Re: British! : Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:06 pm  

Lawrie L wrote:

And the license fee is?

The licence fee is just that.

The licence fee does not cover just programme making it also covers Radio, World Service and a myriad of other loss makers the BBC is obliged under it's charter to provide. Sky has none of these obligations and simply produces programmes to match it's advertising and subscription revenue.

So as ever you thought you were a smart ar*e when in fact your just an ......

Re: British! : Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:26 pm  

Lawrie L wrote:

And the license fee is?

The best value £140 I spend every year.

Re: British! : Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:47 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

The best value £140 I spend every year.

I'd have to agree - wanton profligacy at the BBC aside, it's terrific value for money.

Re: British! : Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:12 pm  

vastman wrote:

The licence fee is just that.

The licence fee does not cover just programme making it also covers Radio, World Service and a myriad of other loss makers the BBC is obliged under it's charter to provide. Sky has none of these obligations and simply produces programmes to match it's advertising and subscription revenue.

So as ever you thought you were a smart ar*e when in fact your just an ......

Now now Vasty

I asked a question that is all

No need to be rude

Re: British! : Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:31 pm  

On the subject of Sky v BBC v movies. A very good friend of mine also happens to be a close friend of Terry Pratchett. Pratchett chose Sky to convert his books to the screen for the simple reason they allowed him to retain editorial control. He laughed the BBC out of the office and even refused an offer from Spielberg, simply because they wanted to bugger around with his books