BBC, Value for money?

I'm not sure what you mean.
one of the driving tinfoil theories of the far right - about whites being replaced; surveys and promotion of the countryside to BAME persons is currently one of their biggest paranoias - so mention of white working class being included is at odds with their narrative
 
That is about French far right.

I thought Countryfile on the BBC was about Britain.
 
Anyway a bit more on topic , this particular tweet doesn’t seem to be one to beat the BBC with as its based on a DEFRA report . You can argue that BAME groups should have nothing to fear from the countryside But unfortunately it seems they do feel that fear or lack of inclusion. Therefore perfectly legitimate for countryfile to comment on it .

It does no harm to anyone to bring it to the fore
 
That is about French far right.
No, it's the whole bunch of them in Europe (including UK) and US. I presume you didn't scroll down that Wikipedia page. Regardless, I knew the various movements here and abroad long before seeing a Wikipedia description. Also known as identitarianism, which sounds cute and cuddly compared to supremacy.
 
I worked for a County Council and during the 1990's. I was asked to do some work for The Countryside Commission who wanted to know why so few BAME people visit The Countryside. So I got in touch with 200+ BAME community groups and asked them to get their members to each complete a survey, we got back more than 2000 questionnaires. The biggest reason given for why BAME people didn't visit the Countryside was feeling unsafe because they thought they might be racially attacked. The second reason was BAME people said they didn't know 'how to use The Countryside'. Not knowing where to go, what to do was also the main reason given by lower income white people for not visiting, a group The Countryside Commission wanted information about, so we did a separate survey for that group as well.

The general idea is that no one really knows were they are going. It's meant to be an adventure.

Yes there is a countryside code of conduct, read up on it, plan a route etc. If you go in the wrong field, you'll be pointed in the right direction. If people bring the city swagger they'll be told off.
Racially attacked by whom, a white rabbit, a pheasant. It's not Lord of the Rings is it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By ? :

1593442857951.png
 
I've been out in the countryside and it's true what they say.

It's like Deliverance out there.
 
The general idea is that no one really knows were they are going. It's meant to be an adventure.

Yes there is a countryside code of conduct, read up on it, plan a route etc. If you go in the wrong field, you'll be pointed in the right direction. If people bring the city swagger they'll be told off.
Racially attacked by whom, a white rabbit, a pheasant. It's not Lord of the Rings is it.

I know that, you know that but obviously the message isnt getting through to certain groups
 
The true cost of commercial TV is laid bare in this article about the effect the governments proposed ban on junk food ads before the watershed could have on ITV revenue:

UK junk food ad ban 'could force deep cuts on TV channels'

In order to provide 'free' telly ITV and other commercial companies rely on advertising and whereas previously that advertising was made up of cigarettes and alcohol it now relies on promoting junk food and gambling.

The costs to the nation of junk food in relation to personal health, obesity, diabetes, chronic heart and circulatory conditions and the costs and burden to the NHS is huge and affects us all and that's before you even look at the increased cost of advertised products which we all pay for.

Is the 'BBC, Value for money?'. Yes.
 
Arguing that the BBC is value for money by commenting on some of the the wrongs of commercial television revenue streams is like saying that chicken is tastier as it has less fat content than pork.
But have you ever eaten a chicken sausage?
:(
 
This just about sums it up for me.
Just watched the news on BBC1 and after it they've spent 7 minutes advertising BBC shows. Can they not put on 7 minutes of third party commercials instead and I won't have to pay their tax! The BBC is most def not commercial free. It's just free of everyone else's commercials.
 
No, it's not value for money for me. The only thing they put out that I would miss is Test Match Special. None of the other radio output or anything on any of their TV channels would cause me to shed a tear if I never experienced it again.
 
Interested by the recent news about a ‘Question of Sport’.

On the face of it, it looks like Sue Barker, Matt Dawson and Phil Tufnell have been sacked - in that they haven’t naturally chosen to move on and have been replaced, in fact they have all stated that they wanted to stay on.

And it sounds like the ‘new direction‘ is to replace them with more diversity which means younger, female, BAME.

Be interesting to know whether kicking Sue, Matt and Phil out requires big compensation payouts for breach of contract - because as far as I can tell the roles are remaining apart from illegal discrimination requirements like “must be BAME”, ”must be younger”, “must be female”. Possibly they are on rolling annual contracts that don‘t have to be renewed - in which case that is a employment law issue.

But on another side. I was watching it yesterday, it is not a programme I often watch but I do dip in now and then.

One thing that always strikes me is the breadth of the sporting knowledge that Matt and Phil have. I’m not that into sport myself so I am quite amazed by how much they know - often the guests are just into their specialist sport leaving Matt and Phil to handle everything else.

I can’t imagine they are going to be very easy to replace.

It will be interesting to see how the experiment works. One of the stated primary aims is that the QoS audience is old and they want to encourage young BAME females to watch - will that happen, doubt it, suspect it is another case of trying to pamper to an audience sector that isn’t interested and never will be interested in the programme and disenchanting the loyal following that they already have.

I am already hearing a lot of displeasure about how Sue Barker (arguably one of the licence payers‘ biggest treasures) is being treated.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Interested by the recent news about a ‘Question of Sport’.

On the face of it, it looks like Sue Barker, Matt Dawson and Phil Tufnell have been sacked - in that they haven’t naturally chosen to move on and have been replaced, in fact they have all stated that they wanted to stay on.

And it sounds like the ‘new direction‘ is to replace them with more diversity which means younger, female, BAME.

Be interesting to know whether kicking Sue, Matt and Phil out requires big compensation payouts for breach of contract - because as far as I can tell the roles are remaining apart from illegal discrimination requirements like “must be BAME”, ”must be younger”, “must be female”. Possibly they are on rolling annual contracts that don‘t have to be renewed - in which case that is a employment law issue.

But on another side. I was watching it yesterday, it is not a programme I often watch but I do dip in now and then.

One thing that always strikes me is the breadth of the sporting knowledge that Matt and Phil have. I’m not that into sport myself so I am quite amazed by how much they know - often the guests are just into their specialist sport leaving Matt and Phil to handle everything else.

I can’t imagine they are going to be very easy to replace.

It will be interesting to see how the experiment works. One of the stated primary aims is that the QoS audience is old and they want to encourage young BAME females to watch - will that happen, doubt it, suspect it is another case of trying to pamper to an audience sector that isn’t interested and never will be interested in the programme and disenchanting the loyal following that they already have.

I am already hearing a lot of displeasure about how Sue Barker (arguably one of the licence payers‘ biggest treasures) is being treated.

Cheers,

Nigel

Aren't they all non-employees at the BBC so they can avoid a lot of tax - like footballers. I doubt they have any particular employment rights so it will be down to the terms of the business-to-business contract.
 
Indeed, its almost like the BBC are trying to disenfranchise as many of their core audience as possible in the hope to attract a new younger more inclusive one. In this case its a shot in the foot imo. The result is an increase of frustration, annoyance and disbelief by the massive majority of licence fee payers. The UK as a percentage has around 12.9% of its population made up of BAME people or those who do not identify as white British (as of the 2011 Census) but the BBC at present has a larger percentage of BAME presenters than is the national average. I believe they are looking to increase this to around 14.2%. I have no issues with this but I wonder what percentage behind the scenes are BAME. I would hazard a guess that its much lower than the national percentage in higher/executive positions within the BBC, ditto for non public schooled white people. I firmly believe that the BBC are doing a very good job on their own in turning public opinion against them irrespective of the #defundthebbc lobby.
Let them get on with it.
As for the current QoS presenters I think their contracts were up for renewal as I believe they were contracted as self employed negating the BBC from falling foul regarding the ageism at work employment laws?


www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/124255/bbc1-bbc2-diversity-monitoring.pdf

www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/03/bbc-staff-diversity-trevor-phillips
 
Last edited:
We no longer watch live TV, big dish is sold, cancelling the license this week. I can rest easy knowing I'm not contributing to the shambles that is the BBC.

Happy days! 👍
 
Interested by the recent news about a ‘Question of Sport’.

On the face of it, it looks like Sue Barker, Matt Dawson and Phil Tufnell have been sacked - in that they haven’t naturally chosen to move on and have been replaced, in fact they have all stated that they wanted to stay on.

And it sounds like the ‘new direction‘ is to replace them with more diversity which means younger, female, BAME.

Be interesting to know whether kicking Sue, Matt and Phil out requires big compensation payouts for breach of contract - because as far as I can tell the roles are remaining apart from illegal discrimination requirements like “must be BAME”, ”must be younger”, “must be female”. Possibly they are on rolling annual contracts that don‘t have to be renewed - in which case that is a employment law issue.

But on another side. I was watching it yesterday, it is not a programme I often watch but I do dip in now and then.

One thing that always strikes me is the breadth of the sporting knowledge that Matt and Phil have. I’m not that into sport myself so I am quite amazed by how much they know - often the guests are just into their specialist sport leaving Matt and Phil to handle everything else.

I can’t imagine they are going to be very easy to replace.

It will be interesting to see how the experiment works. One of the stated primary aims is that the QoS audience is old and they want to encourage young BAME females to watch - will that happen, doubt it, suspect it is another case of trying to pamper to an audience sector that isn’t interested and never will be interested in the programme and disenchanting the loyal following that they already have.

I am already hearing a lot of displeasure about how Sue Barker (arguably one of the licence payers‘ biggest treasures) is being treated.

Cheers,

Nigel

The change from established presenters to new ones is always a bit anguish inducing but it's entirely understandable and there's probably the same feeling now as when Sue Barker came on-board.

They have another series to produce then it's a move to a new team. The BBC will have monitored viewing figures and demographics and have probably decided to make a change now to make the programme viable long-term before a decline sets in.

You have to be getting on a bit to know who Sue Barker & Co. are. She may well be given other projects to work on and you still see her on tennis coverage. She may well have said she didn't want to continue.
 
Indeed, its almost like the BBC are trying to disenfranchise as many of their core audience as possible in the hope to attract a new younger more inclusive one. In this case its a shot in the foot imo. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and the result is an increase of frustration, annoyance and disbelief by the massive majority of licence fee payers. The UK as a percentage has around 3.8% of its population made up of BAME people (as of 2018) but the BBC at present has a larger percentage of BAME presenters than is the national average. I believe they are looking to increase this to over 30%? I have no issues with this but I wonder what percentage behind the scenes are BAME. I would hazard to guess its much lower than the national percentage in higher/executive positions within the BBC. I firmly believe that the BBC are doing a very good job on their own in turning public opinion against them irrespective of the #defundthebbc lobby.
Let them get on with it.
As for the current QoS presenters I think their contracts were up for renewal as I believe they were contracted as self employed negating the BBC from falling foul regarding the ageism at work employment laws?


I think it's more about bringing the programme forward for a new audience that is younger and to give it a fresh look.

Sue Barker & Co are amazing but you need to be a certain age to know who they are.
 
The change from established presenters to new ones is always a bit anguish inducing but it's entirely understandable and there's probably the same feeling now as when Sue Barker came on-board.

They have another series to produce then it's a move to a new team. The BBC will have monitored viewing figures and demographics and have probably decided to make a change now to make the programme viable long-term before a decline sets in.

You have to be getting on a bit to know who Sue Barker & Co. are. She may well be given other projects to work on and you still see her on tennis coverage. She may well have said she didn't want to continue.
I have no idea why you're angered at my post. I don't watch sky etc so I don't subscribe because its shite.
Unfortunately if I think the BBC is shite I have to take drastic steps to stop funding it.
 
This just about sums it up for me.
Just watched the news on BBC1 and after it they've spent 7 minutes advertising BBC shows. Can they not put on 7 minutes of third party commercials instead and I won't have to pay their tax! The BBC is most def not commercial free. It's just free of everyone else's commercials.
You are referring to programme trails so people are aware of new programming and what's coming up on the channel. Even commercial TV does it and then they add the real commercials on top.

The real commercials - those things that blast out at a sound level higher than the programmes themselves and interrupt programmes every few minutes.

Programme trails only occur between programmes and never interrupt them.
 
I have no idea why you're angered at my post. I don't watch sky etc so I don't subscribe because its sh*te.
Unfortunately if I think the BBC is sh*te I have to take drastic steps to stop funding it.

The BBC is a resource for the country and is not about individual viewing preferences - it's far more than a few TV stations. The TV licence funds a huge amount more than the BBC TV channels and that is largely forgotten or misunderstood by many.
 
The BBC is a resource for the country and is not about individual viewing preferences - it's far more than a few TV stations. The TV licence funds a huge amount more than the BBC TV channels and that is largely forgotten or misunderstood by many.
Sorry, not something I want to pay for or care about.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom