Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.digital-tv > #249413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-17 17:32 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-06-21 09:19 +0100 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 97 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.digital-tv
BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-17 17:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-17 21:41 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-17 21:46 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-19 11:14 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-19 11:42 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:00 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 12:44 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:22 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:25 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-22 13:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-06-22 13:52 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 14:12 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 07:10 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 09:17 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-23 09:22 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:42 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 17:06 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-19 11:49 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 12:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:07 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 13:15 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-19 16:49 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-19 17:31 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-19 18:06 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:41 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-19 20:30 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-20 08:52 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 11:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-20 09:54 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 10:58 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 14:37 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-20 15:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 16:24 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-20 17:20 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 17:54 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 21:59 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 22:02 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-20 23:02 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-21 10:40 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-21 11:02 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-20 22:03 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 12:33 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 07:14 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 09:19 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 09:37 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 17:11 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 17:33 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 20:36 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-23 20:57 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 22:38 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-24 06:17 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-24 09:08 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-06-24 10:30 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-06-24 13:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-20 12:14 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-20 17:13 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-21 08:26 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-21 09:27 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-21 10:46 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-21 13:47 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-06-21 14:16 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-21 10:24 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-21 19:32 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-21 21:33 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 07:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-22 08:56 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:45 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 17:03 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 09:56 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:58 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-22 12:04 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 13:10 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-22 15:23 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 15:40 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-22 18:01 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 07:22 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> - 2026-06-23 07:50 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-23 17:12 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:13 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-22 13:18 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-22 13:29 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:56 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-06-23 12:35 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-23 12:49 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-23 13:24 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-06-23 17:34 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-24 08:25 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 08:48 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-06-24 09:23 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-24 13:10 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-24 11:18 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-25 15:47 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:57 +0000
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-21 07:31 +0100
Re: BBC cuts (round 1?) JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> - 2026-06-21 09:19 +0100
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 10:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9sclfFpgreU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249462 |
On 22/06/2026 07:29 AM, JMB99 wrote: > On 21/06/2026 21:33, Bob Latham wrote: >> The problems with the BBC tax is that it is pretty much though not >> entirely, compulsory. > > So similar to the Advertising Tax, you to pay it unless you want to only > buy unbranded products and even if you never watch commercial TV or > listen to commercial radio. That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise might or would have been. It cannot possibly be otherwise. If it were, it would be pointless advertising anything, since the cost would have to be recovered within the price without any increase in market share or ability to make economies of scale (which is what advertisers are aiming at). As much as BBC Tax fans like to trot it out for lack of a real argument, the "advertising tax" fallacy is tripe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111b95u$1gn65$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249467 |
On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote: > That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the > mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise > might or would have been. The same old nonsense about advertising keeping prices down, it just adds layer(s) of people to be paid without contributing anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ejai3llcft3s6h6as71kdf0r2uime54svi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249475 |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 13:18:04 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote: >> That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the >> mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise >> might or would have been. > >The same old nonsense about advertising keeping prices down, it just >adds layer(s) of people to be paid without contributing anything. > Does it not depend on whether it's creating a new market or subdividing an existing market?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9spo4FrgugU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249475 |
On 22/06/2026 01:18 PM, JMB99 wrote: > On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote: >> That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the >> mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise >> might or would have been. > > The same old nonsense about advertising keeping prices down, it just > adds layer(s) of people to be paid without contributing anything. Tell me you know nothing about economics and markets without... [cont'd on page 297.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 12:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111dr29$276ae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249467 |
On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote: > > That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the > mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise > might or would have been. My impression is that the main purpose of advertising, particularly TV advertising, is to stop the market working, by pushing brands that charge above the market price. There is another sort of advertising, but that's rare, and probably even rarer on TV. That's for new classes of product that people would benefit from, but hadn't realised that they existed or that they would be of benefit. I'd call that an educational advert. (More common are adverts for products which would be better for people to go without.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9va63F91oaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249503 |
David Woolley wrote: > There is another sort of advertising, but that's rare, and probably even > rarer on TV. That's for new classes of product that people would > benefit from, but hadn't realised that they existed or that they would > be of benefit. I'd call that an educational advert. (More common are > adverts for products which would be better for people to go without.) A lot of the time, I've aleady spotted the new product on the shelf and either tried it, or decided not to try it before I've ever seen the advert for it, so the spend falls into the "50% of ads which are a waste of money".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 13:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111dttv$28c1g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249504 |
> > A lot of the time, I've aleady spotted the new product on the shelf and > either tried it, or decided not to try it before I've ever seen the > advert for it, so the spend falls into the "50% of ads which are a waste > of money". > Exactly After more than 50 years of watching their adverts, I can assure you that Carlsberg is definitely not the worlds best lager - although Persil possibly washes whiter And not everybody loves Raymond
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davey <davey@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 17:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111eci4$2csul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249506 |
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:24:33 +0100 Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > A lot of the time, I've aleady spotted the new product on the shelf > > and either tried it, or decided not to try it before I've ever seen > > the advert for it, so the spend falls into the "50% of ads which > > are a waste of money". > > > > > Exactly > > > After more than 50 years of watching their adverts, I can assure you > that Carlsberg is definitely not the worlds best lager - although > Persil possibly washes whiter > > > And not everybody loves Raymond In some circles, what is the point of claiming to be the best of some narrow band? It's like Budweiser claiming to be "The King of Beers". To my palate, it's at or near the bottom of a large collection of American 'beers'. Now, if you had some Left-Hand Sawtooth available, that would have no American competition in the Amber Ale category. Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite (!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable. -- Davey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 08:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111g0pk$2r7j5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249515 |
> > Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite > (!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable. > really ? I would say that one of the reasons for pubs closing might be the heroic efforts that brewers go to in order to eliminate customers Products like Watneys Red Barrel, Charringtons "Best" bitter, Whitbread "Big Head" trophy Bitter (the pint that thinks its a quart) and Harp Lager led the field for a while but theres plenty of competition now from the likes of Carling Black label
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111g23s$2rf03$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249521 |
On 24/06/2026 08:25, Abandoned Trolley wrote: > >> >> Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite >> (!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable. >> > > > really ? > > I would say that one of the reasons for pubs closing might be the heroic > efforts that brewers go to in order to eliminate customers > > Products like Watneys Red Barrel, Charringtons "Best" bitter, Whitbread > "Big Head" trophy Bitter (the pint that thinks its a quart) and Harp > Lager led the field for a while but theres plenty of competition now > from the likes of Carling Black label I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar? -- Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111g45q$2s6k2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249522 |
> > I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the > time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's > urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar? > Quite probably - and possibly in Private Eye ? Theres also an urban myth (or is it ?) regarding a publican avoiding conviction for serving alcohol to minors when it was proved that WRB was actually less than 2% proof - it is said that the product was "withdrawn from the market" shortly afterwards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <111ghf8$2rf04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249525 |
On 24/06/2026 09:23, Abandoned Trolley wrote: > >> >> I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the >> time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's >> urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar? >> > > > > Quite probably - and possibly in Private Eye ? That might be it - I had a subscription to The Eye in those days. (An amusing aside. The Christmas issue always contained a form for next year's subscription. I think that Private Eye had, around that time, suffered from several successful prosecutions for libel. So, this time, the form was headlined in large font "Subscribe, you bastards!"). > Theres also an urban myth (or is it ?) regarding a publican avoiding > conviction for serving alcohol to minors when it was proved that WRB was > actually less than 2% proof - it is said that the product was "withdrawn > from the market" shortly afterwards Probably an urban myth. There's quite an interesting webpage here: <https://boakandbailey.com/2019/01/watneys-red-barrel-how-bad-could-it-have-been/> Around halfway down it notes: "c.3.8% ABV". -- Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9nbn3llkf2unah0t8chu76gid5bn8j55ap@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #249522 |
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 08:48:12 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 24/06/2026 08:25, Abandoned Trolley wrote: >> >>> >>> Coors managed to produce one of the worst available drinks, Coors Lite >>> (!!), but then also made Killian's Red, which was perfectly acceptable. >>> >> >> >> really ? >> >> I would say that one of the reasons for pubs closing might be the heroic >> efforts that brewers go to in order to eliminate customers >> >> Products like Watneys Red Barrel, Charringtons "Best" bitter, Whitbread >> "Big Head" trophy Bitter (the pint that thinks its a quart) and Harp >> Lager led the field for a while but theres plenty of competition now >> from the likes of Carling Black label > >I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a great cartoon from the >time of the beers you mention which showed the wastepipes from the men's >urinals feeding straight back into the barrels in the cellar? And WRB is K9P.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 15:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <na4tbsF5hnoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249503 |
On 23/06/2026 12:35 PM, David Woolley wrote: > On 22/06/2026 10:13, JNugent wrote: >> >> That is the same old nonsensical chestnut. Advertising is part of the >> mechanism - competition - which keeps prices lower than they otherwise >> might or would have been. > > My impression is that the main purpose of advertising, particularly TV > advertising, is to stop the market working, by pushing brands that > charge above the market price. So why does everyone else advertise? Especially the Indian restaurant 75 yards from this cinema or the secondhand car dealer listing the stock in the Friday local press? > > There is another sort of advertising, but that's rare, and probably even > rarer on TV. That's for new classes of product that people would > benefit from, but hadn't realised that they existed or that they would > be of benefit. Lots of it on afternoon TV on the higher numbered channels. > I'd call that an educational advert. (More common are > adverts for products which would be better for people to go without.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 08:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9sbn4FpcgdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249460 |
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 21/06/2026 11:24, Spike wrote: >> If the libraries only carried publications that projected The Gospel >> According to Saint Marx-Lenin, you might have had a point, but they don’t >> and so you don’t. > But people can be taught online so no need for the university structures > and staff. That is the argument used against the BBC by the Far Right. Are you saying that the rich history of distance learning was wrong? -- Spike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 07:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11180fl$jcaa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #249427 |
On 20/06/2026 09:54, Scott wrote: > On a more serious note, I see France has abolished the TV licence and > broadcasting is funded from VAT. So pensioners, children, foreigners etc will all be paying it as VAT is a universal tax on everyone?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 09:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9pl4fFcedjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #249447 |
On 21/06/2026 07:31 AM, JMB99 wrote: > On 20/06/2026 09:54, Scott wrote: >> On a more serious note, I see France has abolished the TV licence and >> broadcasting is funded from VAT. > > So pensioners, children, foreigners etc will all be paying it as VAT is > a universal tax on everyone? Not really. Not at all, in fact. The quantum varies from person to person and household to household, whereas the BBC Tax does not. Think how much VAT a pensioner on £250 a week might pay. Then of how much a £1,000 a week household with two cars must pay. Not that I am advocating the French solution. I'd rather see the BBC having to survive on its own merits, via *voluntary* subscription and thereby having to make some attempt to address the views and preferences of the audience rather than having the absolute freedom to rub the noses of the public in whatever ordure is in vogue at BBC News and Current Affairs.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.digital-tv
csiph-web