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.

xruslanx wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

And if you take a look at the posts on the comments the public agrees. It is not uncommon to see the BBC being accused of being part of the lefty liberal media and the right wing establishment over the same thing.

I don't think it's really debatable that the BBC has a pro-multiculturalist agenda. The ratio of ethnic minorities on BBC news reports is about 3 to 5 times that found in general population.

Do you mean presenting the news reports or featuring in them?

 purplefood wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

And if you take a look at the posts on the comments the public agrees. It is not uncommon to see the BBC being accused of being part of the lefty liberal media and the right wing establishment over the same thing.

I don't think it's really debatable that the BBC has a pro-multiculturalist agenda. The ratio of ethnic minorities on BBC news reports is about 3 to 5 times that found in general population.

Do you mean presenting the news reports or featuring in them?

Featuring in them. The presenters still tend to be white men, except when they occasionally replace them with a much, much worse woman - see the Daily Politics if you want to know how striking that difference can be. Not that I'd have anything against a decent woman, but that's no reason to replace a good man with a gak woman. Not that that isn't happening in the real economy anyway

If you didn't have to pay for TV then how else would BBC get it's money?

xruslanx wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

And if you take a look at the posts on the comments the public agrees. It is not uncommon to see the BBC being accused of being part of the lefty liberal media and the right wing establishment over the same thing.

I don't think it's really debatable that the BBC has a pro-multiculturalist agenda. The ratio of ethnic minorities on BBC news reports is about 3 to 5 times that found in general population.

Perhaps that represents something else? I have never noticed this, and apparently ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be a victim of crime, which would effect the numbers on the news.

I have never noticed this, or heard anyone else say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xruslanx wrote:

The presenters still tend to be white men

Not according to Wikipidia. 17 main national presenters on the main channels. 11 Female. Much the same across all the channels.

Another thing is that a lot of news comes from abroad, where there tend to be plenty of foreigners.

However without verifiable figures on the topic, it looks like just another Little Englander bogieman kind of thing.

 chromedog wrote:
Oh, I know.

Adam Savage was chatting on his "untitled" podcast about how many different cuts there are of Mythbusters - because he gets copies of the Aussie releases of the dvds and he gets the US ones, and the Aussie and UK cuts are longer than the US ones.

They don't like showing goof ups on US tv, for some reason, and both Aussies and Brits like seeing TV people embarrass themselves on camera - it shows they are human, not idols to be worshipped.

I watched some of the british Mythbusters episodes and I liked the longer episodes. Only thing I didn't like was the different Narrator, something about his voice was off.

This is why i dont watch tv, and usually channel 7 and both the abc and sbs are plagued with annoying british crime shows from the 80's

I havent paid for a Tv licence on the grounds I do not have a television, or a TV card for my computer.

To qualify I need to receive terrestrial TV signals, I do not. Internet doesn't count.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I don't know a single uni student with a TV that they use as anything more than a console screen.

Fair point, I guess that is changing again now.

 Steve steveson wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

And if you take a look at the posts on the comments the public agrees. It is not uncommon to see the BBC being accused of being part of the lefty liberal media and the right wing establishment over the same thing.

I don't think it's really debatable that the BBC has a pro-multiculturalist agenda. The ratio of ethnic minorities on BBC news reports is about 3 to 5 times that found in general population.

Perhaps that represents something else? I have never noticed this, and apparently ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be a victim of crime, which would effect the numbers on the news.

I have never noticed this, or heard anyone else say that.

Watch the BBC news at 6 for a week. Tally the number of ethnic faces you see on reports vs the demographics of the united kingdom. I'm not racist, I actually did this a while ago, and ethnic minorities are grossly over-represented if you live outside of London.

mitch_rifle wrote:
This is why i dont watch tv, and usually channel 7 and both the abc and sbs are plagued with annoying british crime shows from the 80's

Channel 7 is full of crap. Channels 9 and 10 are little better. Aside from SBS's unhealthy obsession with the Tour de France, it and the ABC have the best only worthwhile programs.

I have cable (well, satellite 'cable' as the direct cable isn't available outside of mainland state capitals). It's only Castle and some ABC I watch on FTA (and ABC/SBS I can get on the cable service).

There are some things I watch, but it's about 4 shows that I follow.
Fortunately, the wife usually also watches them.

Even if you have a TV, you can opt out of the license by promising that you are never going to watch live TV.
If you subscribe to satellite TV, you have to buy a license, if you watch the BBC or not.

But, there's so much the Beeb pumps out that we watch, we hardly watch any other channels. There the odd thing on Syfy, or Sky 1, but that's about it.

Also, the BBC news is well known world-wide, and their travel news is handy. The license fee also pays for their websites.

It pays for all the radio stations as well.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It pays for all the radio stations as well.

and for completion, you need no licence to use (just) a radio.

 Goliath wrote:

feeder wrote:
It's not a license like a driver's or gun license where you have to pass a test or background check. It's more like an involuntary subscription.

It's a voluntary subscription in that if you don't want to pay it you don't have to, you just don't get to watch live tv.

If you own a tv you don't have to pay if you can prove there is no way for you to receive the live channels. If you only use your tv in the UK to play games on or watch DVDs then you don't have to pay.

 Lexx wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

feeder wrote:
It's not a license like a driver's or gun license where you have to pass a test or background check. It's more like an involuntary subscription.

It's a voluntary subscription in that if you don't want to pay it you don't have to, you just don't get to watch live tv.

If you own a tv you don't have to pay if you can prove there is no way for you to receive the live channels. If you only use your tv in the UK to play games on or watch DVDs then you don't have to pay.

I know someone who has a TV linked to his PS2 and DVD player, and thats all he uses it for, but he saw fit to phone up and ask what measures he needed to take, it was enough that her removed all aerials.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Lexx wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

feeder wrote:
It's not a license like a driver's or gun license where you have to pass a test or background check. It's more like an involuntary subscription.

It's a voluntary subscription in that if you don't want to pay it you don't have to, you just don't get to watch live tv.

If you own a tv you don't have to pay if you can prove there is no way for you to receive the live channels. If you only use your tv in the UK to play games on or watch DVDs then you don't have to pay.

I know someone who has a TV linked to his PS2 and DVD player, and thats all he uses it for, but he saw fit to phone up and ask what measures he needed to take, it was enough that her removed all aerials.

Yeah basically as long as aerials aren't accessible they leave you alone. Apparently they have a tool they can monitor peoples houses with if there is a signal being received in the house. And your friend did the smart thing and phoned and asked. They are generally helpful with such questions from personal experience.

Yeah, you've just got to prove that you don't use it. We don't have one at my house-its called the tinterwebs

 Lexx wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Lexx wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

feeder wrote:
It's not a license like a driver's or gun license where you have to pass a test or background check. It's more like an involuntary subscription.

It's a voluntary subscription in that if you don't want to pay it you don't have to, you just don't get to watch live tv.

If you own a tv you don't have to pay if you can prove there is no way for you to receive the live channels. If you only use your tv in the UK to play games on or watch DVDs then you don't have to pay.

I know someone who has a TV linked to his PS2 and DVD player, and thats all he uses it for, but he saw fit to phone up and ask what measures he needed to take, it was enough that her removed all aerials.

Yeah basically as long as aerials aren't accessible they leave you alone. Apparently they have a tool they can monitor peoples houses with if there is a signal being received in the house. And your friend did the smart thing and phoned and asked. They are generally helpful with such questions from personal experience.

Does anyone know how they do this now?

Cathode Ray tube TV's were able to be picked up by the detector vans - Digital TV's aren't. They don't give off the same emissions.
I thought that they just assume everybody has a TV now and you have to opt out. Its why (iirc) you have to give your address when buying a TV - so they can cross reference your TV address with TV licensing.

I remember at the time, there was a little furore about the Sega Game gear having a TV tuner - they couldn't catch people using it.

I don't pay the license or own a TV.

£12 a month is more than I pay for my internet and absolutely totally not worth it for 2 measly channels with bugger all good on them other than Sherlock and Dr. Who.

 PredaKhaine wrote:

 Lexx wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Lexx wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

feeder wrote:
It's not a license like a driver's or gun license where you have to pass a test or background check. It's more like an involuntary subscription.

It's a voluntary subscription in that if you don't want to pay it you don't have to, you just don't get to watch live tv.

If you own a tv you don't have to pay if you can prove there is no way for you to receive the live channels. If you only use your tv in the UK to play games on or watch DVDs then you don't have to pay.

I know someone who has a TV linked to his PS2 and DVD player, and thats all he uses it for, but he saw fit to phone up and ask what measures he needed to take, it was enough that her removed all aerials.

Yeah basically as long as aerials aren't accessible they leave you alone. Apparently they have a tool they can monitor peoples houses with if there is a signal being received in the house. And your friend did the smart thing and phoned and asked. They are generally helpful with such questions from personal experience.

Does anyone know how they do this now?

Cathode Ray tube TV's were able to be picked up by the detector vans - Digital TV's aren't. They don't give off the same emissions.
I thought that they just assume everybody has a TV now and you have to opt out. Its why (iirc) you have to give your address when buying a TV - so they can cross reference your TV address with TV licensing.

I remember at the time, there was a little furore about the Sega Game gear having a TV tuner - they couldn't catch people using it.

They assume if you bought a TV or a licence you must need one in the future.

I was pursued by them for a year when I failed to buy a new licence (due to not having a TV at the address involved).

The website is total gak. It makes you input your licence number to do anything to do with your licence. If your licence is an online one like mine, that means you need a printout of the licence to look up your licence details online, removing the point of the system.

To cut to the chase, after a number of phone calls and messages did not produce an rational response, I gave up and left it to them to come and look at my non-existent TV and ask me for the licence.

 purplefood wrote:

feeder wrote:
Oh really? I was under the impression it was not opt-out. If you owned a TV, you had to have a license.

You can own a TV and not have a licence. You just can't watch TV without a licence.

You can still have a console or dvd player hooked up and not have to pay the license.

The BBC is very good, it's very much worth the money and you forget you ever paid it until it comes up again...

 scarletsquig wrote:
I don't pay the license or own a TV.

£12 a month is more than I pay for my internet and absolutely totally not worth it for 2 measly channels with bugger all good on them other than Sherlock and Dr. Who.

How would you know? Very suspicious.

Stay where you are, the detector van will be with you soon.

[turns detector probe up to 11 in readiness]