Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by Rodimus Prime, May 5, 2009.
Tax Google to help the BBC, say ministers | Mail Online
Is Daily Mail like the Sun here?
Daily Mail is a more serious paper not a tabloid paper full of gossip and tits.
Also a giant fuck you on taxing internet stuffs, thats just stupid. I do like the point raised that it would hamper a succesful company in a recession and they shouldn't do such a thing.
The BBC do not need the money. Please leave non-television stuff alone, government.
If the BBC made more than one program I regularly watch (Eastenders, and that's gone downhill vastly over the last few years), and occasional series of shows that are worth watching (Spooks being the main one) I'd be far more inclined to think that the TV License was anything other than a total waste of money and a massive con.
Seriously. Put adverts on the BBC, and stop taxing every single person in the country who so much as owns a TV, whether they watch their mostly shitty shows or not. Assholes.
So why does the BBC need more money?
Cause they keep wasting it on pointless buy/sell/decorate your property programs, oh and the board need their pensions padded out a bit more.
This. This. A Thousand Times this.
I'd be quite happy to see the BBC News output still funded purely by taxpayers, as I think it would help keep them as unbiased as possible, but most of what the Beeb puts out now is just utter dreck that I never EVER watch but still have to pay for.
you watch Eastenders.
BBC is good for one thing and one thing only......Top Gear. Then again Dave has it too but it has adverts, and adverts suck as it means I have to reach for my remote and mute the TV.
I have to commend the BBC for constantly letting Charlie Brooker have his slot in their schedules. There's at least one good thing they've done in the past while.
Just close the BBC down and be done with it. There are many more far better channels out there.
While i'm in favor of having a high quality taxpayer funded PSB that provides the sort of content that woulden't be viable on commerical channels, the BBC is a bloated and inefficent mess that wastes huge amounts of public money and is more interested in providing more of the same bollocks I can see elsewhere.
BBC News is easily more biased then its major commerical TV competitors in this country, they might be more inclined to stop using it to push thier editorial agenda if thier paychecks actually came with some accountability.
No. Don't. Commercials are the most cocking annoying things ever - I could do with less of them everywhere.
I remember with nostalgia the first series of '24' screened by BBC2, which was carefully edited to run without interruption (even the DVDs still have the fade to black present) - it was bliss...
Certainly the BBC output needs to be improved, but I don't see ITV or CH5 as much competion at the moment. Even C4 has been patchy. In fact where are all these 'far better channels'?
The main problem with TV ouput at the moment is the shameless repetition of similar programming across the board. And why? Cost. Nobody is making any money from advertising anymore, because everyone is Tivo'ing stuff or upstairs on the internet watching it on Youtube whilst surfing TFW2005. As a result no fucker wants to spend any money on shows that aren't 'X- Factor' or 'Real Cop Driving Accident Video Series 6'. This is a problem that the industry is struggling to cope with.
If the government wishes to fill the coffers then, rather than the proposed windfall (which strikes me as very unwise) it would make more sense to instead tighten the current tax laws and attempt to claw back some of the revenue that, due to legal, but rather unscrupulous avoidance schemes, many companies such as Google and Tesco have become infamous for withholding.
And obviously Dave only has it because the BBC make it in the first place...
Can't see them taking it over either. It's a very expensive show for a lifestyle programme (£250,000 an ep I think).
Separate names with a comma.