Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

daddybear

Which Would You Rather Sell The Bbc Or Forests

Recommended Posts

no contest the bbc is the biggest waste of taxoayers money ever

The BBC also, force them to stand on their own feet and take their pension liabilities with them. I wonder how long that baby would last in the private sector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not forests: "Land, they aren't building anymore of it"

Sell the BBC. We could start another network in a broom cupboard somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question

Which would you rather see sold, the BBC or the nations forests and why

Both.

The national forests were set up to ensure a secure supply of wooden pit props for our coal mines.

The BBC was nationalised as it formed a natural monopoly due to the limited bandwith available at the time.

Even if we still had coal mines we stopped using wooden pit props quite a while ago. If we want to preserve forests then we can use national park or other planning legislation. There is no sensible reason to retain control of forestry.

With the current availabilty of bandwidth, and the decline in the BBC's share of viewing, the best thing would be to sell the whole lot off immediately and allow them to use advertising and subscription revenue like everybody else. With their back catalogue they would thrive. If there really is a need for the state to provide speciaist programming then let it be commissioned from the cheapest bidder as needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC also, force them to stand on their own feet and take their pension liabilities with them. I wonder how long that baby would last in the private sector?

Just imagine how shit it would be if it weren't for the bbc. Those sky muppets would probably try and charge for sky and have masses of adverts. Murdoch wants to start charging for web news sites. No bbc and it might be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine how shit it would be if it weren't for the bbc. Those sky muppets would probably try and charge for sky and have masses of adverts. Murdoch wants to start charging for web news sites. No bbc and it might be possible.

:lol:

If it had to be only one of them, then I'd suggest the BBC. If they didn't ape ITV and instead produced novel programs and their news wasn't so completely biased I'd have a different view, as I think there is a role for an apolitical non-corporate sponsored broadcaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

If it had to be only one of them, then I'd suggest the BBC. If they didn't ape ITV and instead produced novel programs and their news wasn't so completely biased I'd have a different view, as I think there is a role for an apolitical non-corporate sponsored broadcaster.

They (BBC) do need a good hard slap for their reporting of house prices. They do seem to have decided falling house prices are a bad thing. Just googled who does Location Location Location. Chanel four. If it wasn't for their other efforts to entertain us, I would say, prepare the firing squad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is questions like this that make me understand Aristotle's view on democracy.

just how many BBC hating, daily mail/Murdoch reading imbeciles are there on this forum? - please own up so I can set you baboons to ignore

Not me. I hate the bbc and the daily mail, and in that order as at least I dont need to pay Murdoch to read newspapers he doesn't own.

ps why dont you **** off and find a find a forum of like minded bbc lovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't sell either. Too many daily mail readers on here. The BBC costs very little and provides radio, web and tv just 6 music alone is worth the licence fee.

People moan about the licence fee but compare that to what sky charges each month just for trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine how shit it would be if it weren't for the bbc. Those sky muppets would probably try and charge for sky and have masses of adverts. Murdoch wants to start charging for web news sites. No bbc and it might be possible.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Perhaps it would be a good excuse to stop my wife watch x-factor coming dancing brother strictly or whatever it's called. Perhaps she could read a book and let me get on with reading a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't sell either. Too many daily mail readers on here. The BBC costs very little and provides radio, web and tv just 6 music alone is worth the licence fee.

People moan about the licence fee but compare that to what sky charges each month just for trash.

...I don't pay the licence fee to get PRAVDA..... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither, socialize the losses,we bail them out. They continue with bonuses and buy our forests and our industries off us with our own money. Disgusting theft and so transparent.

Why many on here fall to see this is the cause of the deficit and not the public sector workers is beyond me. Sure there has been some waste,however, the majority of the deficit has been caused by the after effect of bailing out the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither, socialize the losses,we bail them out. They continue with bonuses and buy our forests and our industries off us with our own money. Disgusting theft and so transparent.

Why many on here fall to see this is the cause of the deficit and not the public sector workers is beyond me. Sure there has been some waste,however, the majority of the deficit has been caused by the after effect of bailing out the banks.

...Bank bail out figures are not included in the deficit ...which was running before the bail out..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question

Which would you rather see sold, the BBC or the nations forests and why

Are you the real Daddy Bear? He of awesome signature fame?

And get rid of the BBC and take that troll on 'tother page with it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes true but without these revenues we would never have built up the pb sector to such an extent, no? I am not saying this justifies it at all.

Cuts need to be made to.an extent. However to blame public sector workers as many on here do is.very unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes true but without these revenues we would never have built up the pb sector to such an extent, no? I am not saying this justifies it at all.

Cuts need to be made to.an extent. However to blame public sector workers as many on here do is.very unfair.

...Brown under Labour grew the public sector which is why we have a deficit worse than most third world countries.....we are heading towards bankruptcy and therefore to state 'cuts need to be made' is the understatement of the millenium.... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too late for cuts, we are past this. We are heading for hyper and then a default. We need to stand together public/ private sector are all just trying to protect their standards of living. We need to start planning for the future not splitting hairs about the past/present .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too late for cuts, we are past this. We are heading for hyper and then a default. We need to stand together public/ private sector are all just trying to protect their standards of living. We need to start planning for the future not splitting hairs about the past/present .

...Gordo waged a scorched earth policy against us which hasn't been seen since Attila the Hun attacked Europe from the East....we need to throw away the UK credit cards and start living within our means which will require major cutbacks to move forward....in the global market place we need to get smart and that starts with not spending what we don't have.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guilty.

Likewise.

If I could have the BBC channels disabled and not pay the license fee then I would do it right now.

Sell the BBC would be my vote. I don't watch state media and would be glad if wifey couldn't have those bloody nurse programmes on too :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is questions like this that make me understand Aristotle's view on democracy.

just how many BBC hating, daily mail/Murdoch reading imbeciles are there on this forum? - please own up so I can set you baboons to ignore

Indeed. I like the HPC website but the forum content tends to make me sad at the drivel spouted by the right wingers on it. If we didn't have the BBC we wouldn't have decent TV, probably the best site on the Internet, decent radio and a flagship organisation that's been in place for years. I'm sorry, but public service broadcasting - the BBC - is far, far better value for money than Sky ever will be. How can you compare the licence fee charge and the value it brings compared to what you'd have to pay for Sky to receive a tenth of the quality of service?

Sometimes people don't like the BBC because in the main, it *is* impartial. You only have to compare BBC News Channel with Sky News for a half-hour to understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I like the HPC website but the forum content tends to make me sad at the drivel spouted by the right wingers on it. If we didn't have the BBC we wouldn't have decent TV, probably the best site on the Internet, decent radio and a flagship organisation that's been in place for years. I'm sorry, but public service broadcasting - the BBC - is far, far better value for money than Sky ever will be. How can you compare the licence fee charge and the value it brings compared to what you'd have to pay for Sky to receive a tenth of the quality of service?

Sometimes people don't like the BBC because in the main, it *is* impartial. You only have to compare BBC News Channel with Sky News for a half-hour to understand that.

I do not see why anyone that dislikes the BBC has to be a drivel spouting right winger. Why can people not have opposing views without being denigrated?

I would agree that the BBC is better value than sky. Personally, I do not have sky, cancelled it 2 years ago because of the lack of value.

I am not sure that I could stretch to the BBC being responsible for descent tv, radio or websites though. May be tv as it led the way but times have changed.

I do not agree that having a PC chocolate box of presenters with received pronunciation makes the news service impartial either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but public service broadcasting - the BBC - is far, far better value for money than Sky ever will be

Then people will freely continue to pay for it after it's privatised. Clearly they're willing to pay for Sky even though it apparently provides a lousy service, so the BBC will clean up once there's free competition in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 143 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.