Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Bloody BBC

They've just renewed the right of the BBC to charge a licence fee for another ten years! TEN YEARS! That's going to cost me at least 1,256 pounds. Probably more, because I expect the price will go up at some point in the next decade.
That's over a thousand pounds for TV that I never watch.
And no, the BBC is not 'special', it is not 'unique', and they do have adverts - just adverts for their own bloody shows.
How can it be legal to charge me for something I don't want and never use?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah ha ha ha.

Joe said...

Thanks. I feel comforted by your laughter.

Greg said...

There are many things Joe does and says that I approve of. His book, for example, is excellent. But this post leaves me spitting fury. The BBC, may I remind everyone (and him) is the foremost broadcasting institution in the world, bar none. I need not list the countless hilarious, moving, beautiful, and daringly controversial programmes it has produced and keeps producing. But I will make special mention of their sports coverage, which is just sublime. In so many ways. Joe, your license fee is a small price to pay. (especially if you live with lots of other people - that's how I cope with the cost)

Joe said...

Greg, you've missed the point. The quality of the BBC's output is irrelevant. If I don't watch it, I still pay for it. Explain that.
And if you really want to go there, let's go:
Perhaps one or two programmes a year are 'moving, beautiful and daringly controversial'. (I can't think of a single 'hilarious' one, by the way.) The other major channels ALL outgun the BBC when it comes to those qualities.
So what about your beloved sports coverage? It's not sublime. Open your eyes. The football coverage is better than ITV - fair enough. But what about: Wimbledon - laughably old-fashioned. I can't wait for Sky to get their hands on it.
Cricket - the BBC covered it for decades, the same old way. As soon as Sky and Channel 4 started covering it, they revolutionised the way it was televised. They brought in experts (not journalists) to commentate, innovated with new camera angles, hawkeye and more.
The Olympics - the BBC coverage is embarrassing. Jingoistic, blinkered, incompetent. They spend millions - MILLIONS - on fancy idents, but abandon any sport in which there is no Briton competing.
Golf - GOLF! The fact that they waste my money covering it at all is offensive.

Anonymous said...

Greg's brother here, leaping bravely into the fray and pedantically pointing out that the licence fee covers not only tv but also bbc radio, including local radio, and the bbc website, which is wicked.

Anonymous said...

Greg's brother here, leaping bravely into the fray and pedantically pointing out that the licence fee covers not only tv but also bbc radio, including local radio, and the bbc website, which is wicked.

Joe said...

Hi, Greg's brother. Thanks for commenting!
Now, what can I say about BBC radio? Nothing really, because I don't listen to it. Oh, hold on, this just in: I pay for it. Now why would I want to pay brainless blabbermouths to spout off on the radio? Oh, that's right - I have no choice.
And the only time I've used the BBC website was to complain about the licence fee.
Whether you think the service is good (you) or rubbish (me), that service could be exactly the same if they carried adverts or transferred to a subscritpion model.