Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator
- Thread starter fidget
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
ooh wiki quote!
what countries and how much do they pay in comparison?
encrypt channels and let me pay for content if I want it and this way we do not have to fund political correct rubbish
Last edited:
I'm happy to pay... £10-15 a month is nothing considering what the BBC offers across the board. And remember, not all that money is just for the BBC. Some of it is for general broadcasting infostructure etc.
A lot of programs the BBC offers I fear would vanish if advertising came about...
Thanks very much,he's been on before, seems a naturally funny man.
When I lived in Germany it was around 150 Euros, and the channel selection was a lot worse than we get on Freeview. I just looked now and it's gone up to €215 since I left. We have it good here, believe me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
why is because they are not popular enough to attract advertising?
pay a inferstructure fee but not fund the programming they current do it should be made to stand on merit not on the back of a compulsory tax
Last edited:
Because commercial channels advertising companies have a HUGE say about what they will pay for their ads to be next too.
So certain shows will not be made to bring in revenue, which is usually really crap shows that appeal to a certain age range etc.
If you want to see this in full effect, watch any US station for one hour, you'll want to kill yourself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
I never seem to watch BBC channels they just don't cater for my tastes but then again I dont watch much tv anyway
Apart from Never mind the Buzzcocks, Dr Who, Question Time and Top Gear. I don't watch any BBC channels/programmes anymore either. If they had to be self-finance then i doubt any of the shows i list would go as they're the BBC biggest sellers abroad anyway
Unfortunately, not the case for the non-main stream TV, radio and web material.
+1 how people can watch our tv is mind numbing
It's looking a lot like many of them did come forward - the Torygraph is talking about multiple police investigations. But guess what: the evidence wasn't there, because Savile had far more clout than the victims. What about victims at Broadmoor? Who's going to believe them? Look what happens on these very forums when a story gets out of a footballer accused of rape: the thread fills up with people saying it must just be a gold-digger. The fact is, most abuse victims are not believed, even though there's very little evidence of such accusations being fabricated: the vast majority appear to be true. Many others are cowed, or bribed into silence. It seems the only way to be believed is to be abused by Asians. And even then, at first.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,515
- Location
- Warwickshire
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
TV commissioned only on the basis of popularity would be a very very bad thing. Unless you want to just watch X Factor, Britains Got Talent and Eastenders?
What IS interesting about the Savile issue is that afaik no woman is known as yet to have had sexual relations with him when of legal age, now that IS odd, does this mean every time this man had a sexual urge he indulged himself in what is now transpiring?
On the BBC, IMHO the BBC is awesome, quality programmes AND Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone, nothing else like it.
On the BBC, IMHO the BBC is awesome, quality programmes AND Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone, nothing else like it.
In the current climate I don't think any woman would want to admit having legal sex with him.
