldn't have thought our monarchy had any power over Kiwis. 
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
Are you really required to pay our licensing fee? I wouldn't have thought our monarchy had any power over Kiwis.
We did have[^]don't you know about the revolt we had ? Read more here[^]
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said by Roger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
I had seen the CAL site before but didn't make the connection, possibly because the propaganda on that site surpases even Bill SerGio's homepage enough to nullify any legitmate issues they may raise. Out of curiosity, what services were being provided to you before the change? Read in depth some of the links on my original message that explore just a handful of the public services the beeb provide to us, now, and compare. People often make the mistake that the "TV License" pays for what you see on the TV - CAL included - that is simply not true at all.
I think it is about time the BBC changed their name to disclude the term "broadcasting" from it. That gives the same impression as Oxfam being a chain of second hand stores.
The only real problem with regards to the way the license payers money is spent is that is is horrifically mismanaged, but that is a problem that is constantly being addressed and is not unique to the BBC.
Current polls show less than three percent of Britons, how you guys say, "could care less" about the license fees. They care far more about the taxes levied on cigarettes and alcohol and even hotel charges have more importance that income tax. 
The only way the TV license will be abolished in this country is if The Sun[^] start a campaign on the back of their upcoming 2003 "NAKED BIMBOS" calendar. And even then the only way to motivate them would be through the promise of a suplement in their Sunday paper titled "Britians 100 Top Sexiest Housewifes" if everyone sent in a pre-paid cut-out form to the government. 
Totally off topic, but if you look at The Sun web site today (not that I would ever recommend it under normal circumstances), doesn't that Harry Poter kid look like a lesbian. 
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
how you guys say, "could care less"
Actually, though most people say it that way, it doesn't logically make sense. It should be "couldn't care less". Cause if you think about it, if you could care less, then you have some level of caring about the situation. If you couldn't care less, then you don't care at all about the situation, and it is impossible for you to "not care" more. Make sense?
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
I use "couldn't care less" myself, but I have seen an awful lot of CPians using "could care less" for some reason. I guess they were trying to be sarcastic on top of sarcastic remark? 
"I live very much in the real world, it's just not the same world shared by most other people"
|
|
|
|
|
I am mad at you.
An orgy in Tiverton... ({) `/\^^/\:p (Z) :$/\^^/\` (})
|
|
|
|
|
I am joking and/or taking the piss.
An orgy in Tiverton... ({) `/\^^/\:p (Z) :$/\^^/\` (})
|
|
|
|
|
I am ill (i.e. drunk  ) or else am disgusted, etc, by a previous post.
An orgy in Tiverton... ({) `/\^^/\:p (Z) :$/\^^/\` (})
|
|
|
|
|
What? No puke? 
Shog9
------
No one's immune now, from a world of problems
No one's exempt now, from a world of pain
That's the way that it goes
when you're down here with the rest of us...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote:
What? No puke?
It's in development. Dave is currently photographing all his vommiting sessions so he can get it just right.
Regards,
Brian Dela 
|
|
|
|
|
This is a normal message with total sincerity.
An orgy in Tiverton... ({) `/\^^/\:p (Z) :$/\^^/\` (})
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have one for, "I have too much time on my hands"?
 
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice system Dave.
Regards,
Brian Dela
|
|
|
|
|
I have secretly hacked David Wulff's personal message board to tell you all that I think Dave is a really great guy and deserves your unhindered respect as he is so clever and stunningly attractive.
I ![Heart | [heart]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/love.gif) u Dave
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff is the code-name of a top secret BT project.
|
|
|
|
|
This would be the one involving massive amounts of current targeted through phone lines when select people pick up the receiver, yes?
Shog9
------
If you really what to get shitfacde tell a crowded bar that is is yourt borthday and hife your wallet. you ka will many more friends.
- David Wulff, Brithday selebrations, 9/19/02
|
|
|
|
|
I, Dave, have also secretly hacked into Jeremy's account just to display my mad h4X0r skillz. You should all ph33r my 1337 powers! Muwahahahaha! 
Jeremy Falcon
Imputek
<nobr>"In fact it is quite simple, men and women both only want one thing - what they can't have!" - phykell
|
|
|
|
|
I, the real Dave, am guessing that Jeremy's password is either imputek, ketupmi, password or baywatch...
TOTD: Doubleclicking a personalised menu will remove the personalisation.
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
baywatch
Dammit!
Jeremy Falcon
Imputek
<nobr>"In fact it is quite simple, men and women both only want one thing - what they can't have!" - phykell
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
baywatch
I go for this one
Regards,
Brian Dela
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
