The BB Bloody C
- 1 September 2010 19:2268353Many of you will already know I am furious on a yearly basis having to pay the ultimate rip-off of a TV licence. Recently we heard that the BBC will be tightening its belt as various cuts fall over the corporation, yet today we get the story of the BBC spending - sorry, WASTING - our licence money on quite possibly the most trivial bulls**t ever! The identity of The Stig, from Top Gear, has become a matter of a secret legal case and the BBC lost it.
Firstly, the BBC's justification was that the character's anonymity is part of the fun but really, at this sort of expense?
The BBC claimed the character "belongs to the licence payer" but surely this isn't justification for wasting our money on a legal battle over what amounts to a rather trivial matter of entertainment?
By all accounts the guy who currently plays The Stig is the SECOND guy to do so, so what the hell is the big deal about the identity anyway?
I'm not being an old misery about The Stig, but I am livid about the frivolous use of licence money for something so utterly trivial and futile. I'm sure media lawyers ain't cheap!
BBC - what a huge massive bloody rip off.... AGAIN!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11151777 - 1 September 2010 20:2568357Agreed! On all counts!
- Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
1 September 2010 21:2468368A vast amount of money spent on something that I would guess the vast majority of licence payers could not care less about.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 September 2010 21:2768369sadly there is an arrogance about the b.b.c, would be even sadder if they died out.
no other television authority makes any effort at programme making, just copying the beeb or showing live action. - 1 September 2010 23:0668376Whilst I agree with you Rick that the BBC are just playing with money that does not belong to them
and they seem to find the most trivial causes to defend , for what purpose I do not know, possibly because they know they can afford it knowing full well that they have an inexaustible supply of money which we have no choice other than to stump up on demand.
It seems a shame that the BBC seems to have a panchant for controversy, namely going to the courts to defend itself over a whistle blower who objected over the size of a severance package given under dubious circumstances.
I had to smile when I read the reason the BBC settled out of court. Apparently it was to save any more licence fees being spent on litigation and would consequently be a waste of licence fee money!!
One really ought to show our appreciation for the BBC lawyers for saving us all that cash. "How about a nice big fat cash bonus for there legal department " (that would be on top of the bonuses they already get). - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
2 September 2010 12:1168435Yep,
but if it was there own personal money would they have done it
(i mean as individual people)ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
2 September 2010 14:0768462All the publicity about this case has been nice free advertising for the book writer.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
2 September 2010 18:4168487yes but its also our moneyALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 2 September 2010 19:1168495i agree entirely with the criticism of the b.b.c. having said that i would hate to see them go into the commercial market.
without them we would never have had the great attenborough programmes and some of the dramas over the years.
they have gone down market with soaps and to a limited extent reality programmes but they still stand head and shoulders over the rest. - 2 September 2010 22:2468525The quality of the BBC programming is a matter of opinion, what is a FACT is that the BBC is basically criminalizing the simple act of watching TV if we fail to buy a licence. In reality the law states that we MUST subscribe to the BBC or face prosecution. This is utterly crap in today's mass media climate where we have endless choices of commercial or subscription channels to choose from. The BBC needs to change its model so that we can abolish the licence and have the choice to subscribe to it or not. Or they should go commercial. Either way, being forced by law to pay to watch TV in this manner is hopelessly incompatible with modern media consumption.
The talk of a computer licence is still looming, and I guarantee that the BBC will fight tooth and nail to get us to fork out for this simply because they make broadcast content available online. This is evil hijacking. The BBC should stop making the service available online or charge people to use their online services rather than introduce a licence. At the moment the hints and speculation are for pay-per-view but mark my words, the internet licence is on the agenda.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297660/The-internet-licence-fee-Viewers-watch-TV-charged-year-hints-minister.html - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
2 September 2010 22:3368526I must admit it annoys me that I am paying for 20 plus radio and TV channels when I only use three or four of them. No wonder they are always saying they need more money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 2 September 2010 22:5768535'The Sun' also likes these 'BBC are bad' stories. I can't understand why either Rupert Murdoch or the Daily Mail General Trust would want to run down this non commercial organisation. What would be in it for them?
If I watch the TV it is normally the BBC as it is does produce some amazing factual programs that are world class. They do waste money...they employ Jeremy Clarkson for a start! But all in all some of the programs they produce are unique purely because they don't have to kowtow to commercialism.
In terms of terrestrial TV compare it to ITV in terms of quality. I'm happy to pay to ensure the BBC doesn't become this awful. - 2 September 2010 23:0068538Believe me DT!, if you were stuck in Lagos for any length of time with only Nigerian or U.S. tv for company, you would let out a cry of relief when JC appeared on the screen. If only because it meant Top Gear was on!
- 2 September 2010 23:0568542I have to admit I'm not really into cars so I'm already at a loss. You may be right...but I think I would rather just give up TV altogether. I think he writes for The Sun. Perhaps he could do a compare and contrast piece between his employers.