peter palmer
Screwfix Select
I'm not sure why so many people don't know the laws regarding the TV licence. From the TV licensing's own website
BBC bias
- Thread starter Harry Stottle
- Start date
I'm not sure why so many people don't know the laws regarding the TV licence. From the TV licensing's own website
kitfit1
Screwfix Select
As PP has pointed out above, it's you that are wrong i'm afraid. In fact, it's not the TV that has a license at all, but the address the license is registered to. That's why if you change address you need to tell TV Licensing.
Interesting. I suspect that things have been changed and to be honest if some one doesn't pay a license fee and avoids it that way I would be annoyed as I do and that is what pays for the programs and the service.
Yes should have said address not TV.
I have been asked if we have a license via iplayer. Happened a couple of weeks ago. My wife spends hours catching up on an ipad and often as beeb drama's etc last maybe 1hr we often skip to watch 2 on the trot via catchup. I also use it for press green to watch from the beginning.
Yes should have said address not TV.I have been asked if we have a license via iplayer. Happened a couple of weeks ago. My wife spends hours catching up on an ipad and often as beeb drama's etc last maybe 1hr we often skip to watch 2 on the trot via catchup. I also use it for press green to watch from the beginning.
peter palmer
Screwfix Select
Interesting. I suspect that things have been changed and to be honest if some one doesn't pay a license fee and avoids it that way I would be annoyed as I do and that is what pays for the programs and the service.
I have been asked if we have a license via iplayer. Happened a couple of weeks ago. My wife spends hours catching up on an ipad and often as beeb drama's etc last maybe 1hr we often skip to watch 2 on the trot via catchup. I also use it for press green to watch from the beginning.
I haven't paid the licence fee for 20 years or so, I don't watch live TV or iplayer but do watch loads of other stuff like Youtube, Prime, ITV catchup etc etc. Are you suggesting that I should morally pay it so you can continue to watch the BBC.
Afraid I do. I wonder if you have seen any other counties domestic none commercial TV channel. The reason for the difference is the license fee. What they do also influences what other channels do and show to compete.
Pity about "reality" TV though. That and endless hours of news is done to keep costs down. It's cheap.John
-
longboat
Screwfix Select
I still pay the fee by direct debit every month although i very rarely watch any live broadcast TV whatsoever.
Just like you its all prime, youtube, and Netflix these days.
There's only the four yearly world cup when i do watch any live broadcast.
I think the BBC cash cow is going to face a seriously high hurdle in the coming decades as most of the 'Younger generation' ( under 30) don't even know what that mysterious 'old school' port on the back of a TV is for. Let alone use it.
peter palmer
Screwfix Select
Afraid I do. I wonder if you have seen any other counties domestic none commercial TV channel. The reason for the difference is the license fee. What they do also influences what other channels do and show to compete.
John
-
There are literally thousands of causes I could voluntary donate to to keep them going, what makes the BBC so special, is it more deserving than cancer research for example?
The licence fee is a minimum amount you should pay, as a customer of their's you can always donate more if you think they are going to go under.
I know a number of under 30's that watch all channels that show what interests them and that always includes the usual ones. They have never head of some channels that are only on Freeview.
There is an interesting statistic concerning TV UK style. That's the uptake of video recorders when they were introduced. It went close to one per household. Way higher than other countries as we do have something worth watching.
Beeb's future. Given free market views I suspect along with channel 4 they will be sold if some political party thinks they can get away with it. If the license fee is kept too low program content will worsen and that will reflect on other channels as well and viewing figures will drop. Must admit though I was surprised by how many younger people watch and talk about reality TV. "Reality", well it's get some unusual people and see what happens.
Nothing real about it at all.I don't think that the BBC is biased but would say they are far more like the rest of the herd now. They used to be a highly respected source of accurate news - problem with that is it might make peoples head hurt so it's dumbed down to help viewing figures. Same has happened with what might be called educational programs.
When I hear people say they never watch it I always ask "You really never ever watch it ?????????? " Reminds me of a friend that said much the same - went round one day and guess what was on. Never changed to hardly ever. Afraid I still wonder how often hardly ever is.
John
=
I know the BBC are biased.
In fact regarding news and documentary programmes it has been often said by many people to use other news - like ITV or other media to get closer to the truth.
When your area becomes a political story you will find the BBC often produces stories with a political bias
In fact regarding news and documentary programmes it has been often said by many people to use other news - like ITV or other media to get closer to the truth.
When your area becomes a political story you will find the BBC often produces stories with a political bias
peter palmer
Screwfix Select
Its what they dont mention as much as what they do that gets me, take the EU election, everyone elses headline was the brexit party runs away with it, the BBC headline was LIB DEMS have done quite well.
What sticks out for me recently though was the MEN arena bombing, there was confusion at first but after a few hours all the main stories were about a terrorism attack, except the BBC who still had the headline "potential speaker explosion..." as if their little friends could do no wrong. I'm a Manc and for that alone the BBC can go and **** itself, they will never get a penny out of me, the utter contemptible pieces of ****.
What sticks out for me recently though was the MEN arena bombing, there was confusion at first but after a few hours all the main stories were about a terrorism attack, except the BBC who still had the headline "potential speaker explosion..." as if their little friends could do no wrong. I'm a Manc and for that alone the BBC can go and **** itself, they will never get a penny out of me, the utter contemptible pieces of ****.
DIY0001
Active Member
In fairness, I don't think that was bias as much a covering their back-sides, and not reporting something until they were sure of the facts. Other broadcasters report well before facts have been confirmed, often in error. I recall a similar situation after Princess Diana's death more than 20 years ago. I had been out most of that day and, on returning home late at night I switched on the TV to quickly catch up on the news on "teletext" - remember that?
Anyway, seconds before switching off and expecting to go to bed, an Oracle page flashed up on the ITV teletext service that mentioned the crash in Paris and that she was completely OK but her partner had been killed. There was nothing about the incident on the BBC teletext service for hours. Anyway, I thought that it was a bit unlikely that she would be perfectly unharmed if others were killed, so I logged into various online news rooms. Someone posted a password to access the Reuters real time news feed, so I logged into that. Reuters were already getting reports from the Paris police and hospital doctors that she was dead - unofficial statements at that time. I was interested in seeing how the information flowed through the various media so I set up 3 TVs showing BBC, ITV and Sky News. About three hours later, Dermot Murnaghan announced her death on ITV, followed a few minutes later by Sky News. However it wasn't until about 4 hours after that, well into the Sunday morning, that the BBC acknowledged she was dead. There are a lot of explanations for that delay, such as getting senior authorisation/approval, time to check facts independently etc. but I wouldn't say that "bias" is one of them.I don't dispute that the BBC are biased though, sometimes subtly but at other times completely blatant. One example was their reporting of the Brexit referendum results which, irrespective of what side you were on, was blatant bias. I was fortunate enough to be on holiday at the time and was 8 hours behind UK time but watched the results come in on BBC World News during my early evening. On several occasions throughout that broadcast the BBC's allegedly independent David Dimbleby referred to early results as coming from "less educated parts of the country" and expecting the lead to change when constituencies in the better educated home counties declared their results. Worse still, he actually repeated the statement immediately after the results were announced from a constituency that I know includes the second highest concentration of science graduates and doctorates in Europe! It was clear from that broadcast that Dimbleby and his BBC colleagues don't consider anyone with scientific and technical qualifications as "educated"! I stopped watching Question Time after that because Dimbleby was just a "fake independent" chair.
Fortunately "Dumbleby", as I referred to him afterwards, has gone now but the BBC bias extends to complete "dumbing down" of almost all of their reports on anything technical. I recently had to cringe through a Will Gompertz report on restoration of some artwork when he explained that the restorer used "an infrared light" to point out areas on the work. Infrared light is, by definition, invisible to human beings. Consequently using an infrared light would be completely useless for the purpose Gompertz was reporting unless, perhaps, he isn't human at all. The restorer was actually using a simple red laser pointer: Gompertz just wanted to use some more flowery language in his report, and the fact that it was rendered technical nonsense was irrelevant to both him and his BBC masters.
It is little wonder that UK industry struggles to find enough science and technology educated recruits when the BBC peddle such ignorance of the topics, indeed they actively promote deep pride in that ignorance!
That IS bias at the BBC; CLASS bias!
I think claims about BBC news bias are a bit misguided. Dimbleby and other similar are a different matter. I'm thinking of one foreign gent in particular that's far worse. Often they give their own personal bias based on what they believe. That sort of broadcast often doesn't elaborate on anything. Personally I found the real statistics on the out voters interesting. A good example of the Dimbleby effect was the PM debate. The lady that ran that got what she wanted - good telly. On the other hand it did demonstrate some aspects about the people in it.
Personally my source of news is BBC and C4. C4's is longer so more analysis and personally I don't think that it's bent, just informative. I get a bit fed up of them trying to get some one to say something they shouldn't but have to admit it usually happens when they aren't going to get anything of interest anyway just the usual mantras on any subject that might come up especially with politicians.
I also watch RT news now and again but not very often. Interesting channel. Sometimes the only bias is the fact that they are broadcasting it and no one else does. Some clearly has a Russian influence especially the programs in between the news but not always - sort of Dimbleby effect again.
Many people might not know but BBC was initially granted a 2nd channel providing they spent some time educating people. They did a pretty good job of it what ever the subject was. I sometimes wonder if this was what steered me into my career in an odd sort of way. LOL On the other hand I did some odd things even before I went to school. Anyway I think they should still do that but instead we get some Prof etc who is wonderful etc and wont make the slightest attempt to explain anything. Perhaps it's because they feel it might bore us or go totally over our heads.
A lot of problems with TV though is money just like the NHS. Even the ones that use advertising to get it.
John
-
Personally I found the real statistics on the out voters interesting. A good example of the Dimbleby effect was the PM debate. The lady that ran that got what she wanted - good telly. On the other hand it did demonstrate some aspects about the people in it.Personally my source of news is BBC and C4. C4's is longer so more analysis and personally I don't think that it's bent, just informative. I get a bit fed up of them trying to get some one to say something they shouldn't but have to admit it usually happens when they aren't going to get anything of interest anyway just the usual mantras on any subject that might come up especially with politicians.
I also watch RT news now and again but not very often. Interesting channel. Sometimes the only bias is the fact that they are broadcasting it and no one else does. Some clearly has a Russian influence especially the programs in between the news but not always - sort of Dimbleby effect again.
Many people might not know but BBC was initially granted a 2nd channel providing they spent some time educating people. They did a pretty good job of it what ever the subject was.
I sometimes wonder if this was what steered me into my career in an odd sort of way. LOL On the other hand I did some odd things even before I went to school. Anyway I think they should still do that but instead we get some Prof etc who is wonderful etc and wont make the slightest attempt to explain anything. Perhaps it's because they feel it might bore us or go totally over our heads.A lot of problems with TV though is money just like the NHS. Even the ones that use advertising to get it.
John
-
peter palmer
Screwfix Select
I'm not saying some people are not biased but you get much more news from independent reports from places like twitter or obscure video sites. There are videos knocking about one some sites that the BBC or SKY news would never dream of showing in a million years. One particular site I do look at occasionally is vidmax or liveleak. I'm sure they've got their own agendas but sometimes you see videos on there and think my god, how come no-one else has reported this yet.
DIY0001
Active Member
The trouble with those sites is that there is just too much nonsense and false reports on them. Not to mention Twitter being frequented by the orange nutter from the other side of the pond.
I love how Leavers always use the royal we, when it's a fact they can't agree anything amongst themselves - hence the sorry state of Parliament.
But I tell you what - mr loser. Why don't YOU list one positive aspect to leaving the EU - i.e something that will make the lives of British people better - just one that isn't either a total lie, a unicorn, or just complete twaddle.
I've asked the question a LOT in the last 3 years and still to hear a good answer.
But I tell you what - mr loser. Why don't YOU list one positive aspect to leaving the EU - i.e something that will make the lives of British people better - just one that isn't either a total lie, a unicorn, or just complete twaddle.
I've asked the question a LOT in the last 3 years and still to hear a good answer.
Hans_25
Screwfix Select
Pay a lot less to the EU once we leave.
No more free loaders from the U.K. involved with Europe taking huge sums part of which we paid.
Being more independent.
Reducing greatly the German control on us.
Oh, and having mostly the same benefits we currently have within the EU once we leave.
(You don’t seriously think the EU want to, or can afford to make us an outsider with different rules and thus reduce the money we give to the EU or advantages to EU citizens even further, - do you?)
Another point, - Since when did the Remainers agree amongst themselves, or not be members of parliament?
Note that many in parliament are actually Remainers.
Where are they though? Split between Labour and Tory and Lib Dems. Hardly very united!
