BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots

But the thing about Murdochs Fox or Sky in the UK is that it is OPTIONAL! You don't wanna watch it, you don't pay for it.

 

That is a key difference. I like many of the shows produced by BBC, but my tax dollars were not involved.

If the situation were reversed, I would be seriously annoyed if my tax dollars were used to pay for Fox News.

Tom

 

So glad you are not annoyed. Many here are however.

 

Kind of like those who are ANNOYED with the money we pay for the MILITARY here in the U.S., I know what you mean!

 

Was "The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on BBC 4 TV?

 

I hear you on that. Along with all the social programs like ObamaCare, etc...

 

I immediately dismiss anyone who uses the term "ObamaCare". That's propaganda at it's finest. Why not call it "CarterCare"? Or "BasicHumanRightCare"...

 

Fine... what is in a word anyway?

[edit] - Got to thinking about the labels... and it is interesting how the bad ideas/plans always get these labels, like for instance "The Bridge to Nowhere".

 

______________

We don't need no stinking social programs,, let them starve in the streets, and get sick and go to the poorhouse.

Words matter, truth matters, lies matter.

Icarus

 

My favorite name for it is FoundingFathersCare,

 

Oh boy, here comes the drama... there are more effective ways to implement these types of programs than through the government. Ones that have lasting results. Here is one that we contribute to. Read any of the testimonies in the news letters... you will be amazed.

 

Show me a system that covers 300,000,000 + Americans with a system that no one goes broke when they get sick, they have coverage regardless of job or income, and that doesn't cost twice as much per capita and as a percentage of GDP than nearly any and all other civilized countries and I am all ears. Till then, there is no debate.

 

Debate? You mean whether the current/proposed system meets the requirements above?

 

Should I support a health care program run by (of all people!) health care professionals with the main goal of affordable health care, or should I support one where the stated main goal is to get people to bow down to some magical dead Jewish guy. Hmmm, which one sounds better? Boy, that is a stumper!

 

No, that was Channel 4. The other statutory broadcasting corporation (i.e. created by statute law rather than created independently and applying for a licence).

The BBC does now run four major TV channels, but only two of them are available through traditional analogue terrestrial broadcast, where it hasn't yet been switched off. BBC Three and BBC Four are available (7pm to 7am) through digital terrestrial, satellite and cable. BBC Four has a 0.5 - 0.6% share of viewing, C4 has 5.8 - 6.0% (plus 0.8% for the one-hour-delayed C4+1), BBC One has around 21% and BBC Two around 7%.

The BBC's remit is to educate, entertain and inform. Presenting the scientific consensus falls right into that remit. If anything I feel they give too much time to 'balance', to avoid the appearance of bias.

Personally I'm very happy to pay less than one quarter the price of a basic satellite or cable subscription to fund a very good broadcasting service, though now that the vast majority of the population owns a TV, the licence fee should probably be changed to a progressive fee rather than a flat rate.

 

TV isn't a luxury item and should be free to view - unless you opt to pay for additional services or providers. The BBC does have some good stuff such as Top Gear (though I'm sure that's more by accident) and would surely still survive if offered to subscription. But it should not be compulsory at a cost of £12.00 a month before I subscribe to any other broadcast companies. The technology exists to convert to subscription, so why not? Why are they so adverse to the idea of subscription?

No where else in the commercial world is such an outdated system which has more in common with Communist Europe than the free market of the UK! The TV licence isn't a lot of money but it's not the point - I want freedom to choose. Restrict their services to one tv channel and a couple radio stations - not 4 tv channels and about 30 radio stations and a massive internet presence.

It's also unfair to the poor in that £12 a month is a lot of money just to have a tv and if you search the internet you'll find that a very high proportion of women prisoners are actually there for non payment of their tv licence!

You don't need a licence for a laptop or a mobile phone so why a tv? The whole idea of a tv licence is outdated and more in fitting with 1950's Britain than 2011!

Rant over!

 

Unlike, say ... food ?

 

Well you guys don't have to pay £140/$220 each and every year just for having a tv at home. Put one in your office and you gotta pay another £140/$220. Have one in your RV or summer house and you've got to pay for each of those too.

This is a tax to the government not a subscription to Fox or whoever. So no, it's not the same as food.

 

Sounds like its time for tea-party.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the bulk of the TV in the UK commercial free? Sounds like a bargain to me if there are no commercials!