Last night of the Proms

[Damo]

I can never understand why people don’t get this. How do they think ITV is funded for example.

By people choosing to generate income for it by watching that particular channel, and considering it worth funding.
You don't get that option with the BBC. Its not that difficult to understand if you open your mind slightly

[martin_p]

By people choosing to generate income for it by watching that particular channel, and considering it worth funding.
You don't get that option with the BBC. Its not that difficult to understand if you open your mind slightly

Nope, that’s not it. You pay for it whether you watch it or not. I don’t get money off my hobnobs because I rarely watch ITV.

[Damo]

Damo has inadvertently hit the nail on the head. There’s enough cringingly embarrassing about how the country is being run in 2020 to be bothering about a song with 300 year old lyrics.

One mans cringeworthy and embarrassing is the majorities just and rewarding.
We are not discussing some hip band that nobody really likes, but some pretentious idiot thinks makes them look cool

[martin_p]

One mans cringeworthy and embarrassing is the majorities just and rewarding.
We are not discussing some hip band that nobody really likes, but some pretentious idiot thinks makes them look cool

Well that’s 50% of the population, what about the women? It must be the women who are giving the government the bad poll figures on whether they’re any good.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Actually you don’t have a choice. Every time you buy products that are advertised on SKY, you’re funding them whether or not you want to. Upwards of 20% of the cost of a product pays for marketing.

By comparison the license fee is a lot more honest, gives you a wider choice of content for a lot less, and even if you hate everything on the BBC (I don’t know anyone in that category), you can think of it as chipping into an organisation you part own.

I do have a choice with digital TV services.
I don't have/use Sky, Virgin or Freeview, by choice.
I've got Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ all by choice.

The licence fee isn't optional, so for someone like me who doesn't watch 'normal' TV it's a bit odd that I'm forced to pay for it.
Calling it honest is amusing when you can (could?) get prosecuted for not having it.

[martin_p]

I do have a choice with digital TV services.
I don't have/use Sky, Virgin or Freeview, by choice.
I've got Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ all by choice.

The licence fee isn't optional, so for someone like me who doesn't watch 'normal' TV it's a bit odd that I'm forced to pay for it.
Calling it honest is amusing when you can (could?) get prosecuted for not having it.

But you still pay for Sky as all their channels carry commercials so if you buy any product they advertise a percentage of the cost of that product added on to pay for advertising is going to fund Sky. You can’t escape it!

[Damo]

Nope, that’s not it. You pay for it whether you watch it or not. I don’t get money off my hobnobs because I rarely watch ITV.

And you don't pay money to mcvities because you like eating kit kats. What is it about this that you don't understand?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

But you still pay for Sky as all their channels carry commercials so if you buy any product they advertise a percentage of the cost of that product added on to pay for advertising is going to fund Sky. You can’t escape it!

If I buy a product it isn't because of a TV advert though, as I've already stated that I don't watch normal TV.

I understand the advertising side of it, but you're assuming everyone watches normal TV when there will be a number of us who don't.

[martin_p]

If I buy a product it isn't because of a TV advert though, as I've already stated that I don't watch normal TV.

I understand the advertising side of it, but you're assuming everyone watches normal TV when there will be a number of us who don't.

It doesn’t matter whether you’ve seen the advert, you’ve still paid for it to be made or shown!

I think I’ll try that next time I’m buying some hobnobs, ‘I’m buying these because I really like them not because I’ve seen them advertised on tv, can I have 20% off please?’

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It doesn’t matter whether you’ve seen the advert, you’ve still paid for it to be made or shown!

I think I’ll try that next time I’m buying some hobnobs, ‘I’m buying these because I really like them not because I’ve seen them advertised on tv, can I have 20% off please?’

If you want to behave like a prat in a shop just to prove a point to me on here then please crack on.

Still doesn't justify forcing people to pay for a product they don't use.

Next time I buy some hobnobs I'll send you the bill, seeing as you don't mind paying for something you may not use.

[martin_p]

And you don't pay money to mcvities because you like eating kit kats. What is it about this that you don't understand?

No, you pay money to Nestle and they spend it on advertising.

What point were you trying to make exactly?

[martin_p]

If you want to behave like a prat in a shop just to prove a point to me on here then please crack on.

Still doesn't justify forcing people to pay for a product they don't use.

Next time I buy some hobnobs I'll send you the bill, seeing as you don't mind paying for something you may not use.

But I do and you do, that’s the point. Whether you like it or not some of your money is going to Sky.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

But I do and you do, that’s the point. Whether you like it or not some of your money is going to Sky.

Still doesn't justify a TV licence.

I don't face the risk of prosecution if I don't buy Hobnobs, which I haven't done for years because I don't like them

[Damo]

No, you pay money to Nestle and they spend it on advertising.

What point were you trying to make exactly?

Is that really your argument? That the money you pay can be spent on something 2nd hand that you disagree with?
Jesus wept, I've seen some terrible arguments on here, but that's one of the worst.
Night

[RingoMcCartney]

Yet another party political broadcast by the absolutely out of touch “my-politics-have-been spectacularly-rejected-at-the-ballot-box-but-I-can’t-accept-it-and-still-think-Britain-needs-Tony Benn” party.

Bore off.... it’s extremely biased towards anything left of centre so hardly surprising you’re supporting it so vehemently.

It’s become so predictable.... constantly telling us all its neutrality is what makes it so trustworthy has become soooo tiresome. No one believes it anymore, unless you are the same side of the political divide as the corporation. You clearly are.

Attacking the bbc is like attacking our country and it’s history? Wake up to yourself... it’s the crazy minded un-silent minority that want to attack our history by rewriting it, abolishing it, ignoring it and generally abusing it.

Shame on them.

Now that's what I call a post!

Fair bloody play to you .

Quality.

[Damo]

The thought of Martin subscribing to sky, watching adverts and ticking them off his shopping list so Rupert Murdock doesn't get his 0.000003 pence in revenue is about the most amazing thing I've seen on here hahaha

[RingoMcCartney]

Ironic that you got this piece of history from a BBC History Magazine article. You’d never have known about it if it hadn’t been for Aunty Beeb.

However, the article that is reproduced here https://www.historyextra.com/period/st ... in-africa/ isn’t exactly the same as what you’ve posted. Significantly the lines that specifically link ‘Rule Britannia’ to Britons being taken slaves by Barbary corsairs has been added by you or the right wing website you slavishly (pun intended) believe and copied off. It gives the article a meaning the original never had. Rule Britannia is about growing British naval power and nothing to do with Barbary corsairs. To use one of your idols quotes ‘Fake News!’

In other words. Your article is the truth . And you know it's the truth , because your the one that's saying it's the truth. Ye Olde Self Conformation Plan.

[martin_p]

Is that really your argument? That the money you pay can be spent on something 2nd hand that you disagree with?
Jesus wept, I've seen some terrible arguments on here, but that's one of the worst.
Night

It’s not an argument, it’s a fact. Those thinking none of their money is going to commercial tv stations they don’t have are wrong. Both the licence fee and advertising funding model don’t give you a choice.

[martin_p]

The thought of Martin subscribing to sky, watching adverts and ticking them off his shopping list so Rupert Murdock doesn't get his 0.000003 pence in revenue is about the most amazing thing I've seen on here hahaha

Quite happy to pay for my tv thanks, it’s others that are foaming at the mouth over it.

[RingoMcCartney]

It’s not an argument, it’s a fact. Those thinking none of their money is going to commercial tv stations they don’t have are wrong. Both the licence fee and advertising funding model don’t give you a choice.

1. Place spade in safe area out of harm's reach

2. Pull oneself out of trench.

3. In through nose , out through mouth.

4. Relax.

[martin_p]

In other words. Your article is the truth . And you know it's the truth , because your the one that's saying it's the truth. Ye Olde Self Conformation Plan.

It’s not my article, it’s Adam Nichols. But the words added to the article to make it seem like Rule Britannia relates to the Barbary corsairs aren’t Adam Nichols words, his article has been altered. Was it you? Where is the article you have reproduced in your post, do you have a link?

[martin_p]

1. Place spade in safe area out of harm's reach

2. Pull oneself out of trench.

3. In through nose , out through mouth.

4. Relax.

Which bit is wrong Wrongo?

[CombatClaret]

Amused people think getting a song to the top of the uk itunes charts represents anything more than about 5 thousand people these days. And I expect more than a few are the same person using multiple accounts.
A couple well organized gammon whatsapp chat groups & you've got your astroturf chart screenshot to share.

[CombatClaret]

20200826_000701.jpg (193.58 KiB) Viewed 2981 times

[RingoMcCartney]

It’s not my article, it’s Adam Nichols. But the words added to the article to make it seem like Rule Britannia relates to the Barbary corsairs aren’t Adam Nichols words, his article has been altered. Was it you? Where is the article you have reproduced in your post, do you have a link?

Now you want to Cherry pick when choose or not choose to believe your beloved BBC!

if you dont trust their history websites join the rest of us and stop paying the licence fee Marty!

G'night, dont let the Hobnob crumbs bite!

[RingoMcCartney]

Which bit is wrong Wrongo?

The you bit.

[martin_p]

Now you want to Cherry pick when choose or not choose to believe your beloved BBC!

if you dont trust their history websites join the rest of us and stop paying the licence fee Marty!

G'night, dont let the Hobnob crumbs bite!

You haven’t got it off their website. You won’t find the article with the new words added on any BBC website or magazine. It’s poor when you have to take an article and alter it to suit your own needs (although I don’t suspect for one moment that you’ve been clever enough to research this and do the alteration yourself). Which site did it come from?

[AndrewJB]

I do have a choice with digital TV services.
I don't have/use Sky, Virgin or Freeview, by choice.
I've got Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ all by choice.

The licence fee isn't optional, so for someone like me who doesn't watch 'normal' TV it's a bit odd that I'm forced to pay for it.
Calling it honest is amusing when you can (could?) get prosecuted for not having it.

On top of your mountainous Sky bill, you also pay by buying products advertised on it. And so does everyone else who doesn’t go with Sky. Should we get a reduced rate on the products advertised on Sky? Or should we tell you to go off to a different country where you’ll feel better about things - like the USA?

I asked this question because it’s sometimes suggested to me that I go to North Korea, when I was born here.

[MalaysiaMo]

I bet slaves throughout the world in the 1800's would have loved the British Empire to expand in their direction. Slave owners, less so. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened in the USA if they had lost the War of Independence and still been part of the Empire when slavery was abolished in 1833. The Civil War would have been very different.

Jeez. Slavery was very much alive and well in the British Empire long after 1833 - the East India Company was not covered by the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act for a start, which no doubt helped facilitate the estimated (in today's money) US$ 45 trillion that the UK extracted from India during the days of our glorious Empire ....

And don't forget, after the introduction of the Slave Trade Act in 1807 and subsequently the 1833 act, the UK taxpayer was forced to pay compensation. But this compensation was not paid to the slaves but to the slave-owners. That "debt" to slave owners was so great that it was only finally paid off in 2015. In other words, if you paid tax in the UK up to 2015, a portion of your tax went to the estate of former slave owners.

If only a complete history was taught in schools ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUfMkIx7Ypg

[Colburn_Claret]

You could of course just show me the announcement by the BBC that they were no longer playing those pieces of music, and then we could agree they’ve back-pedalled. Without that you have nothing to base your assumptions on other than blind hatred.

I find the dislike of the BBC by conservative people quite odd. It’s a lot more British than SKY (and costs far less). It’s the only wholly British owned major media organisation in the world, and gives Britain a huge voice on the international stage, where it is highly respected. What kind of pride are people showing toward our country by attacking such a British institution?

I know it’s fashionable among conservatives to sell off anything they can to foreign people (which is hardly in keeping with “conserving”), but getting rid of the BBC would just be a huge blow to British culture, and only benefit foreign cultural industries. In a world full of mostly poor quality commercial media, do we really need another? It would make our television and radio blander than even now.

The current rightwing cancel culture of “defund the BBC” is really an attack on our country, history, and culture - which the BBC embodies. At best probably just foreign interference that the people will utterly reject, but at worst it’s British citizens who look to their own self interest before that of the country. For further reading look up “brexiters” and “people who want to privatise the NHS”

The reason so many 'Conservatives' have turned against the BBC is obvious. It should be apolitical. It can't ignore politics, but it should give a balanced debate. The last few years it has been blatantly biased towards the left, wether daily politics or Brexit. Wether this was as a directive from the top, or just a lack of control of its front men/women I dont know.
It doesn't appear to have the ******** to stand up for British values, traditions, or customs, and many Brits find that disappointing.
I understand that there are people out there who also dont give a damn about British culture or history either, but that doesn't justify the BBCs stance.
I don't think anyone wants the BBC to swing to the right, that would be just as bad as it is today, just regain that independence and give an opportunity for politicians to give their views , rather than listen to the presenters view.

[martin_p]

The reason so many 'Conservatives' have turned against the BBC is obvious. It should be apolitical. It can't ignore politics, but it should give a balanced debate. The last few years it has been blatantly biased towards the left, wether daily politics or Brexit. Wether this was as a directive from the top, or just a lack of control of its front men/women I dont know.
It doesn't appear to have the ******** to stand up for British values, traditions, or customs, and many Brits find that disappointing.
I understand that there are people out there who also dont give a damn about British culture or history either, but that doesn't justify the BBCs stance.
I don't think anyone wants the BBC to swing to the right, that would be just as bad as it is today, just regain that independence and give an opportunity for politicians to give their views , rather than listen to the presenters view.

It all started when they banned Farage from the screen and never gave him any air time. Then there was the easy ride that the likes of Andrew Neil gave Jeremy Corbyn during the election when they should have been doing an investigation into anti-semitism (something like Panorama would have been ideal). Yes, all the evidence is there that the t try right has been stifled and the left given an easy ride.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I hope Gary Lineker presents Last Night of the Proms and they pay Greta Thunberg to sit on the stage looking stern faced as they play the instrumental for Rule Britannia.

[martin_p]

I hope Gary Lineker presents Last Night of the Proms and they pay Greta Thunberg to sit on the stage looking stern faced as they play the instrumental for Rule Britannia.

Then close with a rousing rendition of the Red Flag.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

On top of your mountainous Sky bill, you also pay by buying products advertised on it. And so does everyone else who doesn’t go with Sky. Should we get a reduced rate on the products advertised on Sky? Or should we tell you to go off to a different country where you’ll feel better about things - like the USA?

I asked this question because it’s sometimes suggested to me that I go to North Korea, when I was born here.

I'm seeing a pattern here with you and Martin banging on about advertising.

Why should people who pay for sky be forced to pay an additional fee for the BBC?

As for buggering off to a diff country, doing so over a TV licence is a bit odd now I don't need to pay for one.

[claretonthecoast1882]

On top of your mountainous Sky bill, you also pay by buying products advertised on it. And so does everyone else who doesn’t go with Sky. Should we get a reduced rate on the products advertised on Sky? Or should we tell you to go off to a different country where you’ll feel better about things - like the USA?

I asked this question because it’s sometimes suggested to me that I go to North Korea, when I was born here.

How much is a mountainous sky bill ? I pay £30 a month and have all sports (apart from BT) and movies. With the money saved by not paying the BBC fee it works out near £15 a month. The bit about the products advertised on something you don't watch is weird and twisted but it is probably something you read in The Gaurdian.

As for North Korea I doubt the would accept you

[claptrappers_union]

Can any of you see how you're being manipulated?

[Rileybobs]

Probably not if you understand what virtue signalling means.
Personally I'd say its a token gesture by a large group of people to troll the small minority of folk who feel ashamed to wake up English every day.
Similar to the referendum result and the last general election

Well for me there's a lot of similarities between someone virtue signalling and someone buying a song that they don't care about and won't listen to to try and prove how much they care about it.

How sad do you have to be to spend your money to 'troll' people. Could this collective coming together not raise money to actually do some good in the world?

And I really don't know anybody who feels ashamed to be English, do you?

[Damo]

Well for me there's a lot of similarities between someone virtue signalling and someone buying a song that they don't care about and won't listen to to try and prove how much they care about it.

How sad do you have to be to spend your money to 'troll' people. Could this collective coming together not raise money to actually do some good in the world?

And I really don't know anybody who feels ashamed to be English, do you?

Think about it for a minute pal.
Is it really about the song? I don't know the words. I don't watch last night of the proms and i find it cringeworthy when people sing it. (Mind you I'm not one of the people who bought it)
This is all about cancel culture again. A group of people trying to create a safe space where one isn't needed. Two fingers up to the "offended by everything" brigade. If they cancel this then whats next? The British flag? The English flag? (They wouldn't dare attack Scottish heritage, but the English are fair game) Poppies take a bashing every year. How long before roast beef and Yorkshire puddings come under attack?
Its not about the song. Its about the reasons a small group of people want it cancelled

Oh, and I don't personally know anyone who appears to be ashamed to be English. You do see it trotted out on social media a lot though. I've seen people post it here too

[nil_desperandum]

Think about it for a minute pal.
Is it really about the song? I don't know the words. I don't watch last night of the proms and i find it cringeworthy when people sing it. (Mind you I'm not one of the people who bought it)
This is all about cancel culture again. A group of people trying to create a safe space where one isn't needed. Two fingers up to the "offended by everything" brigade. If they cancel this then whats next? The British flag? The English flag?

The flaw in that argument is that it is Johnson's Govt. who, (correctly or not), have banned singing (and most cultural events ) since March, albeit there has been a slight relaxation of the rules, (very slight) over the past couple of weeks.
And then - quite correctly - they have banned gatherings. If you can't have people in an outdoor football stadium then you obviously can't have a packed Albert Hall singing and waving flags. Even large outdoor gatherings remain banned, whereas you could hold the Last Night of the Proms in a park with a gathering of 5,000 in France.
Having imposed these rules, (instead of defending them), Johnson, who has said not a word about the exams fiasco etc. etc. chooses to attack the beleaguered Proms programmers via the BBC - whose entire season has been decimated by these rules.
Now I'm not criticising the rules, but the sheer hypocrisy and opportunism of Johnson, who should either remain silent / neutral or be defending the BBC for being as creative as possible over the past couple of months to try to put together a "virtual" season, with a small number of behind closed doors concerts in this next couple of weeks.
The "patriotic" items are being performed with the reduced orchestra and some singing behind closed doors this year, and will be sung (along with flags etc) if conditions permit it next September.

[Damo]

The flaw in that argument is that it is Johnson's Govt. who, (correctly or not), have banned singing (and most cultural events ) since March, albeit there has been a slight relaxation of the rules, (very slight) over the past couple of weeks.
And then - quite correctly - they have banned gatherings. If you can't have people in an outdoor football stadium then you obviously can't have a packed Albert Hall singing and waving flags. Even large outdoor gatherings remain banned, whereas you could hold the Last Night of the Proms in a park with a gathering of 5,000 in France.
Having imposed these rules, (instead of defending them), Johnson, who has said not a word about the exams fiasco etc. etc. chooses to attack the beleaguered Proms programmers via the BBC - whose entire season has been decimated by these rules.
Now I'm not criticising the rules, but the sheer hypocrisy and opportunism of Johnson, who should either remain silent / neutral or be defending the BBC for being as creative as possible over the past couple of months to try to put together a "virtual" season, with a small number of behind closed doors concerts in this next couple of weeks.
The "patriotic" items are being performed with the reduced orchestra and some singing behind closed doors this year, and will be sung (along with flags etc) if conditions permit it next September.

Its true. That would be a flaw in my argument, if the reason they decided not include two songs in the set was because it was impractical due to corona virus.
Unfortunately that wasn't the reason.
The reason was because the guest composer thought the song would offended the usual suspects

[nil_desperandum]

Its true. That would be a flaw in my argument, if the reason they decided not include two songs in the set was because it was impractical due to corona virus.
Unfortunately that wasn't the reason.
The reason was because the guest composer thought the song would offended the usual suspects

But the flaw in your argument there is that there is no evidence that the BBC Prom planners ever planned to drop the songs.
And who was the composer who proposed cancelling them?. I haven't come across that.
I think that speculation came about because of an article by Richard Morison in The Times. He's a journalist and he's paid to provoke / stimulate debate on various topics.

[Damo]

But the flaw in your argument there is that there is no evidence that the BBC Prom planners ever planned to drop the songs.
And who was the composer who proposed cancelling them?. I haven't come across that.
I think that speculation came about because of an article by Richard Morison in The Times. He's a journalist and he's paid to provoke / stimulate debate on various topics.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/row-bbc-las ... ion-610393

[ClaretAndJew]

At least we're all happy and content in our lives that the only thing we're worrying about is a song that you all don't really care about is potentially stopping on a show that none of you even watch.

[aggi]

The reason so many 'Conservatives' have turned against the BBC is obvious. It should be apolitical. It can't ignore politics, but it should give a balanced debate. The last few years it has been blatantly biased towards the left, wether daily politics or Brexit. Wether this was as a directive from the top, or just a lack of control of its front men/women I dont know.
It doesn't appear to have the ******** to stand up for British values, traditions, or customs, and many Brits find that disappointing.
I understand that there are people out there who also dont give a damn about British culture or history either, but that doesn't justify the BBCs stance.
I don't think anyone wants the BBC to swing to the right, that would be just as bad as it is today, just regain that independence and give an opportunity for politicians to give their views , rather than listen to the presenters view.

This harks back to my previous comment about politics being like supporting a football team now. This reads pretty much like all of the people complaining that media outlet X is biased for/against team Y.

It's not just Colburn and the right wing, I know plenty of left wingers who complain about how the BBC is biased to the right citing some of Laura Kuenssberg's stuff, the constant appearance of Farage, etc as examples.

If they're upsetting people on both sides of the spectrum they're probably doing OK.

It is of course worth noting that when Colburn complains about not standing up for British values, traditions or customs he does of course mean his values, traditions and customs which could of course be very different to someone else's idea of British values, traditions or customs. He just assumes everyone has the same as him.

[Burnley Ace]

Jeez. Slavery was very much alive and well in the British Empire long after 1833 - the East India Company was not covered by the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act for a start, which no doubt helped facilitate the estimated (in today's money) US$ 45 trillion that the UK extracted from India during the days of our glorious Empire ....

And don't forget, after the introduction of the Slave Trade Act in 1807 and subsequently the 1833 act, the UK taxpayer was forced to pay compensation. But this compensation was not paid to the slaves but to the slave-owners. That "debt" to slave owners was so great that it was only finally paid off in 2015. In other words, if you paid tax in the UK up to 2015, a portion of your tax went to the estate of former slave owners.

If only a complete history was taught in schools ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUfMkIx7Ypg

And the problem with any of that history is? Why shouldn’t people be compensated when the Government takes their assets?

[Im_not_Robbie_Blake]

If half the orchestra refused to play 'Rule Britannia', what then?

There's so much more great music, so why the need to play nationalistic stuff that winds people up? Ravel's Bolero would be a great replacement choice in my opinion.

[AndrewJB]

I'm seeing a pattern here with you and Martin banging on about advertising.

Why should people who pay for sky be forced to pay an additional fee for the BBC?

As for buggering off to a diff country, doing so over a TV licence is a bit odd now I don't need to pay for one.

I don’t watch Sky, yet I’m forced to give Sky money when I buy anything advertised on Sky.

The BBC belongs to us - like the RAF, you might not appreciate it, but it’s there and it plays an important role for Britain in the world. The BBC helped win WW2. I’d happily see it paid for out of general taxation, sparing the poor from having to stump up - as long as the funding could be ringfenced beyond political control. And I say all of this as someone who hardly ever watches television. BBC radio itself is so good I’d pay the license fee just for it.

[nil_desperandum]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/row-bbc-las ... ion-610393

Ah, so as I thought, no composer is involved in this.
You're referring to a young Ukrainian conductor of Icelandic heritage who is married to a Rock star. You inadvertently went some way to exonerating the BBC in your previous post.
She is the GUEST conductor for this concert, most probably booked before the pandemic struck, and she will have virtually no influence on the programme which is largely driven by commercial interests. She is young, probably idealistic but crucially not British. She was asked for her view, which coming from a forward-thinking young Ukrainian, is hardly surprising. She's entitled to that view. It's not the case of a "woke" or liberal "leftie" British conductor questioning it. She won't be aware of the cultural significance of this event. In the past when British conductors have expressed reservations about the "flag-waving" they've either been rebuked, replaced or voluntarily stepped down.
As in all previous cases (except 9 /11), it's actually the BBC who have insisted that they be included. (They have a huge commercial interest in doing so, since rights for the Last Night are sold worldwide because of its unique brand).
There's no suggestion anywhere that it was the BBC who proposed cutting them and then made a U-turn. Having stuck to their guns for so many years they're hardly likely to change course at this crucial time in their and the country's history.

[Bordeauxclaret]

At least we're all happy and content in our lives that the only thing we're worrying about is a song that you all don't really care about is potentially stopping on a show that none of you even watch.

I don’t know, I reckon there are definitely a few on here who’ve knocked one out to the song before MOTD comes on.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don’t watch Sky, yet I’m forced to give Sky money when I buy anything advertised on Sky.

The BBC belongs to us - like the RAF, you might not appreciate it, but it’s there and it plays an important role for Britain in the world. The BBC helped win WW2. I’d happily see it paid for out of general taxation, sparing the poor from having to stump up - as long as the funding could be ringfenced beyond political control. And I say all of this as someone who hardly ever watches television. BBC radio itself is so good I’d pay the license fee just for it.

I'm impressed with the obsession with normal marketing routines.

Is this an attempt at diverting?

The licence fee isn't fair to those who don't use the BBC quite simply, it's not fair for those who pay for digital TV and then have to pay the licence fee on top of that.

You can blather on about advertising streams all you like, you can even include your Burnley tickets that mean you're forced to see adverts at TM etc if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.