Lord Duckhunter

I'm quite new to these sort of things so dont really understand the ins and outs. To me a £5 is neither here nor there, I want to post more than 3 posts a day and particulary enjoy The Lounge and The Arts section. To fully use them, you really need more than 3 posts a day. I understand that there are a lot of free sites on the web, but I regulary buy mates a drink that comes to a lot more than £5, so I think £5 is a red herring, it's hardly going to break the bank. I firmly believe that if we were asked for donations to keep the site going, then you would raise more revenue than collecting £5 off of all full members.

My mates a Huddersfield supporter and he reckons Kilbane is a liability. It just goes to show how hard it is to pick up an old pro and make sure it's the right one. Savage takes a lot of stick from Derby supporters. Bally and Jimmy Case where great players, but also had a fantastic attitude, Lawrie used to say that Ballys enthusiasm day in day out was an inspiration for the younger players.Paul Scholes may end up at Oldham as he has often spoken of his love for them,but no Bally or Jimmy Case springs to mind.

The golf was pretty poor to be honest, but I'm not a very good player so it was about par for me. You have argued your side consistantly and presented a a coherent argument. I just disagree, but like to think that my argument is consistent and we will just have to agree to disagree, otherwise we’ll just go round in circles. Personally I would rather keep the £145.50 and decide where I want to spend that money. It maybe that weighing up all the options I would like to subscribe to the BBC, but I object to being forced to, with the threat of jail, and I don't see why I pay the same amount as Wayne Rooney. We don't pay the same amount for any other public service that the Gov. take money for, so why should the licence fee be any different? I also think the BBC wastes money and at the end of the day it's our money, not theirs.

I'm not being funny, but I really dont get your point. Heinz will have a budget for advertising which will remain the same whther there is a public funded BBC or not. Do you really believe that they would put their prices up to advertise on the BBC if it became a commercial outfit. What would happen is they would shift some of their adverts to the BBC from other outlets. They wouldn't want to put the prices up because other brands would eat into their market share.If you object to buying anything from a Company that advertised on TV, then dont buy it. You wont get thrown in jail for doing so. You claimed that without the BBC, Radio would suffer. I pointed out that the US has a vibrant and diverse Radio network catering for many more people and minorities than the BBC ever do, and yet it's all done without a National Broadcasting Company.The Companies that advertise keep their products at a competitive rate, because if they didn't nobody would buy them. Anyway I'm off to the golf course, have a good day.

I dont want liberal propaganda distributed using my hard earned money. Nobody has to buy The Mail or use Sky, everybody has to pay for the BBC's liberal leanings.

I do not read the Daily Mail (although readership numbers would indicate more than a few "odd balls" do), so that's a rather lazy assumption. In this thread you've had quotes from The Director General admitting that the BBC was biased to the left, a report by themselves saying they were "institutionally biased" and yet you still persist in the line that they were not. How do you know more than the Director General or a year long BBC commissioned report, really baffles me. I personally find the make up of the guests on Question Time biased, and certainly two of the programmes were completely and utterly biased. The one aired after 9/11 which prompted an apoligy to the US Ambassador from Greg Dyke, was so anti American it was sickening. And the one featuring Nick Griffin was a publicity stunt unbecoming of a public servcie broadcaster. I find the whole news agenda biased regarding climate change, and I have found some of the reporting of Council cuts competely biased.I feel people like Foot and Benn, men who have proven to be wrong time and time again over the years, are given too much praise and people like Thatcher and Ronald Reagan never given the respect they deserve.I find their middle east reporting to be a basic Palestine/good, Isreal/bad and everything flows from that position. But, at the end of the day my opinion doesn't count. There are people with far more knowledge than me (and believe it or not, you) of the BBC who say they were biased.

It's was proved to be "institutionally biased" by a report commissioned by the BBC itself, surely that's good enough as proof for a really bright non Mail reader. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

Dune, as a free market Thatcherite I would have thought you of all people would want Insurance Companies to set their own premiums and charge what the hell they like.

This is what I call cool, Sat back laying down some sounds, Jamaican woodbine in hand..........Nice

Years of tax payers money thrown at BBC Radio has skewed the market. How does South Florida cater for Hispanics, sports fans, news buffs, old rockers, hill Billies, hip hop, youngsters, god botherers and the assorted nationalities and different music tastes of the local population, when they have no BBC? They have a vibrant diverse radio market and it's not tax funded.

If we had a vibrant commercial radio sector and there was a level playing field, who knows what stations there would be. Just look at the number in Dade & Broward County in FLA. There were certainly serious news stations, alongside hundreds of other stations that catered for all sorts of tastes and minority groups. There is nothing at all that Radio Solent does that is not covered by commercial stations.

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.