Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Here's an article of the BBC;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/08/does-the-government-want-the-bbc-to-be-a-state-broadcaster

State media? You betcha!

Did you not read that article, or are you hoping others don't?

The BBC is admired abroard precisely because it has, thus far, managed to avoid becoming an arm of the state, a fate that has befallen several supposedly independent broadcasting outlets in eastern Europe.

The whole thing is saying the BBC is independent, but the current government risks damaging the perception of independence, if not the actuality. The Tory party are well known for having issues with the BBC, swinging between wanting to shut it to fulfill their free market dreams and wanting it to be a political machine to fulfill their need for control.

The article is from 2016. We have news from 2017 of a massive funding expansion of the world service to export regional 'soft power' in targeted markets. Put 2 and 2 together.

 44Ronin wrote:
The article is from 2016. We have news from 2017 of a massive funding expansion of the world service to export regional 'soft power' in targeted markets. Put 2 and 2 together.

It's 85 million pounds total, not just for this one language, and compared to a budget of ~250 million pounds in 2010. Hardly a "massive expansion" by any reasonable standard. And it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the UK's spending in total, so I don't really see what the outrage here is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
The article is from 2016. We have news from 2017 of a massive funding expansion of the world service to export regional 'soft power' in targeted markets. Put 2 and 2 together.

It's 85 million pounds total, not just for this one language, and compared to a budget of ~250 million pounds in 2010. Hardly a "massive expansion" by any reasonable standard. And it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the UK's spending in total, so I don't really see what the outrage here is.

Compare it to another media platform expanding its budget, not UK gov't spending. The expansion is unmatched by any news agency,

And no, it's PER YEAR

Funny you attempt to compare to overall government spending when the UK government debt is 89.3% of it's GDP.

 44Ronin wrote:
Compare it to another media platform expanding its budget, not UK gov't spending. The expansion is unmatched by any news agency,

Yes, let's compare it. A quick google search for Fox News' financial reports gives us this article. I'm too lazy to dig deeper and figure out just how that $5 billion per quarter breaks down between the news channel and the rest of the business, but given the fact that we're talking about orders of magnitude more than the BBC's 85 million pounds it's pretty clear that this is not a terribly impressive figure. Had you not started out with "the lunatic left" and considered the numbers objectively you would have seen that this is, while perhaps interesting if you're curious about languages, not a major story from a business point of view.

And no, it's PER YEAR

Yes, per year, but across all of their operations. It's 85 million total, for all of the foreign service stuff, not an 85 million GPB expansion to do news in one new language.

Funny you attempt to compare to overall government spending when the UK government debt is 89.3% of it's GDP.

What's your point? The overall spending habits of the UK government are not relevant because they deal in numbers orders of magnitude larger than 85 million GBP. Whether or not this money is spent will make no meaningful difference in the UK's financial situation. It's like complaining that another household member didn't park their car one space closer to the entrance to the parking lot (saving an absurdly tiny amount of gas money) in a discussion of your thousands of dollars in credit card debt. Yes, it's technically money spent, but it's obsessing over irrelevant details and neglecting the bigger picture.

 44Ronin wrote:


Enjoy the crony capitalism

Capitalism when we like it, Crony capitalism when we dont like it!

And so yet another thread is driven towards a lock because one person can't behave.

 44Ronin wrote:

nfe wrote:
Tremendous efforts to castigate a BBC project from near-complete ignorance here.
Only license fee money is an elective payment for services, not a tax, and it isn't used to fund the BBC would service anyway, and it's more likely to do with a right wing economic project to win the UK overseas trade. Well done, reactionary!

The license fee is so elective and contractual there's actually a whole goon industry to come harassing and intimidating the citizenry for it.

Enjoy the crony capitalism

In 2014 185,580 'elective' court cases.....because it is so voluntary that the state needs to be levied against the public to enforce the cronyism.

Does that sound like a free market to you?

The state is also levied against the citizenry (consistently and much more rapidly!) if they steal power from the grid. I presume you think that is also an outrage and that your energy bills are a tax? That would actually be a defensible position, because it's very difficult to exist in modern Britain without electricity, but no one seems to be in a huff about the payments they make via their energy bills to the grid.

185,580 with 162,851 prosecutions. That's like an 87%+ prosecution rate. Is that cronyism or does it need to blast over the 90% mark?

I'd be very interested to know what percentage of people watching tv without a license that is. An absolutely minute fraction, I imagine. Very little effort is put into chasing down licence fee evaders.

But let's stick to one topic

Ok! Do you want to acknowledge that your arguments about the license fee being wasted on the lefty propaganda of the BBC World Service are rooted in ignorance because the license fee doesn't continue to it in any away and it really isn't very lefty at all, and your one article presented as evidence completely undermines your own position regarding this plan's political leanings?

nfe wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

nfe wrote:
Tremendous efforts to castigate a BBC project from near-complete ignorance here.
Only license fee money is an elective payment for services, not a tax, and it isn't used to fund the BBC would service anyway, and it's more likely to do with a right wing economic project to win the UK overseas trade. Well done, reactionary!

The license fee is so elective and contractual there's actually a whole goon industry to come harassing and intimidating the citizenry for it.

Enjoy the crony capitalism

In 2014 185,580 'elective' court cases.....because it is so voluntary that the state needs to be levied against the public to enforce the cronyism.

Does that sound like a free market to you?

The state is also levied against the citizenry (consistently and much more rapidly!) if they steal power from the grid. I presume you think that is also an outrage and that your energy bills are a tax? That would actually be a defensible position, because it's very difficult to exist in modern Britain without electricity, but no one seems to be in a huff about the payments they make via their energy bills to the grid.

185,580 with 162,851 prosecutions. That's like an 87%+ prosecution rate. Is that cronyism or does it need to blast over the 90% mark?

I'd be very interested to know what percentage of people watching tv without a license that is. An absolutely minute fraction, I imagine. Very little effort is put into chasing down licence fee evaders.

But let's stick to one topic

Ok! Do you want to acknowledge that your arguments about the license fee being wasted on the lefty propaganda of the BBC World Service are rooted in ignorance because the license fee doesn't continue to it in any away and it really isn't very lefty at all, and your one article presented as evidence completely undermines your own position regarding this plan's political leanings?

You've made what I would say is about the worst enthymeme of all time, if you want to compare electricity to a broadcast service and imply that a majority of people getting fined are thieves.
It is really sad that a seeming intelligent adult could think like this.

First of all the electrical utility can be utilised according to the users desires. Whilst media broadcast is a passive feed that you have no control over its content.
If you own a television in the UK but are unhappy with the content, you cannot take your custom elsewhere, you still have to pay up. That's not free let alone fair market and that's not in the common interest of joe public let alone the society to be dragging people to court. Dumb comparison.

The BBC runs an extortion racket protected by law. It is that simple.

I'd be very interested to know what percentage of people watching tv without a license that is. An absolutely minute fraction, I imagine. Very little effort is put into chasing down licence fee evaders.

Licenses are per household, so that number is actually skyhigh and clearly out of control 185,580 in a single year.... its a mind blowing figure...

How's that concession about being wrong about the license fee going towards a lefty world service coming along?