Lord Duckhunter

Without Solent sucking the life out of any competition there could have been local commercial stations that pick up and do what Solent do, only better. You compare American TV, but compare the radio. Where I was living there was a wide diveristy of stations from classical,latin, classic rock to religious, talk stations and every form of music you could throw a stick at.Not only were the local NFL side featured including indepth shows around team selections and draft picks, but the local collage games as well.It would nevere happen in the UK because BBC local Radio and it's subsidy from the taxman stops it being viable.

I lived and worked in America for 4 years so I'm well aware of their TV. NYPD Blue, Curb Your Enthusiasm,Frasier, Bilko and The Simpsons are in the top 10 of TV programmes ever made in my opinion. There's plenty of dross, but there's plenty of dross on the BBC. I've no particular "admiration" for commercial broadcasting, but admire some of ITV's drama output, Frost & Foyles war being particular favourites. Sky sports have done a fantastic job covering sport and Sky Arts have some interesting programmes. I just do not believe that it is part of a govt duties, whether red or blue to have a nationalised TV station, and I certain dont think that bankers should pay the same as cleaners and that people can be thrown in prison for refusing to pay.

I'd take him, but feel he'll go up North. Blackpool seem to pick up a few rejects,and there was talk of him going on loan earlier in the year, so I reckon he'll end up there.

Why on earth do you judge my "level" on the basis that I wish the TV licence abolished? Charles Moore a leading journalist educated at Eton and Cambridge with a BA in history, is a firm believer in it's abolishment, so much so that he was taken to court over it's payment. What level does he "exist at"? Does he not appricate the arts and culture, has he stopped learning?

It'll go within the next 30 years, because I believe that it's unsustainable in the modern world of communications. It will become harder and harder to police what people are watching and what they are watching it via.

Complete rubbish. Look at the great drama coming out of American TV and contrast that to some of the rubbish on BBC3.The BBC already aims for the lowest common denominator in it's chase for ratings. Tonight BBC 3 has "Snog, Marry Aviod?" followed by "Hotter than my Daughter",later it's "Coming of age" where DK and Robyn visit a lesbian bar in an attempt to get Robyn into the gay dating scene. No dumbing down there then.Why should my hard earned money be spent on that rubbish or for a handful of people to watch a programme on quantum physics? And why should I face imprisonment for not paying? If the BBC is so great, then charge for it, and let the public decide if it's worth the money. One thing is for sure, they would soon have to face the real world or start losing millions of pounds worth of revenue.

If it's a tax then surely it should be linked to your ability to pay. Quite clearly there are certain things that a Govt has to collect taxes for and certain things that the Govt have to provide. A police force, health service and education being 3 of them. I dont think they should be providing us with TV stations in 2011, if programmes aren't commercially viable then they shouldn't be made. Why should my hard earned money go on paying for programmes that not enough people will watch to make it viable?

One man's bias is another man's impartiality. A report is an entirely different thing, especially when it's commissioned by the BBC itself, and a year in the making. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece I'm still yet to read a post that mounts a decent defence against the TV Poll Tax and why I should have to pay for a BBC that I find biased and a waste of my money. When the police were found institutionally racist the lefties had a field day. When the BBC is found to be institutionally biased not a peep.

I find plenty of programmes biased, but my personal opinion is not the point. The point is my lack of choice in paying a TV Poll Tax even if I never watch a BBC programme and the fact that this tax is not linked to anyones ability to pay.You like the BBC, that's fine, you pay for it. I dont expect you to pay for my Sky Sports package.I find it quite bizzare that in 2011 I can be thrown in jail even if I never watch the BBC.

How selective is yours? "I've found someone who admits the BBC "WAS" biased towards the left, The Director General Mark Thompson" Can I get a refund on my licence fee for the period it broke it's charter?

I've found someone who admits the BBC was biased towards the left, The Director General Mark Thompson http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23873043-bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-left-wing-bias.do For lefties to want me to pay a TV poll tax as some sort of balance against News International is bizzare. Perhaps we should have a national newspaper to counter The Sun and Times. Even if you dont read it, you can be sent to jail for not paying for the "The National Daily". I keep reading how wonderful the BBC is, what great value for money it is, and how people love it. Then pay for it via a subscripition. I can then make a decision as to whther I want to spend my money on it or not. At present the only choice I have is: pay it, dont watch any channels, or go to jail. I would have thought a tax that is not based on your ability to pay was against all the lefties principles.

I could refuse to buy any products from ITV's adverts, that's my choice. However, I wont be thrown in jail for doing so. Companies have a budget for adverts, whether they be on TV, in the press, Radio and bill boards. If people stopped watching commercial TV stations then advertisers would pull out and they'd go bang. If people stopped watching the BBC they will still have to pay or risk being thrown in jail. If the BBC is so wonderful, take away the threat of jail, make it a subscrption service and people will pay for it.

This is a massive game as far as I'm concerned. Win it and we're 3 behind Boscombe with 2 games in hand and a better goal difference, and above PBoro and Hudders and still a game in hand. If we win tomorrow a draw at Boscombe will be quite a good result, lose tomorrow and Boscombe starts looking "make or break".We also need to ramp up the pressure on Brighton, being caught up by one side is one thing, but the presure increases if it's the autos you could blow, rather than just the title.

Itv has some public service obligations, but for all intents and purposes is a commercial organisation. Certainly to compare it to the BBC is competely wide of the mark. The BBC pay people too much, sent too many people around the World to sporting events ect and spend too much money making programmes that commercial channels are making already. Too much money is wasted on their web site. I can honestly say that I would not miss a single programme if I could block it and not pay my licenec fee. You like it and want to watch it? Then you pay for it, I dont expect you to pay for my Sky subscription, why should I be sent to jail for not paying for something I have no interest in watching.

It was a game of 3 thirds really. The first 3rd of the game we were good and I thought "this will be easy". Second third we fell apart a bit and they not only scored but looked like they were going to go onto win. During this period Adkins was doing his nut on the line, shouting and trying to get the players playing again. He made a Sub, bringing on MS and one of the first things he did was swing a great ball out to AC, who was fouled and we scored from the resulting free kick.We never looked like losing from then on in.All that matters now is results, so 4-1 home to anyone is a good result, particulary when Hudders blew a 2 goal lead at home to 10 men.Although it seems some people are never satisifed, if we win it's despite of Adkins or because the other team was poor, and if we lose it's down to Adkins.

Chris Patten is a jumped up leftie himself, he's about as much of a Tory as New Labour. My opinion is that in 2011, we should not be paying a poll tax to fund a national TV station.If people want to watch the BBC they should subscribe to it, if like Dune they think it's full of Lefties , then dont. At the moment I can be thrown in jail even if I never watch a single minute of a single broadcast. The BBC run adverts for their programmes, chase viewing figures, mirror events that other broadcasters are covering, pay presenters massive salaries and generaly act like a commercial station, yet the man on the minimum wage pays the same for it as Wayne Rooney, whether he wants to watch it or not.

True, but the Tories don't bang on about an ethical foregin policy, claim the weapons sold under them are not used on the people and try and paint themselves whiter than white. Their approach has always been, "he maybe a mad despot, but he's our mad despot".It's stright and you know where you stand.Labour want it both ways.

Did anyone see that idiot Peter Hain on Question time? He was running down the Tories for having defence Companies accompany Cameron to the middle east. Dimble than quite correctly pointed out the millions and millions of pounds worth of weapons that were sold to Libya under his Govt. His reply was that there were rules in place that meant the arms sold under Labour were done on the basis that they're not to be used on their own people.He summed up the whole hypocrisy of the Labour Party over this.They go on about an ethical foregin policy, but cosy up to people like Gaddafi, sell arms to nutters and invade foregin countries on the basis of a made up report. Hain wanted to have his cake and eat it and if he really believes Gaddafi's henchmen decide which gun to use to shoot protesters based on a agreement with the Labour party, he's even more bonkers than I thought.I can see it now "go onto the streets and shoot the Infidel's, no you can't take that gun, use this one, that one is part of our agreement with those peaceful Labour people" .

I agree, we should have put that one to bed. Win that one and a draw at Hartlepool looks a better result. I've always taken the view the less "must win" games you play,the better. We're nowhere near the "must win" situation yet, because everyone bar Brighton keeps slipping up.

We were Newcastles for years, late comebacks and Matt Le Tiss specials meant they couldn't beat us for years.

It's not so much a physical thing more of a mental one. Players lose concentration when tired, and with experiance comes the know how to concentrate in every situation. Older players also keep the ball slightly bettter and dont tear around all over the place.Most Managers dip youngsters in and out of the team during their first couple of seasons.

Perhaps we should have just made you judge and jury. Believe it or not people were against this decision on the basis that they disagreed with it. They disagreed with the UK govt "doing all it could" to release this man.Why do lefties always think they have the moral high ground and that when people oppose them it's for the wrong reasons.

It's a political point when the Labour Govt "did all it could" to free a mass murderer who was convicted and serving time in a UK jail.

Is this the bloke? Wonder who Brown's advisors were at the time, wasn't it the two Eds? It's a bit rich claiming the Tories were as bad, Labour was in power, they should apoligise.

"Everyone?" You mean "everyone in the last Cabinet, including the 2 Ed's."