On 05/12/2023 01:01 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <ukn3ni$52a5$1@dont-email.me>,
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>> The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up.
>>> Explain how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for
>>> Amazon Prime.
>
>> Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
>> forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
>> service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything
>> of interest so did not bother.
>
> Unpack that: You wanted the delivery service and were prepared to pay
> for it. Then you found out there was some free stuff which you didn't
> like so you abandoned the whole idea.
>
> Fair enough but odd reasoning. But at least you had the option to not
> bother without being limited on other options with the threat of
> prosecution.
>
> Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
> some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
> must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
> yourself in court.
>
> Bob.

No-one ever has a sensible response to that one! And certainly not one
that comes anywhere near being a justification for it.

It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).

JNugent wrote:

> JMB99 wrote:
>
>> Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
>> forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
>> service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of
>> interest so did not bother.
>
> Out of interest, how did you look at it if you haven't got it?

Probably through "explore prime video" which lets you see what content
is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?

<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>

On 06/12/2023 10:28 am, Andy Burns wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> JMB99 wrote:
>
>>> Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
>>> forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
>>> service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of
>>> interest so did not bother.
>
>> Out of interest, how did you look at it if you haven't got it?
>
> Probably through "explore prime video" which lets you see what content
> is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?
>
> <https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>

Anyone making a judgement via a course like that would have to be
reading titles and any synopses that were available?

I too took out the Prime membership because of the delivery aspect. I
didn't even know about the TV service. We had a Blu-Ray player with an
Amazon app built in and I decided to explore via that method. "Bosch"
was the deciding factor.

JNugent wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
> "explore prime video" which lets you see what content
>> is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?
>>
>> <https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>
>
> Anyone making a judgement via a course like that would have to be
> reading titles and any synopses that were available?
>
> I too took out the Prime membership because of the delivery aspect.

Same here, I get plenty of same/next day deliveries but rarely watch
anything from Amazon, I presume the cost for delivery without video
wouldn't work out at half?

> I didn't even know about the TV service. We had a Blu-Ray player with
> an Amazon app built in and I decided to explore via that method.
> "Bosch" was the deciding factor.

I subscribed to Netflix for a year, watched a couple of series of a
couple of shows, but then didn't feel inclined to start watching
anything "new" just because it was there, didn't renew Netflix

On 06/12/2023 10:17, JNugent wrote:
> It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
> you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).

Though you are forced to indirectly subsidise the Guardian through lots
of Leftie councils and other organisations who buy many copies. Even
the BBC are said to buy lots of copies.

In article <ukplp8$o7qt$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 10:17, JNugent wrote:
> > It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
> > you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).

> Though you are forced to indirectly subsidise the Guardian through lots
> of Leftie councils and other organisations who buy many copies. Even
> the BBC are said to buy lots of copies.

but probably no more than copies of other papers. Years ago, at
University, where we had newspapers to read they even included the Daily
Worker.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 06/12/2023 12:08, charles wrote:
> but probably no more than copies of other papers. Years ago, at
> University, where we had newspapers to read they even included the Daily
> Worker.

There have been many reports over the years of some organisation buying
large numbers of copies, the sale of the rag are so low that it must be
an important source of income for them especially after they lost the
income from the motoring magazine some years ago.

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
> you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).

Or like just buying any single newspaper, and still having to put
up with some of your money going to pay for the sports and business
sections (or whatever other bits of it you don't happen to like).

#Paul

On 18:42 4 Dec 2023, JMB99 said:
> On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but
>> its pro-Israel bias finished me.
>
> Pro-Israel?
>
> It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I looked
> at news programmes.

I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either. The BBC's initial readiness
to repeat Hamas propaganda without criticism was surprising, from who
launched a rocket that hit a hospitals to claims about death tolls.
After loud criticism, the bias seems to have improved.

Out of BBC TV's total output, there are only a few tv programmes I might
watch. In practice I can't trouble myself to seek them out.

Worst of all BBC tv seems to be pandering to the woke agenda by
misrepresenting history and promoting excessively liberal values to an
egregious extent. BBC Three is awash with such woke craziness that it is
more than merely an attempt to appeal to a juvenile audience.

For myself, I'm happy to watch mainly streaming movies and to dig out
whichever video clips I like on YouTube, Vimeo, etc. I don't miss
watching the BBC one little bit, although I do listen to some of their
their radio broadcasts.

On 10:56 5 Dec 2023, JNugent said:

> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>>>
>>>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>>>
>>>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>>>
>>>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
>>>> shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are they red herrings?
>>>
>>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
>>> systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>>>
>>> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
>>> Tax which probably costs you more.
>>>
>>
>> Murdochvision? What is that?
>
> Guardian-speak for Sky television.
>
> [Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]

Not forgetting Rupert Murdoch's somewhat dismal TalkTV. It seems to be
slowly improving (Piers Morgan seems to be a big draw) but it has a way
to go.

On 06/12/2023 20:16, Pamela wrote:
> I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either. The BBC's initial readiness
> to repeat Hamas propaganda without criticism was surprising, from who
> launched a rocket that hit a hospitals to claims about death tolls.
> After loud criticism, the bias seems to have improved.

It was quite ironic that ITV and GBTV were attacking the BBC for calling
HAMAS 'militants' but like most (if not all the media) were doing the
same themselves!

On 06/12/2023 11:14 am, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> "explore prime video" which lets you see what content
>>> is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?
>>>
>>> <https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>
>>
>> Anyone making a judgement via a course like that would have to be
>> reading titles and any synopses that were available?
>>
>> I too took out the Prime membership because of the delivery aspect.
>
> Same here, I get plenty of same/next day deliveries but rarely watch
> anything from Amazon, I presume the cost for delivery without video
> wouldn't work out at half?
>
>> I didn't even know about the TV service. We had a Blu-Ray player with
>> an Amazon app built in and I decided to explore via that method.
>> "Bosch" was the deciding factor.
>
> I subscribed to Netflix for a year, watched a couple of series of a
> couple of shows, but then didn't feel inclined to start watching
> anything "new" just because it was there, didn't renew Netflix

I only have Netflix for a month or two, every now and then. Mainly to
see what all the fuss is about with "The Crown" and (of course) to
follow up on "Better Call Saul" while it was current.

On 06/12/2023 11:26 am, JMB99 wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 10:17, JNugent wrote:

>> It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian
>> before you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed,
>> vice-versa).
>
> Though you are forced to indirectly subsidise the Guardian through lots
> of Leftie councils and other organisations who buy many copies.

In that case let me clarify:

It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (in addition to being
ripped-off by hose lefty authorities via Council Tax and other imposts).

> Even the BBC are said to buy lots of copies.

They need to know that all their job ads have been spelled correctly, I
expect.

On 06/12/2023 07:25 pm, #Paul wrote:

> JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

>> It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
>> you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).
>
> Or like just buying any single newspaper, and still having to put
> up with some of your money going to pay for the sports and business
> sections (or whatever other bits of it you don't happen to like).

So you think that having to pay for a whole newspaper that you don't
like in order to be allowed to buy the one you *do* like is no worse
than just being able to buy your favourite in the first place and keep
the other £1.25 in your pocket.

It really does take all sorts...

On 06/12/2023 08:20 pm, Pamela wrote:
> On 10:56 5 Dec 2023, JNugent said:
>
>> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>>>>
>>>>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>>>>
>>>>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>>>>
>>>>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
>>>>> shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are they red herrings?
>>>>
>>>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
>>>> systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>>>>
>>>> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
>>>> Tax which probably costs you more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Murdochvision? What is that?
>>
>> Guardian-speak for Sky television.
>>
>> [Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
>
> Not forgetting Rupert Murdoch's somewhat dismal TalkTV. It seems to be
> slowly improving (Piers Morgan seems to be a big draw) but it has a way
> to go.

What is the connection?

JNugent wrote:

> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> >
> > Murdochvision? What is that?
>
> Guardian-speak for Sky television.
>
> [Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]

FWIW, Sky was sold to Comcast.

Pamela wrote:

> On 18:42 4 Dec 2023, JMB99 said:
> > On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >> I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough
> >> but its pro-Israel bias finished me.
> >
> > Pro-Israel?
> >
> > It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I
> > looked at news programmes.
>
> I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either.

The BBC Pro-Israel? Someone must have watching a different BBC to the
one I was watching! For a while they were virtually a Hamas
propaganda tool.

On 10:56 5 Dec 2023, JNugent said:
>
> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>>>
>>>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>>>
>>>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>>>
>>>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
>>>> shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are they red herrings?
>>>
>>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
>>> systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>>>
>>> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
>>> Tax which probably costs you more.
>>>
>>
>> Murdochvision? What is that?
>>
> Guardian-speak for Sky television.

So behind the times. Murdoch has had nothing to do with Sky
Television since November 2018, SIX YEARS AGO, Sky was acquired by
Comcast. It is now known as Sky Group Ltd. a division of Comcast.

--
brightside s9

On 07/12/2023 10:08, Blueshirt wrote:
> Pamela wrote:
>
>> On 18:42 4 Dec 2023, JMB99 said:
>>> On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough
>>>> but its pro-Israel bias finished me.
>>>
>>> Pro-Israel?
>>>
>>> It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I
>>> looked at news programmes.
>>
>> I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either.
>
> The BBC Pro-Israel? Someone must have watching a different BBC to the
> one I was watching! For a while they were virtually a Hamas
> propaganda tool.

If you listen to the news, it is apparent that Hamas has been renamed by
the BBC as 'Hamas Which Is A Terrorist Organisation According To The UK
Government', and I think we should all use this proper new name out of
respect.

On 07/12/2023 12:35, Norman Wells wrote:
> If you listen to the news, it is apparent that Hamas has been renamed by
> the BBC as 'Hamas Which Is A Terrorist Organisation According To The UK
> Government', and I think we should all use this proper new name out of
> respect.

If they did not then there would be people complaining that they were
not making it clear that it is a proscribed organisation and also HAMAS
supporters from the Left complaining if the BBC just called them terrorists.

It is a form of wording that they have used previously, particularly
with Irish terrorists.

Whatever they do, there will be someone complaining.

In article <uksim2$19hks$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/12/2023 12:35, Norman Wells wrote:
> > If you listen to the news, it is apparent that Hamas has been renamed by
> > the BBC as 'Hamas Which Is A Terrorist Organisation According To The UK
> > Government', and I think we should all use this proper new name out of
> > respect.

> If they did not then there would be people complaining that they were
> not making it clear that it is a proscribed organisation and also HAMAS
> supporters from the Left complaining if the BBC just called them
> terrorists.

> It is a form of wording that they have used previously, particularly
> with Irish terrorists.

> Whatever they do, there will be someone complaining.

and there are reporters in the area. They need to be kept safe by not
upsetting the "locals".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 07/12/2023 10:08 am, Blueshirt wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>>
>>> Murdochvision? What is that?
>>
>> Guardian-speak for Sky television.
>>
>> [Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
>
> FWIW, Sky was sold to Comcast.

That's OK. Comcast is someone.

On 07/12/2023 10:23 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:

> On 10:56 5 Dec 2023, JNugent said:
>> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:

>>>>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>>>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>>>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>>>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
>>>>> shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>
>>>> Why are they red herrings?
>>>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
>>>> systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>>>> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
>>>> Tax which probably costs you more.
>
>>> Murdochvision? What is that?
>
>> Guardian-speak for Sky television.
>
> So behind the times. Murdoch has had nothing to do with Sky
> Television since November 2018, SIX YEARS AGO, Sky was acquired by
> Comcast. It is now known as Sky Group Ltd. a division of Comcast.

Yes I agree that Guardianistas tend to be behind the times.

Ever since the 1970s, if not earlier.

On 07/12/2023 19:36, JNugent wrote:
> Yes I agree that Guardianistas tend to be behind the times.
>
> Ever since the 1970s, if not earlier.

If only it would go back to the 1950s when it was still the Manchester
Guardian and a widely respected newspaper.

On 02:00 7 Dec 2023, JNugent said:

> On 06/12/2023 08:20 pm, Pamela wrote:
>> On 10:56 5 Dec 2023, JNugent said:
>>
>>> On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you
>>>>>> get...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when
>>>>>> you shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are they red herrings?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
>>>>> systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the
>>>>> Advertising Tax which probably costs you more.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Murdochvision? What is that?
>>>
>>> Guardian-speak for Sky television.
>>>
>>> [Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
>>
>> Not forgetting Rupert Murdoch's somewhat dismal TalkTV. It seems to
>> be slowly improving (Piers Morgan seems to be a big draw) but it has
>> a way to go.
>
> What is the connection?

"Murdochvision".