National News A Question of Sport

Is that the case now? Plenty of stuff to watch on the various different providers. I can’t say I have watch ITV any more than BBC, they are both running out of time now. But ITV don’t charge me for not watching them.

If anyone can give a decent argument why I should pay towards a a BBC I (and millions others) don’t watch I am interested to hear it, but I doubt you can. I don’t ask anyone to contribute towards my Sky or Netflix, so I struggle to see why I should pay for your BBC?
You never listen to a Radio Oxford commentary on your team? Even in this situation? How have you kept informed on the progress of the playoff final, all of the friendlies, the cup games and yesterday's match?
 
I have Sky so watched the play off matches live, have a season ticket so normally watch the home matches, you can keep up with the news without the radio thanks to the internet. Never enjoyed listening on the radio even years ago, like to see what’s happening.
 
Re: the licence fee... Sometimes you pay small amounts for the good of society as a whole. I don't use libraries, but don't go round complaining they are paid for with taxes, for example.

As for the BBC, it provides a lot of services which millions of people use.
 
.. have a season ticket so normally watch the home matches
Not going to happen for a while, so you won't be listening or watching the iFollow coverage which features the Radio Oxford commentary then? And you go to every away match so never listen to coverage then?
As SteMerritt says there are plenty of things you pay for that you may not use personally but are good for the cohesion and provision of services for wider society. That's what society is, rather then just a collection of individuals.
 
Not going to happen for a while, so you won't be listening or watching the iFollow coverage which features the Radio Oxford commentary then? And you go to every away match so never listen to coverage then?
As SteMerritt says there are plenty of things you pay for that you may not use personally but are good for the cohesion and provision of services for wider society. That's what society is, rather then just a collection of individuals.

Not tv though, people can pay for what they want to watch themselves surely? Or it can be funded by adverts?

Never watched Ifollow so this Saturday will be my first time, I have paid to watch it through my season ticket so if it’s the Radio Oxford commentary so be it, strictly speaking I am paying for that twice as I have paid for my tv licence.

It should be a choice to have a tv licence, then the BBC could just tailor its programming to the people who actually use it.
 
Not going to happen for a while, so you won't be listening or watching the iFollow coverage which features the Radio Oxford commentary then? And you go to every away match so never listen to coverage then?
As SteMerritt says there are plenty of things you pay for that you may not use personally but are good for the cohesion and provision of services for wider society. That's what society is, rather then just a collection of individuals.
so we're paying for our licence to listen to radox THEN we have to pay AGAIN for ifollow which is possibly unlawfully using the bbc commentary................. oops repeated the above...... ? ?
 
You live in Australia, your opinion on the tv licence in this country is completely unnecessary.
Thanks for the clarification, officer. Can you send me a list of the things I’m allowed to have an opinion on.
 
Replaced by the extremely tiresome and unfunny Romesh 'more tv shows that don't work than Jefferson Louis has had football clubs' Ranganathan
Not quite, they are rotating the hosts for this series.
 
Not tv though, people can pay for what they want to watch themselves surely? Or it can be funded by adverts?

Never watched Ifollow so this Saturday will be my first time, I have paid to watch it through my season ticket so if it’s the Radio Oxford commentary so be it, strictly speaking I am paying for that twice as I have paid for my tv licence.

It should be a choice to have a tv licence, then the BBC could just tailor its programming to the people who actually use it.


agree with that ... I'd be interested in finding out exactly how BBC ( funded by licence fees) quantify something already paid for once (by license holders) being 'sold' again by EFL's Ifollow
 
Re: the licence fee... Sometimes you pay small amounts for the good of society as a whole. I don't use libraries, but don't go round complaining they are paid for with taxes, for example.

As for the BBC, it provides a lot of services which millions of people use.
If people want to use it then whats up with them paying a subscription?? included in those "milllions" are foreigners who dont pay a penny towards it.....i realise it was initially/still given to them for free so as to brainwash the poor feckers . DEFUND....enough is enough
 
If people want to use it then whats up with them paying a subscription?? included in those "milllions" are foreigners who dont pay a penny towards it.....i realise it was initially/still given to them for free so as to brainwash the poor feckers . DEFUND....enough is enough
The BBC has a different revenue model for the UK and ROTW. You understand that yes?
 
Always had a soft spot for Question of sport. I even proposed to Mrs Pompeyyellows half way through a show. She said yes by the way. Later she told me that because it was in the middle of the show i must of been serious with the proposal. Celebrating 30 years marriage next week, so must of done something right :)
 
so we're paying for our licence to listen to radox THEN we have to pay AGAIN for ifollow which is possibly unlawfully using the bbc commentary................. oops repeated the above...... ? ?
No you're not.
Your tv licence includes the FM broadcast of the Radio Oxford football commentary.
Your ifollow includes the online broadcast of the Radio Oxford football commentary.
 
Re: the licence fee... Sometimes you pay small amounts for the good of society as a whole. I don't use libraries, but don't go round complaining they are paid for with taxes, for example.

As for the BBC, it provides a lot of services which millions of people use.

Exactly. It’s not a lot to pay really yet there are libertarian types who will thrash out at the BBC at every opportunity, decrying it as some sort of tax payer funded socialist brainwashing front because it doesn’t always echo their particularly right-wing viewpoint. Likewise, weirdo Corbynites see it as a Tory-sponsored mouthpiece for the government. People see what they want to see in it and, whilst not without fault, the BBC does do a lot of things pretty well that others don’t do.

If a TV licence isn’t the option for some, the alternative options aren’t without flaws.
  • Advertising only – I watched a drama on ITV last night. I quite enjoyed the seven minutes I watched before a truckload of adverts came my way. Plenty of time to make a brew every break, mind.
  • Netflix-style subscription model – Spend 30 minutes scrolling for something to watch before deciding on an episode of Friends which is now on Channel 5 anyway. No sport, no local programming, no news, rather reliant on the US. Tiger King and that Fyre Festival documentary were fun though.
  • Sky-subscription model – All the wall to wall sport you could want plus signing your viewing away to betting adverts. I had a pass for Sky Sports for the playoff matches having not watched Sky since moving out of my parents place a long while back. I was astounded at how little coverage the game itself received before or after it had finished in order to ram in commercials. It was a horrible viewing experience. Throw in an astonishing number of channels you don’t want and will never watch for a monthly cost that could fly you to Turkey and back and you have a model that is surely a prime funder for seeing Pogba make £300k a week.
Just maybe a TV licence with a few channels sans adverts and then choice for the consumer to choose whatever package they want thereafter is a the best approach. To have a network where I know I won’t hear ‘Go Compaaare’ every ad break or broadcasts local news rather than another US drama import is maybe worth that £150 a year or so.
 
Then let people choose if they want to pay for the BBC. It’s a bit condescending to tell people you know what’s best for them to spend their money on.
 
Exactly. It’s not a lot to pay really yet there are libertarian types who will thrash out at the BBC at every opportunity, decrying it as some sort of tax payer funded socialist brainwashing front because it doesn’t always echo their particularly right-wing viewpoint. Likewise, weirdo Corbynites see it as a Tory-sponsored mouthpiece for the government. People see what they want to see in it and, whilst not without fault, the BBC does do a lot of things pretty well that others don’t do.

If a TV licence isn’t the option for some, the alternative options aren’t without flaws.
  • Advertising only – I watched a drama on ITV last night. I quite enjoyed the seven minutes I watched before a truckload of adverts came my way. Plenty of time to make a brew every break, mind.
  • Netflix-style subscription model – Spend 30 minutes scrolling for something to watch before deciding on an episode of Friends which is now on Channel 5 anyway. No sport, no local programming, no news, rather reliant on the US. Tiger King and that Fyre Festival documentary were fun though.
  • Sky-subscription model – All the wall to wall sport you could want plus signing your viewing away to betting adverts. I had a pass for Sky Sports for the playoff matches having not watched Sky since moving out of my parents place a long while back. I was astounded at how little coverage the game itself received before or after it had finished in order to ram in commercials. It was a horrible viewing experience. Throw in an astonishing number of channels you don’t want and will never watch for a monthly cost that could fly you to Turkey and back and you have a model that is surely a prime funder for seeing Pogba make £300k a week.
Just maybe a TV licence with a few channels sans adverts and then choice for the consumer to choose whatever package they want thereafter is a the best approach. To have a network where I know I won’t hear ‘Go Compaaare’ every ad break or broadcasts local news rather than another US drama import is maybe worth that £150 a year or so.
BUT.....where's the problem in giving people a CHOICE wether to pay for it or not pay for it???......it's very simple ....i'll tell you why......they wouldnt get enough in the pot because there is more choice elsewhere....THATS WHY!!
 
BUT.....where's the problem in giving people a CHOICE wether to pay for it or not pay for it???......it's very simple ....i'll tell you why......they wouldnt get enough in the pot because there is more choice elsewhere....THATS WHY!!
Would you use the same logic to let people out of paying some of their income tax that funds the NHS, if they have private health care and only ever use that? If they would choose to.
 
Would you use the same logic to let people out of paying some of their income tax that funds the NHS, if they have private health care and only ever use that? If they would choose to.

The BBC and the NHS are a lot different, criminalising people because they don’t want to watch cash in the attic or pay for the pleasure of a repeat of bargain hunters is nuts. The world has changed massively, the licence fee is outdated and the BBC is a relic.
 
Back
Top Bottom