[TheThing]

Originally Posted by Farnboro John

I could do it standing on my head.

John

I'd consider paying my taxes to see that!

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

We have no choice about whether we pay the BBC £145.50 per year, even if we only want to watch other channels, so I think it is perfectly reasonable, and essential, that we scrutinise what and who they spend our money on.

We have still less choice in paying for commercial stations funded by advertising which, ultimately, we also pay for one way or another. However you look at it, £145.50 is a cheap price to pay to the BBC (in all its various manifestations) for a year of entertainment/information,

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

We have still less choice in paying for commercial stations funded by advertising which, ultimately, we also pay for one way or another.

We have less choice in paying for ITV than we do for the BBC? I don't think so, John! I wont go to jail if I choose not to buy any of the products advertised on ITV. I WILL go to jail if I don't buy the BBC licence fee, even if I do not ever want to watch BBC, because I do not have the legal right to choose not to buy it. There's no choice there! All ITV and its advertisers can do is reduce the size of my Waggon Wheel and give me less Emmerdale. BBC can put me in prison!

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

However you look at it, £145.50 is a cheap price to pay to the BBC (in all its various manifestations) for a year of entertainment/information,

It is a Hell of a lot to pay for Johnny Kingdom! And a lot of money to pay to a production company to film tame birds flying over the Taj Mahal [Earthflight], which is what we have been served up lately. We're going off topic a little, but I think a lot of people on a low or retired income would not find £145 (or about £10 per month) "cheap", especially if they do not want most of the services that they are being made to pay for (e.g. CBeebies, BBC HD, most of BBC Radio) or cannot even access them without more expensive equipment (BBC online, iPlayer). In fact, with iPlayer and the web content, licence-fee payers are funding things that they may never use but the rest of the world can access for free! What other media organisation makes you pay for something you don't want, on pain of prison, but not charging the person that does want it? It's like me paying for a daily Le Monde for a bloke in Paris I've never met.

But this does provide a strong justification for any "pontificating" and scrutiny of what the BBC gives us. The BBC cannot please everyone, and I may be an old grouch but I think it is fair to say that most wildlife buffs are not wholly satisfied with what they have been getting. There is lots of content aimed at being accessible, and to get people interested (such as much of Springwatch, Johhny Kingdom etc), but for someone who is already keen as mustard and knowledgeable, what do they get (besides the recent Secrets...)?

A good point for discussion, perhaps?

[TheThing]

I'm pretty sure that those living outside the UK cannot access iPlayer. I know that our US cousins cannot get to see Sky at Night on it

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by TheThing

I'm pretty sure that those living outside the UK cannot access iPlayer. I know that our US cousins cannot get to see Sky at Night on it

You aren't supposed to be able watch TV shows on iPlayer from outside the UK, but there is a workaround using a proxy address. But BBC make all radio programmes and all other web content freely available anywhere, live or on demand.

[JTweedie]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

You aren't supposed to be able watch TV shows on iPlayer from outside the UK, but there is a workaround using a proxy address. But BBC make all radio programmes and all other web content freely available anywhere, live or on demand.

Other broadcasters around the world do so too - ABC National Radio in Australia make their radio programmes available as podcasts which you can freely download.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by TheThing

RIP Steve Irwin. One of a kind - completely nuts but so passionate and endlessly watchable.

Irwin was a complete nutter but I am sad he has gone. Having said that, wildlife programmes across the planet were in danger of going in the wrong direction. Steve Irwin died doing what he really loved but we have to remember he also took risks that were not logical. It was the gist of his TV programmes but perhaps (if we are really honest) not a direction to be encouraged.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

But this does provide a strong justification for any "pontificating" and scrutiny of what the BBC gives us. The BBC cannot please everyone, and I may be an old grouch but I think it is fair to say that most wildlife buffs are not wholly satisfied with what they have been getting. There is lots of content aimed at being accessible, and to get people interested (such as much of Springwatch, Johhny Kingdom etc), but for someone who is already keen as mustard and knowledgeable, what do they get (besides the recent Secrets...)?

Alf, I understand what you mean by this but I do not agree with the points either. I can assure you from someone who had access to the inner workings of what was going on that it was nothing like as simple as you are presenting here. Basically, it all goes back to 9/11 and can any of us be really surprised that the world changed at that time? For good or bad, a lot of finance was withdrawn away from natural history and the BBC used the interim between the loss of the funding and when it kicked in to create new concepts. Natural World is now confined to no more than one or two new programmes per year and this may further disappear and Life-type series have probably ended (probably) forever. The BBC have spread the net widely with concepts such as Springwatch; even at the risk of over-working it into (Starwatch and Volcanowatch), Secrets of the Living Planet and the Alan Titchmarsh series. The point being that us dyed in the wool, grizzled old types are not a majority but the BBC is so much committed to providing (or trying to) everything for everyone that we still find something good to talk about in what they are doing.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

We have less choice in paying for ITV than we do for the BBC? I don't think so, John! I wont go to jail if I choose not to buy any of the products advertised on ITV. I WILL go to jail if I don't buy the BBC licence fee, even if I do not ever want to watch BBC, because I do not have the legal right to choose not to buy it. There's no choice there! All ITV and its advertisers can do is reduce the size of my Waggon Wheel and give me less Emmerdale. BBC can put me in prison!



It is a Hell of a lot to pay for Johnny Kingdom! And a lot of money to pay to a production company to film tame birds flying over the Taj Mahal [Earthflight], which is what we have been served up lately. We're going off topic a little, but I think a lot of people on a low or retired income would not find £145 (or about £10 per month) "cheap", especially if they do not want most of the services that they are being made to pay for (e.g. CBeebies, BBC HD, most of BBC Radio) or cannot even access them without more expensive equipment (BBC online, iPlayer). In fact, with iPlayer and the web content, licence-fee payers are funding things that they may never use but the rest of the world can access for free! What other media organisation makes you pay for something you don't want, on pain of prison, but not charging the person that does want it? It's like me paying for a daily Le Monde for a bloke in Paris I've never met.

But this does provide a strong justification for any "pontificating" and scrutiny of what the BBC gives us. The BBC cannot please everyone, and I may be an old grouch but I think it is fair to say that most wildlife buffs are not wholly satisfied with what they have been getting. There is lots of content aimed at being accessible, and to get people interested (such as much of Springwatch, Johhny Kingdom etc), but for someone who is already keen as mustard and knowledgeable, what do they get (besides the recent Secrets...)?

A good point for discussion, perhaps?

I take your point, but think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. If I opt not to watch TV at all and don't have a telly then I'm give nothing to the BBC but will still be paying for commercial stations via my purchases. Not a lot of choice there I think (although I will still benefit from BBC radios 3, 4, 4extra, etc). In a complex society like ours we all find ourselves paying for many things through taxes (and the licence fee is just another tax albeit one we can opt out of) that we don't use directly. Neither do I think it purely co-incidental that a public broadcasting organisation like the BBC, rather than purely commercial stations, has nurtured something like natural history programming. And for the higher brows amongst us the BBC produce programmes in conjunction with the OU - not something many commercial stations would consider. As to cost, as a retiree with a limited cash flow, I would still maintain that at £12 a month (c43p a day) the service is indeed reasonable and not excessively expensive,

[Stoggler]

Until fairly recently I thought that the TV licence was rare outside the UK, but it's actually quite common. And many European countries charge more than we do in the UK - Switzerland's fee is currently 385 euros for example (the Nordic countries and Germany generally higher than the UK's - comparable with their respective costs of living?).

On the other hand, Albania's licence fee works out at about 6 euros per year!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televis...ound_the_world

[Robert Wallace]

We should be grateful we have so many talented presenters and film makers (Johnny Kingdom excepted) in the UK. Incidently has anyone mentioned Simon King?
I find Attenborough rather boring, pompous and patronising these days.
I do favour Chris Packham but I enjoy Iolo's Welsh accent and I was impressed by Gordon Buccanan's film with the Black Bears.
I think Chris has the best emotional detatchment in that he accepts the reality of nature.

[John Cantelo]

[quote=Robert Wallace;2488629]
I find Attenborough rather boring, pompous and patronising these days.
QUOTE]

Heretic! :-)

[stevo]

John,go & sit on the naughty step(joke)

Steve.

[AlfArbuthnot]

Originally Posted by Stoggler

On the other hand, Albania's licence fee works out at about 6 euros per year!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televis...ound_the_world

Was it higher when Norman Wisdom was alive?!

What do people think to Ray Mears' wildlife shows under the Survival strand on ITV?

Survival used to be a strong rival to the BBC back in the day. I also really enjoy the Inside Nature's Giants series on Channel 4, and the recent Foxes Live seemed to be positioning Mark Evans as a strong rival to BBC. I thought the Cassowary episode of 'Inside...' was really excellent.

[joespy]

It would appear from the disappearance over the years, especially on regional TV, of good presenters, that no matter how good an individual is as a presenter it's what else they bring to the table i.e. Ideas for further programmes. Once these ideas are exhausted then the presenter is dumped from mainstream TV, they seem to appear later on "lesser" channels. The biggest example from the BBC that comes to mind is Ray Mears. A friend of mine who used to present series on TV, was dropped from regional BBC after, as he says, he was "bled dry". In many ways it replicates the scenario with Comedians, they are used only until they have used their best material and then dumped.
I suppose the moral to this is, get it whilst the going's good...!
Joe

[John Cantelo]

[quote=AlfArbuthnot;2488830]
What do people think to Ray Mears' wildlife shows under the Survival strand on ITV?
QUOTE]

I like Ray Mears as a presenter as I feel that, whilst perhaps not having the depth of wildlife knowledge of some, he has more breadth than some rivals,

[JTweedie]

Ray Mears was mentioned on the Whalewatch Scotland Twitter/Facebook pages as having gone out on dives in the Hebrides with them - I believe this was for another TV series.

[stevo]

[quote=John Cantelo;2488929]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

What do people think to Ray Mears' wildlife shows under the Survival strand on ITV?
QUOTE]

I like Ray Mears as a presenter as I feel that, whilst perhaps not having the depth of wildlife knowledge of some, he has more breadth than some rivals,

As an outdoors survival specialist he`s great,but as a wildlife presenter I don`t think he has the knowledge he`s certainly enthusiastic enough.Some of the things in the last series were good but some were factually inaccurate(could be down to the researchers)

Steve.

[Nightranger]

[quote=stevo;2489237]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

Some of the things in the last series were good but some were factually inaccurate(could be down to the researchers)

Steve.

Probably Steve, when I worked at the RSPB the BBC researchers kept calling us when series such as Springwatch were running. It was amusing to hear Bill Oddie voicing things almost word for word the way I had explained them on the phone. However, it was a bit frustrating because the researchers were and are paid to use the same sources of information that we had available and at the time, the RSPB was not getting a lot of credit on the series. Things are better now that the series uses Lake Vyrnwy as a base but I am not sure how things pan out for other series and for other channels.

[Farnboro John]

[quote=stevo;2489237]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

As an outdoors survival specialist he`s great,but as a wildlife presenter I don`t think he has the knowledge he`s certainly enthusiastic enough.Some of the things in the last series were good but some were factually inaccurate(could be down to the researchers)

Steve.

I thought his tracking programmes were pretty good, and he got a bunch of local talent that the BBC probably wouldn't use, at least on-screen, a chance to show their knowledge properly. The wolf programme in particular was excellent and made no bones about showing the awful anti-wolf attitudes and actions that persist in the ignorant in the USA. Actually I reckon his might have been better than Gordon Buchanan's programmes on the same subject. I would like to see more from him. Maybe he should team up with Nick Baker, that ought to provide factual quality control.

John

[Robert Wallace]

[quote=Nightranger;2489258]

Originally Posted by stevo

Probably Steve, when I worked at the RSPB the BBC researchers kept calling us when series such as Springwatch were running. It was amusing to hear Bill Oddie voicing things almost word for word the way I had explained them on the phone. However, it was a bit frustrating because the researchers were and are paid to use the same sources of information that we had available and at the time, the RSPB was not getting a lot of credit on the series. Things are better now that the series uses Lake Vyrnwy as a base but I am not sure how things pan out for other series and for other channels.

This is Chris Packham's strength he is knowledgeable (evidenced by his Zoology Degree). I am not surprised to learn about Bill Oddie, a great amateur birdwatcher but not a professional naturalist, his profession was show business. Ray Mears is a professional "boy scout" obviously he has picked up a lot of knowledge about nature and living in the wilderness but he isn't a professional or qualified naturalist.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

Irwin was a complete nutter but I am sad he has gone. Having said that, wildlife programmes across the planet were in danger of going in the wrong direction. Steve Irwin died doing what he really loved but we have to remember he also took risks that were not logical. It was the gist of his TV programmes but perhaps (if we are really honest) not a direction to be encouraged.

I have to disagree with your first sentence, though. See the attached paper on saltwater crocodile migration. Now, if I took into consideration the views of a large number of Australians I've met working in conservation, their opinion of Steve Irwin was more charitable, while agreeing he came across as a bit of a larrikin!
MJB

[peter.jones]

Originally Posted by AlfArbuthnot

We have less choice in paying for ITV than we do for the BBC? I don't think so, John! I wont go to jail if I choose not to buy any of the products advertised on ITV.

No, but you will serve time watching adverts breaking up your programmes. Two years of time if you are an average American aged 65 apparently!

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by MJB

I have to disagree with your first sentence, though. See the attached paper on saltwater crocodile migration. Now, if I took into consideration the views of a large number of Australians I've met working in conservation, their opinion of Steve Irwin was more charitable, while agreeing he came across as a bit of a larrikin!
MJB

MJB, perhaps I was a little too harsh, as I know about Irwin's background. What I really meant was that he seemed a little too willing to take risks in front of a camera. We should not forget that he was widely criticised for taking his youngest child into a croc' enclosure during feeding time not long before he died. It always seems a bit churlish to say something like this in hindsight but it seemed that to me, he was an accident waiting to happen during the last few years of his life. Before that, his over-enthusiasm was captivating and maybe it was another case of Irwin (like Uhlenbroek but for different reasons) not being strong enough to say 'no' to a producer when asked for a 'money shot'.

[Farnboro John]

[quote=Robert Wallace;2489349]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

Ray Mears is a professional "boy scout" obviously he has picked up a lot of knowledge about nature and living in the wilderness but he isn't a professional or qualified naturalist.

Nor was Richard Richardson...... you can value formal qualifications too highly. Sometimes experience is what counts.

John