Jump to content

Petition: Save our BBC - please sign and share widely!


Recommended Posts

Dear fellow East Dulwich forum users,


I just signed the petition "Save Our BBC" and wanted to ask if you could add your name too.


This campaign means a lot to me and the more support we can get behind it, the better chance we have of succeeding. You can read more and sign the petition here:


https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-bbc-1?bucket=email-blast-16_2_2020_teamreactiveblast&share=58855f0d-9b40-4773-9e41-93de288df1b7&utm_campaign=blast2020-02-16


Can you also take a moment to share the petition with others? It's really easy ? all you need to do is forward this email or click these links:


Share on Facebook


Share on Twitter


Thank you!


Ilona

seenbeen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sorry- forgot the link

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/02/bbc-ha

> nds-stars-11m-pay-rise-cutting-free-tv-licences-ov

> er/


Ironic that you post a link to the DT which if you want to see it's full online content you have to pay a subscription fee to get past it's firewall. And try checking what those fees are compared to the BBC licence fee, and what they actually provide. No competition whatsoever. You'd think the DT and Sunday Times, who themselves today published an article claiming the Gov is planning to abolish the licence fee, might have something to gain if this happened. Surely not.

Also worth noting that the free licence fee for the over-75s is a Government funded scheme which the Gov is ending this June...

I watch Netflix and Amazon most even though I pay a largish Sky subscription - I didn't think Globalist Londoners will be the BBC's biggest defenders, I'd have though it would be the regions, which the provision of services for in the future I support strongly even though I rarely watch.


I did love watching Six Nations on the BBC (and it's much better than ITV) but there are moves to put this on Pay per View. Dr Who is now based in Sheffield rather than Cardiff I notice so advertising this area. You don't get many channels advertising the British and Irish regions.


Support enough to sign as what the BBC does isn't done by many and it would be sad to lose.

I don't watch the BBC, nor listen to any of their radio stations, yet am forced to pay for a licence funding media I have no desire to consume. How is this fair? I detest the current govt, but the sooner I no longer have to fund other peoples choice of media consumption, the better.
I pay for Netflix....the BBC sell a lot of stuff to Netflix. People worldwide watch and listen to the BBC and DON'T pay a penny.....so there's the answer - BBC a subscription channel...no ads either- where's the problem? Afraid that the Left cannot continue their brainwashing activities?

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> seenbeen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > sorry- forgot the link

> >

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/02/bbc-ha

>

> >

> nds-stars-11m-pay-rise-cutting-free-tv-licences-ov

>


>

> Ironic that you post a link to the DT which if you

> want to see it's full online content you have to

> pay a subscription fee to get past it's firewall.


A subscription is not necessary. There are several browser extensions that allow you to circumvent paywalls so that you can read a whole raft of newspapers for free.


Best to use the Firefox browser and install Bypass Firewalls. That way you can read about 50 publications from the FT, DT, NYT, Economist, Sydney Morning Herald, Economist, Baltimore Times, Harvard Business Review, Wired etc, etc.

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > seenbeen Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > sorry- forgot the link

> > >

> >

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/02/bbc-ha

>

> >

> > >

> >

> nds-stars-11m-pay-rise-cutting-free-tv-licences-ov

>

> >

>

> >

> > Ironic that you post a link to the DT which if

> you

> > want to see it's full online content you have

> to

> > pay a subscription fee to get past it's

> firewall.

>

> A subscription is not necessary. There are several

> browser extensions that allow you to circumvent

> paywalls so that you can read a whole raft of

> newspapers for free.

>

> Best to use the Firefox browser and install Bypass

> Firewalls. That way you can read about 50

> publications from the FT, DT, NYT, Economist,

> Sydney Morning Herald, Economist, Baltimore Times,

> Harvard Business Review, Wired etc, etc.


LOL that's ironic when we're discussing funding models for the BBC :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...