pig flu to close the fest?

[jameshunt]

not at all my friend - no sell out from me.

The BBC ceased being worthwhile years ago and I think it is a national DISGRACE that people are still being FORCED and BULLIED into paying for the beeb.

I am completely indifferent to the Radio1 stage being at Glasto. I sorta dont mind because at least there is something at Glasto which I paid for in my TV license that people will enjoy. I favour that much more than them spending my money on the drivel they produce and call 'TV entertainment'.

Edited May 6, 2009 by jameshunt

[Block]

A mate of mine in the pub is a friend of a friend of a friend of the Eavis' and he told me that they are so worried about swine flu being spread through the air con on the monorail that there may well be no monorail at this years festival!!!

[PabloCoke]

A mate of mine in the pub is a friend of a friend of a friend of the Eavis' and he told me that they are so worried about swine flu being spread through the air con on the monorail that there may well be no monorail at this years festival!!!

[Prest02000]

The BBC are better than most, as someone else said sky is w*nk. Just wish they wouldn't have blerts like Kelvin McKenzie on, the news seems to have gone more tabloid to me.

JUSTICE FOR THE 96 flag for glasto I reckon.

[jameshunt]

The BBC are better than most, as someone else said sky is w*nk. Just wish they wouldn't have blerts like Kelvin McKenzie on, the news seems to have gone more tabloid to me.

JUSTICE FOR THE 96 flag for glasto I reckon.

[Mardy]

BBC is great. You might not like all their programmes, but I bet you enjkoy a lot of them. The radio alone is worth the licence fee, it's a superb thing generally. Not a single better broadcaster in the world.

[shiveringsky]

No monorail!!!! it will take weeks to walk around the site without the monorail.

[Prest02000]

Excellent shout.

[tylerdurden]

Been thinking about it for a few weeks now anyway so might as well go for it.

[Mr Ploppy]

Like the BBC or hate them no one is forcing or bullying you into paying a license fee. It is your choice to have a TV in the house or not.

Much as I dislike a lot of the BBC's output I wouldn't be without it. It's funny how so many people, not saying that you are one of them, are happy to pay Rupert Murdoch £500+ a year to watch mainly adverts interspersed with shite programmes but complain about paying to the £142.50 TV license fee.

[jameshunt]

Well, it has been made known on many occasions that people without TVs get bullied by the BBC because they simply dont believe that someone does not have a TV - so unfortunately you are wrong - people DO get bullied into getting a license...

[suchacharmer]

I'm going to start throwing things at people that are still worried about swine flu. It is getting a little ridiculous here. My state just had its first confirmed case earlier this week so idiots at my university's health service were showing up with surgical masks at the first sign of a cough. Hell I had a fever of 102 and couldn't get out of bed and I wasn't worried.

And yesterday I had a girl come in to try to get a room through finals week (that's 2 weeks from now) because here roommate had a cold and she was afraid it was Swine flu...that's over $1000 in hotel charges for her stupidity.

Dumb.

[Mr Ploppy]

No they don't.* Given that the vast majority of homes in this country do actually have one or more TVs then it is understandable that the default position of the licensing authority is that you are likely to have a TV. However, there are many people who do not have a TV and do not therefore have to pay the license fee.

* caveat: of course the terminally daft folks out there might think it makes sense to buy a license for something they don't own.

[Pinhead]

I wouldn't have a problem with the BBC, if it were not for them having a problem with choice. The point is they tax you for owning television apparatus that is connected to any mechanism that can receive broadcasts - cable, aerial or sattelite, on the basis that this allows you to view their transmissions as well. However, people outside this country can also view or listen to those transmissions on the internet or radio, and to some degree on local television where those programmes have been sold to other networks. They do not pay a license fee however - we have paid it for them.

What scares them now is that with everything going digital, it is perfectly possible to segregate their transmissions from everyone else's, thus it would now be possible to charge just those who wish to view their broadcasts, which seems perfectly acceptable to me if like some on here you believe their content to be of good value for money.

It is the only profit making, corporate instritution I know of that is able to tax the public in order to sustain it. Just imagine the uproar if one manufacturer of vehicle were able to tax you for choosing to use or purchase another.

This license position has been popular with UK governments for many years (I wonder why . . .), but it seems to have softened in recent years since it is now possible to avoid paying it if you wish to just use your television apparatus to watch DVD's or other private feed. Before, just ownership of a television was enough to require a license. You have to write to the BBC stating your intentions, and they send someone around to check and ensure you have disconnected the equipment from any form of public reception. Fairer, but still does not get around the question of choice.

[jameshunt]

aw james - what you on about mate...?

Take the blinkers off pal, I personally know of someone who bought a house a fews years ago and spent about 3 weeks carpeting, plastering and painting (etc) before they moved in.

As soon as the sold sign was taken down whilst they were decorating the BBC bullies turned up and wanted money for the license. When explained that they are decorating and dont even have an exact moving in date the bullies put the pressure on and wanted to go into the house and check! They finally left telling my friend something along the lines of (although I cant remember exactly) we dont believe you and we will be back very soon. Oh yeah, and letter soon followed that!

Heres the way it works...

Get a grip fella.

MrPloppy

[jameshunt]

I wouldn't have a problem with the BBC, if it were not for them having a problem with choice. The point is they tax you for owning television apparatus that is connected to any mechanism that can receive broadcasts - cable, aerial or sattelite, on the basis that this allows you to view their transmissions as well. However, people outside this country can also view or listen to those transmissions on the internet or radio, and to some degree on local television where those programmes have been sold to other networks. They do not pay a license fee however - we have paid it for them.

What scares them now is that with everything going digital, it is perfectly possible to segregate their transmissions from everyone else's, thus it would now be possible to charge just those who wish to view their broadcasts, which seems perfectly acceptable to me if like some on here you believe their content to be of good value for money.

It is the only profit making, corporate instritution I know of that is able to tax the public in order to sustain it. Just imagine the uproar if one manufacturer of vehicle were able to tax you for choosing to use or purchase another.

This license position has been popular with UK governments for many years (I wonder why . . .), but it seems to have softened in recent years since it is now possible to avoid paying it if you wish to just use your television apparatus to watch DVD's or other private feed. Before, just ownership of a television was enough to require a license. You have to write to the BBC stating your intentions, and they send someone around to check and ensure you have disconnected the equipment from any form of public reception. Fairer, but still does not get around the question of choice.

[Mardy]

yeah, if you live abroad, you can't watch BBC stuff via the internet, Iplayer doesn't work. You can listen to some radio, some you can't depending on local liscensing restrictions and you don't have access to all the podcasts, loads of them are only available to UK residents.

and you don't really think the BBC gives away its stuff to foreign broadcasters? loads of series only get made with joint funding and collaboaration between different broadcasters and the BBC, other stuff is BBC funded and then bought by foreing broadcasters, reducing the cost to the UK license payer.

[Mr Ploppy]

I wouldn't have a problem with the BBC, if it were not for them having a problem with choice. The point is they tax you for owning television apparatus that is connected to any mechanism that can receive broadcasts - cable, aerial or sattelite, on the basis that this allows you to view their transmissions as well. However, people outside this country can also view or listen to those transmissions on the internet or radio, and to some degree on local television where those programmes have been sold to other networks. They do not pay a license fee however - we have paid it for them.

What scares them now is that with everything going digital, it is perfectly possible to segregate their transmissions from everyone else's, thus it would now be possible to charge just those who wish to view their broadcasts, which seems perfectly acceptable to me if like some on here you believe their content to be of good value for money.

It is the only profit making, corporate instritution I know of that is able to tax the public in order to sustain it. Just imagine the uproar if one manufacturer of vehicle were able to tax you for choosing to use or purchase another.

This license position has been popular with UK governments for many years (I wonder why . . .), but it seems to have softened in recent years since it is now possible to avoid paying it if you wish to just use your television apparatus to watch DVD's or other private feed. Before, just ownership of a television was enough to require a license. You have to write to the BBC stating your intentions, and they send someone around to check and ensure you have disconnected the equipment from any form of public reception. Fairer, but still does not get around the question of choice.

[Mr Ploppy]

I have a grip - thanks for the suggestion though.

So you have some friends who didn't have a TV and didn't have to pay a license? Excellent story.

[Mardy]

Superb Pinhead - well said!

[jameshunt]

James, I give up... well nearly.

Please read the post properly.

They had the keys to a new property and were 'doing it up'.

The bullies were harrassing them to get a license.

Why in the world should they IMMEDIATELY pay for a license just because some bullies threaten to come back and in the meantime send threatening letters.

They actually moved into the house about 2 and a half weeks after the first doorstep call from the Beeb bullies and paid their license over the phone on the day they moved in. Not before they moved in as the Beeb bullies wanted - but WHEN they actually DID move in.

During the 2 weeks or so before they moved in - they did get a follow up knock on the door which they obviously ignored and did get 2 letters which they binned.

The thing that is important for sensible people to remember is that with a paint roller in hand my friend explained the matter and that they had not moved in but the bullies said they did not believe her and would be back. Now if thats not enough to get someones back up I dont know what is.

The reps obviously wanted them to pay the license RIGHT THEN so they would get a gold star next to their name on the BBC bully board back at HQ.

Please dont tell me this does not go on when I know for a fact it does, and please dont try and pick holes in something that happened a few years ago which I am truthfully trying to rely.

Ta.

[Pinhead]

I would contend that it is very profit making. Remember a few years back when it nearly went bust due to all its bad investments, and had to be bailed out by the government again using taxpayers money to keep it alive. Sir Christopher Bland, a former Chairman of the BBC, and Lord Birt themselves developed its profit-making activities as an insurance policy against one day losing the licence fee.

Consider too the BBC’s own record label, DVD sales, magazines with often tenuous connections to television programmes. Interest from that banked money also gets spent on the attractive salaries of its directors and executives.

As for the internet - you can access that content abroad. True, no iPlayer, but the website and all its running and development costs are paid for by us. And that joint funding raises another question - so much content for it is now privately produced as either sole or joint ventures by outside production companies with the BBC, that its difficult to see the BBC as anything other than a broadcasting infrastructure portal for this material, far from their Charter stipulations.

[Mardy]

the BBC website outside the UK has adverts to generate income, same as efestivsls etc. Inside the UK it doesn't. BBC world/choice etc broadcast outside the UK has adverts. Inside the UK it doesn't

[bombfrog]

It is your choice to have a TV in the house or not.

[jameshunt]

I would contend that it is very profit making. Remember a few years back when it nearly went bust due to all its bad investments, and had to be bailed out by the government again using taxpayers money to keep it alive. Sir Christopher Bland, a former Chairman of the BBC, and Lord Birt themselves developed its profit-making activities as an insurance policy against one day losing the licence fee.

Consider too the BBC’s own record label, DVD sales, magazines with often tenuous connections to television programmes. Interest from that banked money also gets spent on the attractive salaries of its directors and executives.

As for the internet - you can access that content abroad. True, no iPlayer, but the website and all its running and development costs are paid for by us. And that joint funding raises another question - so much content for it is now privately produced as either sole or joint ventures by outside production companies with the BBC, that its difficult to see the BBC as anything other than a broadcasting infrastructure portal for this material, far from their Charter stipulations.