BBC wasting my licence fee ?

[Arch]

The thing that pisses me off is their 'news' helicopter.

They spend all that money keeping that thing in the air so that we can watch live footage of a bit of motorway that's had a crash on it. Or maybe a railway that's had a crash on it. If they need an aerial picture so much, can't they just fly over it once and take a picture? Hell, couldn't they just do that with a model plane? Why waste all that fuel and money just having it parked over a scene in which all the 'news' has already happened?

Do they actually have a dedicated news helicopter? I imagine there are lots of events and programmes (large sporting events, scenic programmes, wildlife shows...) where a helicopter would be able to provide good shots, so a couple shared across the network would be better value.

I'd also assume it was chartered, along with a pilot, rather than owned and kept maintained on the off chance they'd need it for a train crash or something...

For example, this company charter to both BBC and ITV...

http://www.flyingtv.co.uk/news.html

 

[LordoftheTeapot]

The BBC needs to stop trying to compeat with ITV etc on viewing figures and go back to having a reputation for producing the best TV in the world.

* Sups tea, dunks biskit.... Re-reads post... Yep, that'll do! *

 

[simoncc]

The BBC needs to stop trying to compeat with ITV etc on viewing figures and go back to having a reputation for producing the best TV in the world.

* Sups tea, dunks biskit.... Re-reads post... Yep, that'll do! *

There's no evidence it ever did make the best TV in the world. That claim is just one of those things that retired colonels down in Brighton say, but then they think that Britain had the best of everything in the world when they were young.

 

[bof]

WTF were the BBC doing buying up Lonely Planet as they did this week. That is the action of a commercial organisation and they're supposedly not one.

My worry is that this sort of thing can be used, with some justice, by Murdoch et al as a way of ending the License fee and making the BBC a private broadcaster. Sadly they make a fair bit of crap now, but were that to happen, it would be pure crap.

 

[bonj2]

According to the interview with him in last Sunday's Oberver, he has had it done.

yeah, well ... duh! ... if the program's claiming that he has, then he'll obviously have been told to also back it up in any interview, won't he! It's not like he isn't in on it!

 

[terry huckle]

bof

It was BBC Worldwide which bought Lonely Planet....described in the news report I read as being a commercial arm of the beeb, presumably self funding and profit making, so licence payers money shouldn`t be involved.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

WTF were the BBC doing buying up Lonely Planet as they did this week. That is the action of a commercial organisation and they're supposedly not one.

My worry is that this sort of thing can be used, with some justice, by Murdoch et al as a way of ending the License fee and making the BBC a private broadcaster. Sadly they make a fair bit of crap now, but were that to happen, it would be pure crap.

They already make a shedload of money from the commercial advertising they do on all of the 'non bbc branded' tv channels they own (all of the UKTV channels are BBC, so that's 10 commercial channels). So I think they should just drop the pretense of them not being commercial, they already make a sh*tload of cash from advertising.

I can't remember the last time I watched anything on BBC, I've found myself mainly watching Channel 4. If I had the choice to not receive BBC I'd gladly take it, but unfortunately I have to pay for it regardless.

It's like if I wrote a magazine, posted it through every letterbox in the country, then demanded payment even if you hadn't read it, because you could have read it if you wanted to.

I'm not saying the BBC shouldn't exist, or that people don't like the programs that they make. But I don't like them and I do begrudge the fact that I have to pay for the BBC to be allowed to watch any other channel.

 

[redfox]

Did anyone else watch it? If not I don't think you missed much.

Apart from the guy claiming of himself "there aren't many 50 year old guys that look this good!" when there are probably 50 year old manikins that look more human than he did. It might have been funny if he hadn't revealed that his self image problems stem from what amounted to child abuse.

Louis' conclusions seemed rather upbeat considering how sad the plight most program's participants came across.

IMO, Louis aside, I doubt anybody gained from the making or viewing of this so, yes, the BBC were probably wasting your license fee!

 

[andy_wrx]

It was a bit disturbing. Very California no doubt, although of course Louis is making films so anything shown is carefully selected and edited to make a point.

But would you really let those people loose on (in) your body ?
(particularly the Russian doctor...creeeepy !)

Did the muscle-implant guys look better afterwards ?

Was Ariana remotely sexy, with her nips&tucks, artificial navel, oversize-grapefruit breasts, etc ?
(although the nose-job was an improvement, I'll grant)

The best (worst?) bit was the other woman's on-off boyfriend, who she 'could really see' how much he loved the way she now looked...
- if that was how he showed it, I couldn't tell. He looked more like to me that he'd recently smoked 15 joints and was way out of it.

And she was employing that red-haired plastic woman as an image consultant at $2000 a day ?!?!?!?!
To clap and say 'hey !' ?!?!?!?!

Hmmmmm.