You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I "like" how the Gov are trying to use the umbrella of saving public sector spending in these austere times, to lay the ground work for culling the License. How does that work then? As I understand it the Beeb is funded by the license fee and sales of it's programming. So in effect it mimics a private company in that there is no public money used to support the BBC. Unlike such "private" enterprises as the rail system. Irrespective of whether you agree with how much the beeb spends on "talent" it does not put a drain on the public coffers. Unless of course any of you out there know better and can put me right. And isn't it funny that the Gov can defend salaries and bonuses for bankers after they have been propped up by the (tax paying) citizens of the UK as required to attract the "talent". But then criticise the BBC for paying what it feels is required to attract/keep it's talent. Not that I agree necessarily with the remuneration that some get. Just another example of double standards and a cynical attempt to undermine the licence system and the BBC. Maybe football players should have their massive salaries looked at/cut in order to acknowledge our current financial climate and help the country out?
Just strikes me that our wonderful new betters are going to use the deficit to justify attacks on all the systems that the Tories don't like (and which the Libs won't put up any defense of as long as they are "sharing" the power.
Sorry for the long winded post. Just got one on me and needed to get it off my chest.
So in effect it mimics a private company in that there is no public money used to support the BBC
Can't think of many private companies that can have you prosecuted and given a criminal record for having the capacity to use their services, regardless of whether you use them or not!
I have a choice which bank I give my business to, I have a choice whether to watch Sky, I have a choice whether to go to football matches - If I and others choose not to, then they go bust!
So you never watch the BBC, listen to any of their radio output or use their web services? I know what you are saying. I am just a supporter of the BBC and licence fee.
That £140 a year license must cripple Sky subscribers.
I have a choice which bank I give my business to, I have a choice whether to watch Sky, I have a choice whether to go to football matches - If I and others choose not to, then they go bust!
You have a choice whether or not you own a television. If you and others choose not to, then the BBC goes bust.
Can't think of many private companies that ......
It is pretty much impossible to avoid paying for example, the private water companies. If you chose to live on bottled water and to urinate and defecate in your garden, I think your local environmental health department might have an issue with that.
It's the tories paying up for their support by the Murdoch media empire.
If you chose to live on bottled water and to urinate and defecate in your garden, I think your local environmental health department might have an issue with that.
Damn this Nanny State!
The sooner the licence fee is binned and the Bloated Broadcasting Corporation fends for itself like every other TV or Radio institution/company the better
.....fends for itself like every other TV or Radio institution/company
And of course it will do ITV the world of good if they are in direct competition with the BBC for advertising revenue.
Just think how much better British TV would be, if both BBC and ITV were skint.....
[i]ffs[/i]
There is an argument to be made for the BBC to share part of the licence fee with the more public-service broadcast parts of ITV, but not cuts for the sake of cuts. This is nothing more than the Tories returning the favour to Rupert Murdoch and his fellow moguls for having their papers and TV channels back them into power. You scratch my back etc.
The public values the BBC. There is a place for it where it offers things that the private sector can't figure out ways to make money from. Look at the way people rallied to BBC6 Music and saved it when it was threatened with the axe.
Let's hope they don't stand for any more ideologically-driven returned favours from the Tories to their benefactors, the people who offer us "choice". Choice between the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Express, The Sun, Sky News, the proprietors of which detest the BBC for offering people a sane and affordable alternative to the poisonous, brainless, doctrinaire and over-priced garbage they purvey.
£140 a year for the BBC's TV, radio and web offering or £50 + a month for Sky TV with any of sport or films worth watching? Slash and burn the former and sooner or later you'll be left with no option other than the latter. Sounds like a false economy to me.
The BBC clearly stopped pretending to be non-biased during the Blair Glory Years so they've brought it on themselves. I say scrap the ****ing fee
Selective partial quotation again Fred?
Can't think of many private companies that [u]can have you prosecuted and given a criminal record...[/u]
Funnily enough, whats the punishment for not paying your water and sewerage bills?
you can be taken to court to recover the debt under civil law, but they cannot disconnect you, and you would not end up with a criminal record for failing to pay... so, its completely different from TV tax then isn't it!
If the BBC[i] mimics a private company[/i] then it should only be able to enforce its debts through civil courts, its ridiculous that the BBC can have its debts enforced through the criminal courts
So you reckon it's a political motivated decision made by vindictive Tories enfht ?
Surely not ? 😐
The chance that the licence will be dropped is pretty remote. You pay for the right to own a television receiver; the Beeb gets it's funding as a public service broadcaster from that money.
its completely different from TV tax then isn't it!
The services provided by the water companies and the BBC are indeed [i]"completely different"[/i]........well done for pointing that out ratty.
And also well done for pointing out that you 'cannot be disconnected' from your water supply...........at least with the TV license you have a choice - ie don't get a TV.
So Fred, are you going to give me an example of where a private company can have you prosecuted?
Do you think that Specialized should be able to charge me a tax for owning a Mountain Bike perhaps?
Maybe Dunlop should charge me an annual fee because by bike's got rubber tyres?
OK ratty, Fred has told me to tell you on his behalf, that you are completely right - no one has to pay the water companies any money at all, if they chose not to.
You've won ! Well done !
How does it feel ? 🙂
To be fair I was hoping you'd bite more at the Fred comments Che 😉
[url= http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ ]BBC political bias ? [/url]
Surely not.
Why does that web page have a direct link at the top to Sky News and Sport ps44 ?
It's almost as if it might be a little [i]"biased"[/i]
💡 Maybe it's because nothing owned by Murdoch is biased ?
I suspec the things most British people are most proud of are the BBC and the NHS. It is unfortunate that the right wing folks see them as some sort of socialist left wing eneterprises.
It is also unfortunate there is no way of avoiding the licence fee if you [unlikely though this is] choose to not engage with any BBC products and live off a diet of Sky - surely these folks would miss Top Gear and the footy if not the Prom series.
Due to not having to make money the BBC can do a variety of programmes that would not get funding otherwise. Proms and the documentaries spring to mind. They also make a lot of their own shows rather than just buy a succesful USA series.
Not sure what method others think we should ude to fund it. I suspect using adverts would actually harm the other private companies much more than it would help them or harm the BBC.
PS on choice can I have some live footy without having to give Murdoch some of my money ...darn this private sector and it's "choice " principle it looks like sometimes big companies can bully the small ones - see latest price hike re BT having access to Sky Sports...the private sector is not always better or fairer. Sometimes they are protectionist and exploitative.
Having the BBC lose the license fee and become just another channel is horrifying.
The sooner the licence fee is binned and the Bloated Broadcasting Corporation fends for itself like every other TV or Radio institution/company the better
Yeah the BBC needs to be more like ITV doesn't it. 🙄
Obviously a lot of beeb/gravy train employees on here 8)
Not at all, just educated enough to realise how the rest is shite 8)
let those who want the BBC pay for it i say ... make it a subscription channel only 🙂 ... errrr "End of" Lol
"The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?",
Jeremy Paxman
James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture, Aug 24th, 2007.
It works, its cheap, the BBC provides good content free at the point of use.
I see no downside. If it ain't broke why fix it?
I don't really understand people that watch the drivel on ITV and think [i]"Wow, I wish the BBC churned out more mindless shite like this"[/i].
Not to mention the excellent radio and web offerings.
Keep Public Service Broadcasting please, it's one of the last bastions of intelligence in a commercial, lowest common denominator world.
"The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s".
That is actually a fair point. It all started of as a licence on radios to fund the BBC. It was then combined with the TV licence when TVs first appeared. By the 1970s it was decided that as almost everyone owned some sort of a radio, it would apply only to owners of TVs. But we now a situation where no significant amount of people do not in some way use the services of the BBC - be it their car radio, TV, schools, or on-line news service.
I reckon there is now an overwhelming case to make that the BBC should now be funded through general taxation. Enforcing the licence fee costs the BBC £100 million annually, that's £100 million which could be ploughed back to actually produce programmes.
There are some who argue that the licence fee keeps the BBC independent from the government. Whilst that might well have been true many decades ago, I think it is probably fair to say that that is no longer entirely the case - specially since the New Labour government. After all as an example, the only person in Britain to lose his job over the ****up which was the Iraqi War, was the Director General of the BBC Greg Dyke. And iirc it was the government which decided and forced the BBC, to redirect £millions away from programme production and into funding the digital switch-over.
Stumped up the annual £145 on Friday, feeling pretty sore about it, what with Paxman, Ross & co's [not to mention senior management and execs'] hyper inflated wages . It's a public service broadcaster, so they shouldn't look for parity with a private operation [which they do]. If they don't like it then they should leave the bbc.
'
Then just watched hours of bbc4, doc's on Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash, Rich Halls' Dirty south' on the portrayal of the South in cinema etc. Outstanding stuff.
Bbc 4, [ along with Radio 6], produces broadcasting with a depth and passion that quite simply has never been seen before and probably couldn't be found anywhere in the world; The history of jazz, blues, rock, latin music; The art doc's on spain, the baroque etc, etc etc. All done with small budgets and the devotion of the program makers.
This is what a public broadcaster should be doing and I certainly feel I'm getting VFM from some dedicated souls at the beeb. However, I'd be glad to see some cuts at the top, Quality people will always want to work for them, so ditch the fat cats and stop trying to compete with commercial telly. They did it with Radio when they got rid of all those smashy & niceys', so show the same judgement with t.v. output, it's long overdue.
I hardly watch TV by I like a fair bit of R4.
The few TV programmes that get my attention are from the BBC. All the commercial channels produce utterly commercial sh1te IMO. All the foreign TV stations also produce utter sh1te.
The BBC is the beacon of broadcasting quality. So in typically British fashion, lets screw it up.
Long live the BBC I say.
The main benefit of the BBC is that it doesn't need money from advertisers to run and therefore should be less biased than other broadcasters. I hate adverts and avoid them whenever possible so only really ever watch BBC channels. Films, box sets and the occasional BBC documentary are enough for me. Don't mind the licence fee as I use their web services a lot.
This is nothing more than the Tories returning the favour to Rupert Murdoch and his fellow moguls for having their papers and TV channels back them into power. You scratch my back etc.
Murdoch has offered to buy BSKYB out completely, and now a possible cut in the BBC's licence fee. Coincidence?
It's no surpise that the right wingers here would love to see the end of the licence fee, I wouldn't have expected anything different from those who have utterly no consideration for anyone else but themselves. I'm sure they'll say something like "choice", but the type of choices are determined by whether you can afford them or not. The BBC doesn't charge for web services...unlike others. Choice.
Political parties often change policies and the like to make them electable, it seems the good old tories are just picking up where they left off in 1997. They seem to be in an awful rush this time around.
"A History Of The World in 100 Objects" is worth this year's licence fee by itself.
Try getting something like that commissioned in commercial broadcasting.
I think it's fair to say that the BBC are seen the world over as a top class broadcaster, and they set very high standards for the other broadcasters to aspire to. Having said that, with the luxury of a permanent fixed income for ever, the output should be top class.
The BBC churning out cheap and nasty ads like ITV and Sky would be a shame, but if it saved me £145 a year I could get used to it.
The BBC churning out cheap and nasty ads like ITV and Sky would be a shame, but if it saved me £145 a year I could get used to it.
Really? for £3 a week?
40 mins programming & 20 mins ads per hour is not something I'd fancy seeing on the beeb
And do you really think those "very high standards" would continue once they had to make more populist stuff to bring in the advertisers?
Radio 4 with adverts?... *shudder*
Radio 4 with adverts?... *shudder*
As a regular radio four listener, I have to question if it really doesn't have adverts - the only difference is that its the inane, senseless, constant, repeated, mind numbing advertising trailers for other radio 4 programmes, such as "A History Of The World in a Million Trailers" that drive you to the point of despair.
that drive you to the point of despair
Good gracious dear me 😐
i thought we sorted this one out with subscription? perhaps not, lol
Mine arrived a couple of days ago, noticed that 'their' definition of TV equipment is now;
a TV set, digital box, DVD recorder, VHS recorder, computer, mobile phone, games console!
WTF, now they are the PC, phone and Wii gestapo too.
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone[b] to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV[/b]"
So as long you are not watching or recording live BBC transmissions on your computer or phone, you're OK to own those devices without requiring a licence. No?
I love adverts, in fact I would sooner watch them all day than be forced to pay the licence fee. Capitalism FTW
the inane, senseless, constant, repeated, mind numbing advertising trailers for other radio 4 programmes, such as "A History Of The World in a Million Trailers" that drive you to the point of despair.
You're either the most fragile of fragile little blossoms, or you're the kind of chap who believes that he who exagerates most wildly wins the argument.
BTW, it can't be "constant" [b]and[/b] "repeated", can it?
bloodynora - MemberI love adverts, in fact I would sooner watch them all day .......
Yep, you're right mate ............ the licence fee would be wasted on you.
In fact, I'm surprised that you need a TV at all to entertain yourself..........can't you make interesting shapes out of your earwax or something ?
ernie_lynch in resorting to insults shocker....
ernie_lynch in resorting to insults shocker....
He gave up trying to insult your intelligence...
It is pretty much impossible to avoid paying for example, the private water companies. If you chose to live on bottled water and to urinate and defecate in your garden, I think your local environmental health department might have an issue with that.
lots of people (100's of thousands) aren't connected to a water company network and therefore don't pay the charges. Those who do connect to the sewer network subsidise what is indeed deemed a "tax" ie Highway Drainage as those not connected to sewers don't pay it
on average every bill payer subsidises non-paying service users by £12 p.a. (ie how much does bad debt put your bill up by). These are "won't pays" as most "can't pays" get picked up by the chritable schemes run by the water companies
water company privatisation is a method of off balance sheet financing the massive investment required by pollution control and tightening water quality standards. They can't be asset stripped due to licence conditions and are in essence low risk low return investments hence the ownershipby pension companies etc
the BBC issue is that the corporation has a guaranteed income and a desire to infiltrate every aspect of broadcasting and media and can be free at point of use as it already has the cash. This means that commercial media (except Sky due to the pay tv football) struggle for a viable model
imho it should be very clear what the BBC should be focuing on and where "commercial" broadcasters should compete for the market. Radio's 1 & 2 for example do they need to be done by the BBC? Arguably 6 music is what the BBC shuld be doing rather than Chris Moyles? This clarity of purpose will drive out the savings. I'd rather pay £100 p.a. for a reduced scope, high quality output than £140+ for "stars" like Jonathan Ross and tat like R1&2
I'm sure the resident troll will dispute everything above and resort to some highly amusing comments 😉
Arise Lord Rupert of Wapping. You know it makes sense 8)
lots of people (100's of thousands) aren't connected to a water company network and therefore don't pay the charges.
Yes, I am aware that not everyone is connected to the main sewer - my sister isn't. Obviously that situation wasn't what I was talking about. If you hadn't figured it out ......... I'm clearly talking about where the property is connected to the main sewer - you can't simply decide to opt out, you can't tell them that you don't wish to use their services as you will be using the pub next door to have a shit. You are forced to pay the private water company whether you like it or not. You are not forced to have a TV licence. It was in response to what ratty had said. But yeah big_n_daft, you are absolutely right - I should have said "except for the exceptions". Very sloppy of me. Thanks for pointing it out mate 🙂
big_n_daft: the trouble is that if the beeb stayed away from ALL 'commercial'/populist programming and only did drama, documentaries, Radio 4 and 6 Music then they would alienate a large portion of the population which would A) be against their charter and B) would be suicide as then people really would rise up against the license fee.
BTW doesn't Channel 4 still get license fee money for providing regional programming or something?
Thanks for posting that Lawmanmx, very interesting. What if I'm connected to the main sewer though? Does that mean I still have to pay my licence fee?! 😉
BTW doesn't Channel 4 still get license fee money for providing regional programming or something?
No, Channel 4 has never received any money from the license fee. It was proposed a few years back that it should - but it never happened.
.
Lawmanmx - is your link for real ? I didn't have the patience to try and figure out whether this was some sort of "joke" :
[b]Sir Michael Lyons
The Chairman, By 1st Class Post BBC, Recorded Delivery.
Broadcast centre,
201 Wood lane,
London
W12 7TP
Dear Sir Michael Lyons
Re: The Royal Charter of the BBC, & the Treason & Felony Act, 1848
Notice Before Action.
It has been brought to my attention that the Corporation has received and is now receiving substantial amounts of funding from the European Union, in breach of Charter Provisions, and that in consequence of this very suspect arrangement the BBC is now reduced to the function of providing both broadcasting & propaganda facilities to a form of alien authority that fails to acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the British Crown.
I must advise you that all such conduct serves to breach the provisions of the Treason Act, 1351 with the further provisions of the Treason & Felony Act, 1848.
In addition, I must advise that the Treason & Felony Act of 1848 provides that it is a Criminal Offence for Subjects of the Crown to give aid or comfort to Traitors, and that this offence is punishable by imprisonment for life.
I am concerned for my own position and I must ask you to cease and desist from all treacherous conduct & financial arrangements, without delay.
Unless I receive your written assurance that the Corporation will issue an immediate public apology for all Treason committed thus far, with your further guarantee that the Corporation will cease and desist from all and any conduct that fails to maintain the Supremacy of the British Crown, then I must give fair warning of my intention to discontinue the payment of all such moneys as are now being applied to the financial support of the BBC.
I look forward to receipt of your immediate response to this present letter and I give notice that payments in support of the BBC will be suspended, unless I receive a satisfactory response within 14 days of this present date.
Yours faithfully,
(Sign Here)[/b]
Have you signed it nora ?
I don't think it's a joke. Have you read any of the other stuff on the site. The phrase "swivel-headed loon" doesn't even come close!
As Oscar Wilde nearly said, "Some of those cynical bicyclist types obviously know the price of everything & the value of nothing."
Have signed it just for you Ernie 😉 Your blurring of the lines between sewerage and TV licence fees has been amusing though I have to say
GrahamS - Member
I don't think it's a joke. Have you read any of the other stuff on the site. The phrase "swivel-headed loon" doesn't even come close!
Obviously You have'nt then Graham, try again 😉
What? So is it a joke then?
It's pretty extensive if it is, what with the tours, the youtube videos, the rambling blogs and random links to bits of out of date legislation, the various campaigns and the forum.
Obviously You have'nt then Graham, try again
So [i]it is[/i] a "joke" then Lawmanmx ?
Oh dear, I think poor old nora fell for it.
He apparently signed a letter which claimed the BBC were traitors, as they had provided propaganda facilities to an alien authority which fails to acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the British Crown.......... and are therefore guilty of treason under the provisions of the Treason Act 1351.
I bet he feels stupid now 😐
Yeah, I don't get it.
Maybe that is hilarious if you are a lawyer???
Why should the BBC should only produce stuff that is non-commercial? I've paid my £145 a year and I want the dross too. If the commercial stations were so sure of their success then they would be all over the BBC in terms of ratings, quality products, loved by the British public.
ITV succeeded in the 50s', 60, 70s and early 80's due the fact that we had so few channels, therefore making money was easy. With so many channels commercial television is struggling to survive. rather than improve what they churn out, their action is to attack the BBC. This reduces the quality of the competition as well as a major player.
If BSkyB was run properly it would split itself into two - one a transmission service and the other a TV producer. At the moment one cross subsides the other.
We all get get value from the BBC - £145 a year for all the services that it provides is cheap. If you had to buy the individual bits by themselves i.e. BBC 2, 4, Radio 4, 6, local radio and the BBC website I would expect the annual cost to be in excess of that. I dread to think how much I pay to Virgin and Murdoch for the privilege of them running TV into my house. (I do wonder what percentage of the time that TV is watch via cable and Satellite is for BBC? Do you that think Sky/Virgin would tell us?)
Finally while the TV Licence is anachronistic it does at least give a illusion of separation from the Government. All methods of collecting money are open to abuse, our tax system is no better. If is was done via subscription I am sure that somewhere along the way someone would find a way to crack the subscription.
The license fee costs you less than 40p per day. The queen and her inbred mutant family costs you at least 62p per day. The replacement of Trident will likely cost you more than £1 a day. Murdoch will soon be charging £1 per day just for access to the Times online.
I feel like I definitely get 40p worth of value from the BBC every single day. I'm hugely unconvinced by the others.
The queen and her inbred mutant family costs you at least 62p per day.
Source please.
here's one source - took about 3 seconds to find
The queen and her inbred mutant family costs you at least 62p per [s]day.[/s][b]Year[/b]
yep, 62 pence [u]per year[/u] per person - in comparison with the BBC I'd call that a freaking bargain, if only for Phil the Greek 🙂
here's one source - took about 3 seconds to
find
Yes well done, except as Zulu-Eleven points out, that doesn't match the 62p [u]per day[/u] that Urchinboy was frothing about - which is why I called him on it. 🙂
62p a day would be around 13.9 billion pounds a year. Even the dear old Queen Mum couldn't put that much champagne away.
I don't really understand why the Tories are / would be anti BBC.
I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the data Experian and the likes hold on constituencies and wards that consistently vote Tory, ITV viewing will generally be way below the norm. Everyone knows Sky isn't worth watching for things other than Sport and Films, so they must be watching the Beeb's entertainment, news and documentary output.
so they must be watching the Beeb's entertainment, news and documentary output.
Your assumption being that everyone spends all their spare time glued to the TV?
Fair enough. I still consider 62p per year to be too much for that lot.
Still don't think you can argue with 40p per day for the BBC.
I don't really understand why the Tories are / would be anti BBC.
The old 'One Nation' social-democratic Tories before Thatcher weren't in the least bit hostile towards the BBC. In fact they recognised "Auntie", as the BBC was fondly called in those days, for what it was/is ie, a real asset to Britain. Something to be proud of - a British broadcaster in a unique class of it's own, with an international reputation, and the envy of the world.
Things changed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the foreign owned Sun newspaper started a long and protracted campaign against the BBC, as it's proprietor's broadcasting interests were now in direct competition with the BBC - hardly a day passes by without the Sun slagging off the BBC.
Then newspaper like the Daily Mail also jumped onto the bandwagon as the BBC's 'fair and balanced' reporting flies completely in the face of everything which the Daily Mail stands for - the more the truth gets out, the weaker the Daily Mail is at influencing people.
And finally the new breed of right-wing working-class Tories such as Thatcher and Tebbit, hated anything which was owned by the nation - specially something which is exceptionally successful.
So we now have a situation where slagging off the BBC has become highly fashionable. And spongebrains, including a small minority on here, obediently comply with the right-wing press's agenda, and stick the boot in BBC at any opportunity. Thereby helping some America/Australian billionaire in his quest to become even more wealthy and powerful, and the Daily Mail in their quest the churn out bollox without hindrance.
ernie_lynch = nailed it! Top marks that man.
I'll happily not pay a licence fee.
I never watch BBC boring as hell or tv that much but do like the odd news or movie/documentary on other channels.
I never watch BBC
You [i]NEVER[/i] watch it? Even though you apparently like news, movies and documentaries - all of which the BBC are pretty good at?
How about radio? Listen to any BBC output there?
Do you use the BBC website at all?
Frankenstein - if you don't like what the BBC make, get in touch. Whilst they are a publicly funded organisation they have a duty to listen to any feedback you have. I think thats one of the best things about the BBC, they make stuff that might be a bit niche or a bit unusual or just blatantly not very 'commercial'. Sometimes its dull and I don't watch, sometimes it's crap and I don't watch, but often its interesting, well made, unique and without any adverts or commercial interests, and I love watching it.
We have some of the best TV in the world on the BBC, as well as probably the best and most impartial news on the planet. In my opinion it would be a shame to lose it over a matter of 40p per day.
You can't read Graham S 🙂
I never watch the BBC.
I've put all my channels in order of pref and the BBC is last.
I understand if people love it but I think we should have a choice like Sky or Virgin.
I do go to the movies or buy DVD's BlueRay etc.
Radio? I have a hard drive in my car with my fave music.
Just looked at the TV guide -bugger all on BBC for me anyway, Oh I missed Songs of Praise...
Whats on Sky?
You can't read Graham S
I can read fine: don't mistake incredulity for incomprehension. 🙂
I've put all my channels in order of pref and the BBC is last.
Even below price-drop.tv, The Hallmark Channel and Gay Rabbit??? Blimey!
I think we should have a choice like Sky or Virgin.
What's the cheapest Sky subscription? £20 a month?
How would you propose to charge for radio, iPlayer and the BBC websites?
Just looked at the TV guide -bugger all on BBC for me anyway
Okay.. on right now:
BBC1: The Silence (Top drama already being discussed in another thread here).
BBC2: News
BBC3: Underage and Pregnant
BBC4: Britain by Bike
News 24: ABC World News with Diane Sawyer
Not bad for the back of 1 in the morning.
But yeah nothing really interesting unless you like new drama, current affairs, underage chavs, or bikes.
Meantime...
Sky1: Surviving Prison
Sky2: My Pet Shame
Virgin1: Challenge Jackpot
I shit you not.