sotonjoe

I'm not aware of the exact profits that Walking with Dinosaurs made the BBC no, but when the BBC aren't currently supposed to be a commercial enterprise, and you're supposedly in favour of it remaining so, I'm not sure why the profitability of a particular show is relevant to your case. Whether the show was popular with other or not is irrelevant as my argument is based upon the fact the British public are still effectively paying another tax to support a national broadcaster without choice. The system remains archaic and outdated, especially when many of us are now already taking out additional subscription based services. I'm not sure what evidence you can cite in favour of your implication that the BBC uses a high risk strategy in comparison to other broadcasters when it comes to its programming. It sounds like something of a generalisation to me. If you had a list of innovative, ground breaking shows that the BBC make then perhaps you'd have a case, but the fact is that the BBC have dumbed down in recent years as much as any other broadcaster and now produly boast show titles such as "**** off I'm fat!" etc. I'd be interested to hear what BBC shows you watch on a regular basis, obviously you watch a lot of them and that's why you feel it's good value for money. I find little to watch, hence why I object to paying yet another tax for the service.

Don't be naive. I know what a commercial is, my point was that the BBC is not devoid of advertising as many people say. The fact that commercials interrupt programmes is only one of the reasons why people say advertising is annoying and, to be fair, I quite like a kettle / toilet break so I can't see what the harm is in that respect. The fact that the BBC trail there own shows between shows and, more importantly, employs covert advertising tactics on their news channel and also on their website, means they are not nearly as advertising free as people make out.

I'd be interested to see the tide gradually turn on here if we kept losing. I wonder how many of the 'give him time' people would have changed their tune if we'd lost the first ten games? I too think we should be aiming for stability, but none of us, including our owners, would sit here and watch us stumble blindly towards relegation. However, performances have improved and so I would be mythed if we continued to lose for much longer. Good to see everybody has started squabbling again though.

It's interesting you should say that since Lisbon is my most disliked city I've ever visited; after Portsmouth. I thought it was a real dive, full of freaks and hawkers. It's the only place that two separate blokes have openly offered me cannabis at 10am in a central pedestrian area. Not 'brilliant' at all in my experience. The cakes and pastries on the other hand, were just about the only part of it which could be deemed brilliant.

If you'd watched the BBC for any length of time, you'd know that the 'no adverts' thing is a myth. They advertise their own shows repeatedly which is just as annoying as having to watch Cillit Bang commercials. As I'm sure I've also said, they also cheekily use their own 'news' channel to plug their own 'headline' shows time and time again. They are always going on about The Apprentice or Strictly blah blah. This kind of 'covert' advertising annoys me more than out and out advertising anyway.

Yes, and as I said, if the funds were split more evenly, then other broadcasters would have the chance to raise their game. Walking with Dinosaurs was a huge waste of money in my opinion; another waste of my licence fee. It's the kind of white elephant programming that shows the BBC has huge sums of money to splurge unnecessarily. I think people have to acknowledge, that the fact other broadcasters make low budget programmes which appeal to the lowest common denominator is because their comparatively poor funding in comparison to the BBC dictates that they must. The fact that the BBC makes some programmes says nothing about it's quality as a broadcaster, it just says that it gets a lot more money to play with.

Maybe tpbury is a job dodger whose idea of 'effort' involves lighting the 20th fag of the day and picking up the phone to order a kebab?

I'm not suggesting we opt out for specific programmes; you've misunderstood me. I believe the BBC should be commercially funded as all other broadcasters. That way we could all choose which broadcasters we subscribe to. Picking out good BBC programmes versus bad ones from ITV or any other broadcaster only confirms that the BBC have the luxury of significantly greater funding than other broadcasters. An even playing field would result in broadcasting that is of a more consistently high standard due to the competition amongst broadcasters.

There are a lot of muppet drivers out there who fail to use the appropriate speed for the conditions, i.e. not slowing down sufficiently for bends or other obstructions. In theory, reducing the speed limit is a good idea. However, there's a rather naive assumption there that the muppets would all instantly take notice and actually reduce the speed, which probably isn't going to happen. The real solution would be to shoot them all.

TBF, Oasis had gone as far as they could musically by 1995.

It's not about whether we like some of the programmes on the BBC; more that we shouldn't be forced into paying for the tat they make that we have no interest in.

The BBC should not be using a 'news' channel to advertise their Saturday night shows. End of. I think the sweeping generalisation that "people want them to" is a bit naff to be honest.

Sounds like you were slapped about so much that you lost the ability to construct a sentence. I rest my case.

Because she's covered in ****?

What has teaching boundaries got to do with slapping someone?

If you've watched the BBC News channel for any length of time, you should be disgusted at the amount of time they spend plugging their own crappy entertainment shows.

If you're happy to pay for a television show that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but you have no interest in, then there's no hope. Why have a system that has a combination of licence fee and subscription only services; surely it should be one or the other? I'd be interested to see a list of high quality bbc programming, I know "**** Off, I'm Fat" is pretty edgy, but I'm not sure why I'm obliged to pay for it.

Is this actually true?:confused:

Probably some ****ed up some slapper trying to make excuses for forgetting the word "no".

I wonder how long he would get if current form were to continue.

If you think Strictly Come Dancing is worth £11 a month, there's no hope.

You don't need to resort to violence to teach right from wrong.

eh? so nobody was assaulted?

And that was your attempt at optimism right?

Harry Redknapp is the man. He has an undisputed record of success and has achieved great things at all the clubs he has managed.