tonybooth

Personally, I think not. There are some fantastic programmes on the BBC (both radio and television). However there are some things I take objection to: -

1) Those silly trailers at the start of programmes - Rugby players, salsa dancers, tap dancers, curtain dancers and even break dancing wheelchair users. What's the point exactly?

2) Trailers where they 'pretend' to interview presenters to 'bull-up' the corporation into something that it is not.

3) Ground Force USA - Pathetic, if you insist on making this programme it should at least benefit someone who has helped fund the making of it.

4) Journalists / News Readers. How many do we need exactly? Why do they need to send journalists from every news channel to the same place, at the same time, to cover the same story. Send one FFS and share the resource [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

5) Radio 1 in Ibiza type stuff. Its RADIO, it makes no difference where they broadcast from. What benefit do the listeners get? None. They just get a free holiday.

6) Asian Network. Er, racist? Are they planning a Whites Only Network just to keep the balance? No they are not.

7) Radio 1Extra - as above really.

So to sum up, I don't think they spend the money as well as they could. In mitigation, they have brought out some good channels such as BBC3 and have invested in digital radio.

Could do better IMHO. What do you lot think?

TONY

paulr

BBC newsonline is worth a few quid.Also saves me time in that i can skip the trivia and just read the bits of interest,unfortunately you cant do that with the tv news.

Regacy

I must protest in the strongest possible terms.
I think the BBC does a super job and I would gladly pay double the license fees for the salsa dancing ident on its own.
Some people just don't know good value when they see it.

tonybooth

LOL @ Regacy

I didn't say that the girl nearest the camera was as fit as **** did I?

TONY

Regacy

I have just seen the ident with the wheelchair dancing disco thing and have spontaneously posted the BBC a cheque for £100.
Just think if everyone on scoobynet followed my example the BBC could afford to follow the example set by channel 4 and produce some real top brow educational entertainment programs instead of having to rely on soap operas and low-grade game shows to fill the gaps between the news.

suprabeast

i think the bbc should just start putting adverts on and stop charging people that dont even watch it.

I have sky and i watch itv but i never watch the bbc cos most of the stuff on it is crappy soaps and boring factual programmes. So why should i have to pay a license fee for channels i dont watch??

Mungo

I watch pretty much only the BBC, except cricket on C4 and F1 on ITV. The rest of non-Beeb output is utter sh!te - "Gardeners from Hell" and the like. The "boring factual programmes" are what makes the BBC so good. Spooks is one of the best things on TV in the last few years.
Most BBC radio is excellent (not so sure about Asian network or 1Xtra, but then those listeners probably feel excluded by Radio 2 & 3). The digital TV channels really add something to the line up.
And their online services are really good.
I'd say we definitely get value for money. I'd far rather pay a few quid for it than have to sit through hours ambulance chaser or loan shark adverts.

steve G MAN

two words audly harrison if that wasent pi55ing it up against the wall i dont know what is

The Zohan

I say let the BBC go head to head with the other networks and let people make a choice.

Too many repeats, how many times will they put on Fools and Horses & The Vicar of Dibley, both good comedies but repeated to death - Much cheaper to pay the re-run fee than make new stuff.

No decent period drama for ages IMHO and the Beeb are good at it, but then again it costs money!

Often sport on 1&2 simultaneously so not choices there.

They take our money without any choice from us.

They do not account for how they spend it.

Does not seem right.

MrDBM

i think the license fee tends to annoy those with sky/cable even more. I pay just under £35 for Sky, and I can honestly say it's fantastic value for money; loads of channels, great services, choice of packages etc. It winds me up that I pay the beeb practically £10 per month for average services.

Don't get me wrong, the beeb usually puts on a good show, but it's the lack of choice that's annoying. Even car tax isn't that bad, if you don't drive a car, you don't pay road tax.

I'd like to think that the days of the license fee are numbered, but I'm not hopeful. I mean, since when was watching fawlty towers for the 92nd time considered value for money?

Tiggs

i'll pay my fee happily if they can get the breakdancing wheelchairs to do the curtain dancing!

Leslie

One of the annoying things thats happens these days and now even the BBC do it too, is that when some kind of advert comes on the deviation of the sound transmission is increased which effectively increases the volume as we hear it. It is obviously designed to bring our attention the the content of the advert. The increase is such that for comfort it is necessary to reduce the volume. It makes me actually tend to reduce it such that it can't be heard so the effect is lost as far as the advert is concerned. It is really irritating though. Will the advertisers ever realise they are losing the effect of the advert by doing it I wonder?

Les

Tiggs

i have sky+.....whats an advert?

ScoobyWon't

Just been given loads of free channels by NTL. Still can't find anything interesting to watch...

BBC does the best comedy, ITV has the F1, Channel 4 has Hollyoaks (for eye candy) hmmm.... about 96 other channels to try.

BBC News 24 and Sky News were good during the last kafuffle in Iraq.