close
more_vert

i 2nd you fourwinds - i like the way world service refers to "the regime in london" and stuff like that ver funny, and diff perspective.

the bbc is great, radio4 is a second home for me, i love writing/literature, discussion/history, comedy/satire, news/history and although sonewhat tainted at times r4 is the absolute best i've come across - better n anything on the tv as far as i can see. and has the added bonus of being soft on my southern english petit bourgeoius ears. company too in the lonely moments of life.

the criticism should be for the utter pap put out on the mainstream tv channels, shallow, follow the herd, unrepentently materialistic and asanine drivel. ps. i like changing rooms tho! (joke)

I don't care about the licence fee better n fuckin adverts - to advertisers i say fuck off out me heed, take yer nasty images and keep they're yours not mine, keep em.

yours rantily of small blue planet
Nick

i agree too. The BBC is far from perfect, but it's a good deal better than any other large media outlet i can think of. Kind of The Guardian of the airwaves, y'know? They're still going to steer clear of undermining the established order in any great way, but are - at least - a step up from the rest.

However, the problem i have with the licence-fee is that it's mandatory. It's a technical issue, i guess, but there should be a way of blocking an individual TV from picking up the BBC signal. If Joe Smith decides he'd rather save 100 quid a year and lose out on the BBC, then he should have the right to do so.

As it happens, BBC News-24 is by a *long* way the most watched TV channel in my household, with the dial rarely leaving it (except for a couple of hours on Sky-1 from 8 to 10 on Thursdays, of course :-)

So i have no objections to paying the licence fee. If some of that money is supporting an alternative to the tabloid mess that is Sky News or the shiny shallowness of CNN, then it's money well-spent. And BBC-Four is pretty good too.