* at 19/04 22:59 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > Personally I don't mind funding the beeb, as long as the quality of
> > > > content they produce is high. I do object to funding random corporations
> > > > whose interests are to their shareholders...
> > > >
> well don't you worry yourself unduly .. you don't fund then in any way 
> and up to this point in time at least the only shareholder is the BBC in
> all thes 'random corpoartations' .. basically its a dadge to allow the
> BBC to compete against the commercial stations. the 'random corporations'
> eg BBC resources limited recieve no licence payers money other than for
> services they sell to the BBC eg studio costs for a specific programme.
> that way they cant be accused of using public funded resources to compete
> against other production companies when bidding for work. in other words
>  its just another accounting trick :)

I read it as not wanting to fund the various commercial entities one
ends up funding in order to actual get a digital box. The idea of
putting any more money in the Murdoch empires coffers just for the
sake of getting News 24 and BBC Choice certainly doesn't appeal.

struan (who always seem to end up paying the licence despite watching
less tv than his flatmates)

Reply via email to