Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and Doctor
Who?
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and Doctor Who?
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and Doctor
Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and Doctor
Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
On 21/02/2025 00:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and Doctor
Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
They've not got any money to finance a new movie after they destroyed
the entire franchise with the woke degeneracy No Time to Die. They're
also being sued over the trademark 'James Bond' and variants to declare
the name public domain since they've not used it to sell any products
since the No Time to Die fiasco and if they don't begin making a movie
right away and release it by 2027 then they will lose the trademark >completely.
I hope the Amazon MGM Studios subsidiary has no oversight by the brain
dead degenerate woke retard Jennifer Sulk, whatever her name is, who >destroyed The Wheel or Time and The Lord of the Rings franchises by
telling their predominately male audiences that they were all sexists
and racists if they didn't enjoy her degenerate and insulting woke crap
and agreed with everything this retard said and did to them. This is the
very retard who fired the writers of the new Conan series Amazon was
planing because they were too masculine, the very same writers who went
on to write huge hit House of the Dragon for HBO.
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10 years time all
of James Bond will become public domain and anyone can make it without a >political and sexual agenda aimed at grooming children. Still, they
can't copyright a number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new >movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10 years time all
of James Bond will become public domain and anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda aimed at grooming children. Still, they
can't copyright a number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10 years time all
of James Bond will become public domain and anyone can make it without
a political and sexual agenda aimed at grooming children. Still, they
can't copyright a number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make
new movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14 years old
think that was funny?
On 2/21/2025 03:40, Woozy Song wrote:
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
And in the book "Goldfinger" (you know, Ian Fleming's original
version), not only was the character named "Pussy Galore",
she, and the other pilots in her crew, were lesbians.
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
On 21/02/2025 00:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and
Doctor Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
They've not got any money to finance a new movie after they
destroyed the entire franchise with the woke degeneracy No
Time to Die.
They're also being sued over the trademark 'James Bond'
and variants to declare the name public domain since
they've not used it to sell any products since the No Time to
Die fiasco and if they don't begin making a movie right away
and release it by 2027 then they will lose the trademark
completely.
I hope the Amazon MGM Studios subsidiary has no oversight by
the brain dead degenerate woke retard Jennifer Sulk, whatever
her name is, who destroyed The Wheel or Time and The Lord of
the Rings franchises by telling their predominately male
audiences that they were all sexists and racists if they
didn't enjoy her degenerate and insulting woke crap and agreed
with everything this retard said and did to them. This is the
very retard who fired the writers of the new Conan series
Amazon was planing because they were too masculine, the very
same writers who went on to write huge hit House of the Dragon
for HBO.
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10 years
time all of James Bond will become public domain and anyone
can make it without a political and sexual agenda aimed at
grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a number so
anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new movies that are
faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10 years time all
of James Bond will become public domain and anyone can make it without a
political and sexual agenda aimed at grooming children. Still, they
can't copyright a number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14 years old
think that was funny?
Woozy Song wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
If Ian Fleming hadn't created "Pussy Galore", the Carry On films
would have done...
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 2/21/2025 03:40, Woozy Song wrote:
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
And in the book "Goldfinger" (you know, Ian Fleming's original
version), not only was the character named "Pussy Galore",
she, and the other pilots in her crew, were lesbians.
<shocked face> You mean, lesbians are not a modern invention
created by the woke media?!
Who'd have thought it.
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will want
the franchise cancelled then...
On 2/21/2025 03:40, Woozy Song wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10 years time all
of James Bond will become public domain and anyone can make it without
a political and sexual agenda aimed at grooming children. Still, they
can't copyright a number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make
new movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14 years old
think that was funny?
And in the book "Goldfinger" (you know, Ian Fleming's original version),
not only was the character named "Pussy Galore", she, and the other
pilots in her crew, were lesbians.
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just looking for >another target to vent & deflect his repressed feelings towards.
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
The thing is, making films and TV shows "faithful" to the
original books is not the way production companies like to do
things... more so these days. They always make changes...
often for the worse. If the next Bond movie doesn't do well
you are more likely to see a "Jane Bond" Amazon Prime
mini-series in ten years time than something faithfully
adapted from an Ian Fleming novel.
Let James Bond end.
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and
Doctor Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 2/21/2025 03:40, Woozy Song wrote:
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
And in the book "Goldfinger" (you know, Ian Fleming's original
version), not only was the character named "Pussy Galore",
she, and the other pilots in her crew, were lesbians.
<shocked face> You mean, lesbians are not a modern invention
created by the woke media?!
Who'd have thought it.
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will want
the franchise cancelled then...
Woozy Song wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
If Ian Fleming hadn't created "Pussy Galore", the Carry On films
would have done...
Blueshirt wrote:
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and
Doctor Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
It seems $1 billion was the price...
"Amazon paid more than $1bn to take creative control of James
Bond"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/feb/21/stars-shaken-stirred-amazon-deal-james-bond
The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
The thing is, making films and TV shows "faithful" to the
original books is not the way production companies like to do
things... more so these days. They always make changes...
often for the worse. If the next Bond movie doesn't do well
you are more likely to see a "Jane Bond" Amazon Prime
mini-series in ten years time than something faithfully
adapted from an Ian Fleming novel.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond" just
to let it end...
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies are
these days and why most of the decent content is now on those
services whilst regular TV is full of reality crap, quiz/game
shows and cooking shows...
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at things...
so it will be the consumer (i.e. us) that is going to suffer in
the long run.
I've never read the books, but in the case of James Bond, it
could also perhaps be argued that the "James Bond" name is not
the real name of the characters and is instead purely a
cover-name re-used (along with the code number "007") by
various successive spy characters. This would mean changing
the ethnicity and/or gender is more palatable.
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at
things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good
stories and ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to
write them for an audience of bigoted activists who will never
be pleased by anything unless they've totally destroyed it so
that nobody can ejoying like they've done to Doctor Who, Star
Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and The Lord of the Rings,
because they can't enjoy anything and watch nothing since
they're mentally retarded.
Blueshirt wrote:
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and
Doctor Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
It seems $1 billion was the price...
"Amazon paid more than $1bn to take creative control of James
Bond"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/feb/21/stars-shaken-stirred-amazon-deal-james-bond
The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
The thing is, making films and TV shows "faithful" to the
original books is not the way production companies like to do
things... more so these days. They always make changes...
often for the worse. If the next Bond movie doesn't do well
you are more likely to see a "Jane Bond" Amazon Prime
mini-series in ten years time than something faithfully
adapted from an Ian Fleming novel.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond" just
to let it end...
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies are
these days and why most of the decent content is now on those
services whilst regular TV is full of reality crap, quiz/game
shows and cooking shows...
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at things...
so it will be the consumer (i.e. us) that is going to suffer in
the long run.
On 2025-02-21 13:38:26 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 2/21/2025 03:40, Woozy Song wrote:
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
And in the book "Goldfinger" (you know, Ian Fleming's original
version), not only was the character named "Pussy Galore",
she, and the other pilots in her crew, were lesbians.
<shocked face> You mean, lesbians are not a modern invention
created by the woke media?!
Who'd have thought it.
Nothing these Politically Correct "equality" morons whine on about is >actually new. There have been women, black people, asian people,
disabled people, etc. on TV and in movies long long before they started >spouting their ridiculous ideas and campaigns.
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will want
the franchise cancelled then...
A *new* character called "Jane Bond" would be fine. It's when the
morons hijack and existing character to ethnicity and/or gender swap
that it becomes idiotic. Two 'great' examples of such idiocy being
Doctor Who, and Starbuck in Moore-Ron's butchered version of
"Battlestar Galactica".
I've never read the books, but in the case of James Bond, it could also >perhaps be argued that the "James Bond" name is not the real name of
the characters and is instead purely a cover-name re-used (along with
the code number "007") by various successive spy characters. This would
mean changing the ethnicity and/or gender is more palatable.
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Let's hope Amazon/Eon lose the trademark and then in 10
years time all of James Bond will become public domain and
anyone can make it without a political and sexual agenda
aimed at grooming children. Still, they can't copyright a
number so anyone can call James Bond 007 and make new
movies that are faithful to Ian Fleming's original vision.
The thing is, making films and TV shows "faithful" to the
original books is not the way production companies like to do
things... more so these days. They always make changes...
often for the worse. If the next Bond movie doesn't do well
you are more likely to see a "Jane Bond" Amazon Prime
mini-series in ten years time than something faithfully
adapted from an Ian Fleming novel.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond" just
to let it end...
Jeff Bezos has more than enough money to burn. He's already burned $1
billion on The Rings of Woke and burning another $1 billion on Double
Woke Seven isn't going to make even a microscopic hole in his pockets.
Besides which only a degenerate fool would pay $1 billion for a
franchise whose exclusive rights expire in less than 10 years time, and
Bezos is that degenerate fool in carinate and doesn't care for anything >except for bragging, virtue signalling and prestige, the self centred
stupid retard. He'd be better off spending his billions helping Elon
Musk go to Mars and stay there with him if he doesn't respect Ian
Fleming's legacy the way Fleming intended it.
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies are
these days and why most of the decent content is now on those
Amazon doesn't make any money from streaming, it makes it from selling
goods with free next day shipping. That is why people subscribe to
Amazon Prime.
services whilst regular TV is full of reality crap, quiz/game
shows and cooking shows...
There's nothing stopping regular TV making decent new dramas, except for
the woke degeneracy that has taken away their ability to do so.
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good stories and
ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to write them for an
audience of bigoted activists who will never be pleased by anything
unless they've totally destroyed it so that nobody can ejoying like
they've done to Doctor Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and
The Lord of the Rings, because they can't enjoy anything and watch
nothing since they're mentally retarded.
so it will be the consumer (i.e. us) that is going to suffer in
the long run.
Far left woke retards don't care about consumers since they're Marxist >Fascists and Commies.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
Your Name wrote:
I've never read the books, but in the case of James Bond, it
could also perhaps be argued that the "James Bond" name is not
the real name of the characters and is instead purely a
cover-name re-used (along with the code number "007") by
various successive spy characters. This would mean changing
the ethnicity and/or gender is more palatable.
It's highly unlikely that MI6 agents use their real names when
on active service so a cover name would make sense. (Secret
agents wouldn't be very secret if they used their real names!)
Which in theory means that anybody could be "James Bond" or
designated as "007" if the previous agent using that designation
had been killed.
On 21/02/2025 20:20, Blueshirt wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
Woozy Song wrote:
Did they pay attention to what happened with Disney and
Doctor Who?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mn9gz5x3mo
I'd say the "give" was more likely a case of "sold"...
It seems $1 billion was the price...
"Amazon paid more than $1bn to take creative control of James
Bond"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/feb/21/stars-shaken-stirred-amazon-deal-james-bond
If Bezos waited a little under 10 years he would have paid nothing, just
like everyone else who will be free to make as much James Bond as they
like when the copyright expires on 1 January 2035, life plus 70 years
and all that. He's only got time to make 2 or 3 movies at most but he
has more than enough money to burn.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at
things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good
stories and ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to
write them for an audience of bigoted activists who will never
be pleased by anything unless they've totally destroyed it so
that nobody can ejoying like they've done to Doctor Who, Star
Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and The Lord of the Rings,
because they can't enjoy anything and watch nothing since
they're mentally retarded.
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making top
quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a lot of the
big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these days. Generally they
outsource and commission shows from independent production
companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the place
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put the TV
licence fee up!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at
things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good
stories and ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to
write them for an audience of bigoted activists who will never
be pleased by anything unless they've totally destroyed it so
that nobody can ejoying like they've done to Doctor Who, Star
Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and The Lord of the Rings,
because they can't enjoy anything and watch nothing since
they're mentally retarded.
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making top
quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a lot of the
big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these days. Generally they
outsource and commission shows from independent production
companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the place
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put the TV
licence fee up!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at
things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good
stories and ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to
write them for an audience of bigoted activists who will never
be pleased by anything unless they've totally destroyed it so
that nobody can ejoying like they've done to Doctor Who, Star
Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and The Lord of the Rings,
because they can't enjoy anything and watch nothing since
they're mentally retarded.
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making top
quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a lot of the
big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these days. Generally they
outsource and commission shows from independent production
companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the place
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put the TV
licence fee up!
On 2025-02-22 00:03:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at
things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good
stories and ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to
write them for an audience of bigoted activists who will never
be pleased by anything unless they've totally destroyed it so
that nobody can ejoying like they've done to Doctor Who, Star
Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and The Lord of the Rings,
because they can't enjoy anything and watch nothing since
they're mentally retarded.
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making top
quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a lot of the
big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these days. Generally they
outsource and commission shows from independent production
companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the place
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put the TV
licence fee up!
Yep. Which is exactly why they signed the Doctor Who deal with Disney.
In the short term, an instant infux of cash looked good on paper to the
bean counters and management morons ... in the long term though, that
bad decision could come back to bite them in the backside and cost
them, and the dwindling number of remaining fans, very very dearly.
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Normal TV channels, even the BBC, cannot compete with all the
money that the Amazon's and Netflix's are throwing at
things...
Yes they can. They can compete with coming up with good
stories and ideas and not hiring degenerate woke retards to
write them for an audience of bigoted activists who will never
be pleased by anything unless they've totally destroyed it so
that nobody can ejoying like they've done to Doctor Who, Star
Wars, Star Trek, The Wheel of Time, and The Lord of the Rings,
because they can't enjoy anything and watch nothing since
they're mentally retarded.
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making top
quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a lot of the
It has nothing to do with the BBC not having the money. It's got
billions to burn from the licence fee. If they've got a good idea then
others will buy it and it will make them a profit.
They don't have the talent to produce anything people want to watch
because they've turned it all away because the talent was white, male, >able-bodied, straight, educated, and identified as the gender they were
born.
big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these days. Generally they
outsource and commission shows from independent production
companies instead.
They only reason they do that is because they a forced to do so by their >charter. Instead of commissioning shows from creators who know how to
writer and produce good popular television they commission shows from >degenerate and perverted woke activists who want to use the shows to
sexually groom children.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the place
It's got billions.
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put the TV
licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn that making
woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers instead of providing
them with escapist entertainment will put them out of business because
no one will watch it.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
In article <vpbhp8$3mdjr$[email protected]>,
The True Doctor <[email protected]_SPAM> wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will
put them out of business because no one will watch it.
And then tax accordingly?
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vpbhp8$3mdjr$[email protected]>,
The True Doctor <[email protected]_SPAM> wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will
put them out of business because no one will watch it.
And then tax accordingly?
The choice will be; a tax of some description, adverts, or keep
the status quo and increase the TV licence fee.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vpbhp8$3mdjr$[email protected]>,
The True Doctor <[email protected]_SPAM> wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will
put them out of business because no one will watch it.
And then tax accordingly?
The choice will be; a tax of some description, adverts, or keep
the status quo and increase the TV licence fee.
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond"
just to let it end...
Jeff Bezos has more than enough money to burn. He's already
burned $1 billion on The Rings of Woke and burning another $1
billion on Double Woke Seven isn't going to make even a
microscopic hole in his pockets.
Besides which only a degenerate fool would pay $1 billion for
a franchise whose exclusive rights expire in less than 10
years time, and Bezos is that degenerate fool in carinate and
doesn't care for anything except for bragging, virtue
signalling and prestige, the self centred stupid retard. He'd
be better off spending his billions helping Elon Musk go to
Mars and stay there with him if he doesn't respect Ian
Fleming's legacy the way Fleming intended it.
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies
are these days and why most of the decent content is now on
those
Amazon doesn't make any money from streaming, it makes it from
selling goods with free next day shipping. That is why people
subscribe to Amazon Prime.
In article <vpbi9i$3qao9$[email protected]>,
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-22 00:03:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making
top quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a
lot of the big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these
days. Generally they outsource and commission shows from
independent production companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
Yep. Which is exactly why they signed the Doctor Who deal
with Disney. In the short term, an instant infux of cash
looked good on paper to the bean counters and management
morons ... in the long term though, that bad decision could
come back to bite them in the backside and cost them, and
the dwindling number of remaining fans, very very dearly.
Who is buying Dsiney+ just for DW?
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond"
just to let it end...
Jeff Bezos has more than enough money to burn. He's already
burned $1 billion on The Rings of Woke and burning another $1
billion on Double Woke Seven isn't going to make even a
microscopic hole in his pockets.
Besides which only a degenerate fool would pay $1 billion for
a franchise whose exclusive rights expire in less than 10
years time, and Bezos is that degenerate fool in carinate and
doesn't care for anything except for bragging, virtue
signalling and prestige, the self centred stupid retard. He'd
be better off spending his billions helping Elon Musk go to
Mars and stay there with him if he doesn't respect Ian
Fleming's legacy the way Fleming intended it.
Maybe Jeff Bezos and the other Amazon shareholders and
executives know a bit more than you?
I know it's highly unlikely of course, but if Amazon have paid
all that money there is a possibility that their information
gives them a reason to do so?
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies
are these days and why most of the decent content is now on
those
Amazon doesn't make any money from streaming, it makes it from
selling goods with free next day shipping. That is why people
subscribe to Amazon Prime.
It must make some money from its Prime Video service, some shows
carry adverts and that means income. Also people use Prime Video
to rent new movies without subscribing... so there would be some
sort of income from that.
There's obviously a business plan behind it as Amazon didn't pay
all that money for the "James Bond" franchise just so online
shoppers can watch Bond in action free of charge!
Trust me, the "Jane Bond: 008" mini-series will be coming to
Prime Video in 2028... starring Amandla Stenberg as our
favourite British secret agent. Remember where you heard it
first!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vpbi9i$3qao9$[email protected]>,
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-22 00:03:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making
top quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a
lot of the big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these
days. Generally they outsource and commission shows from
independent production companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
Yep. Which is exactly why they signed the Doctor Who deal
with Disney. In the short term, an instant infux of cash
looked good on paper to the bean counters and management
morons ... in the long term though, that bad decision could
come back to bite them in the backside and cost them, and
the dwindling number of remaining fans, very very dearly.
Who is buying Dsiney+ just for DW?
If you mean subscribing, then I wouldn't think there would be
too many.
I can believe that some people in the US subscribed to Disney+
for the Star Wars or Marvel stuff. I find it highly unlikely
that many people subscribed to Disney+ 'just' for Doctor Who
though. Maybe when Disney did their $1.99 a month trail offer
some fans might have tried it out? "Doctor Who" is more niche
than Star Wars and the MCU, so no matter how much was spent on
promoting "Doctor Who" in the USA I doubt it was 'the' show to
bring in many new subscribers to Disney+.
OTOH, I do know someone who subscribed to Disney+ for a month
just for The Beatles "Get Back" a few years ago, and then
unsubscribed after they watched the episodes... so it does
happen.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond"
just to let it end...
Jeff Bezos has more than enough money to burn. He's already
burned $1 billion on The Rings of Woke and burning another $1
billion on Double Woke Seven isn't going to make even a
microscopic hole in his pockets.
Besides which only a degenerate fool would pay $1 billion for
a franchise whose exclusive rights expire in less than 10
years time, and Bezos is that degenerate fool in carinate and
doesn't care for anything except for bragging, virtue
signalling and prestige, the self centred stupid retard. He'd
be better off spending his billions helping Elon Musk go to
Mars and stay there with him if he doesn't respect Ian
Fleming's legacy the way Fleming intended it.
Maybe Jeff Bezos and the other Amazon shareholders and
executives know a bit more than you?
I know it's highly unlikely of course, but if Amazon have paid
all that money there is a possibility that their information
gives them a reason to do so?
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies
are these days and why most of the decent content is now on
those
Amazon doesn't make any money from streaming, it makes it from
selling goods with free next day shipping. That is why people
subscribe to Amazon Prime.
It must make some money from its Prime Video service, some shows
carry adverts and that means income. Also people use Prime Video
to rent new movies without subscribing... so there would be some
sort of income from that.
There's obviously a business plan behind it as Amazon didn't pay
all that money for the "James Bond" franchise just so online
shoppers can watch Bond in action free of charge!
Trust me, the "Jane Bond: 008" mini-series will be coming to
Prime Video in 2028... starring Amandla Stenberg as our
favourite British secret agent. Remember where you heard it
first!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vpbi9i$3qao9$[email protected]>,
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-22 00:03:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making
top quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a
lot of the big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these
days. Generally they outsource and commission shows from
independent production companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
Yep. Which is exactly why they signed the Doctor Who deal
with Disney. In the short term, an instant infux of cash
looked good on paper to the bean counters and management
morons ... in the long term though, that bad decision could
come back to bite them in the backside and cost them, and
the dwindling number of remaining fans, very very dearly.
Who is buying Dsiney+ just for DW?
If you mean subscribing, then I wouldn't think there would be
too many.
I can believe that some people in the US subscribed to Disney+
for the Star Wars or Marvel stuff. I find it highly unlikely
that many people subscribed to Disney+ 'just' for Doctor Who
though. Maybe when Disney did their $1.99 a month trail offer
some fans might have tried it out? "Doctor Who" is more niche
than Star Wars and the MCU, so no matter how much was spent on
promoting "Doctor Who" in the USA I doubt it was 'the' show to
bring in many new subscribers to Disney+.
OTOH, I do know someone who subscribed to Disney+ for a month
just for The Beatles "Get Back" a few years ago, and then
unsubscribed after they watched the episodes... so it does
happen.
On 22/02/2025 14:45, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/02/2025 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:.
Let James Bond end.
Yeah, Amazon paid all that money to take over "James Bond"
just to let it end...
Jeff Bezos has more than enough money to burn. He's already
burned $1 billion on The Rings of Woke and burning another $1
billion on Double Woke Seven isn't going to make even a
microscopic hole in his pockets.
Besides which only a degenerate fool would pay $1 billion for
a franchise whose exclusive rights expire in less than 10
years time, and Bezos is that degenerate fool in carinate and
doesn't care for anything except for bragging, virtue
signalling and prestige, the self centred stupid retard. He'd
be better off spending his billions helping Elon Musk go to
Mars and stay there with him if he doesn't respect Ian
Fleming's legacy the way Fleming intended it.
Maybe Jeff Bezos and the other Amazon shareholders and
executives know a bit more than you?
The copyright expires on 1 January 2035 and that isn't going to change.
I know it's highly unlikely of course, but if Amazon have paid
all that money there is a possibility that their information
gives them a reason to do so?
They're fools. They paid a billion for the rights to The Lord of the
Rings appendices which contain almost nothing and no one watches The
Rings of Woke.
There's a bigger issue at play here as it's things like this
that show how rich and powerful the big streaming companies
are these days and why most of the decent content is now on
those
Amazon doesn't make any money from streaming, it makes it from
selling goods with free next day shipping. That is why people
subscribe to Amazon Prime.
It must make some money from its Prime Video service, some shows
No it doesn't otherwise it wouldn't have put its fees up and charged me
to watch adverts selling tampons and thrush cream for women.
carry adverts and that means income. Also people use Prime Video
to rent new movies without subscribing... so there would be some
sort of income from that.
It doesn't make them any money.
There's obviously a business plan behind it as Amazon didn't pay
all that money for the "James Bond" franchise just so online
shoppers can watch Bond in action free of charge!
Yes they did. Subscribers get free next day delivery and a free woke
book every month and get to watch videos while they wait for their goods
to be delivered. The goods which cost substantially more than a tenner
are what Amazon makes its profit from.
Trust me, the "Jane Bond: 008" mini-series will be coming to
Prime Video in 2028... starring Amandla Stenberg as our
And nobody will watch it just like no one watches The Rings of Power.
favourite British secret agent. Remember where you heard it
first!
Wait 10 years and there will be better Bond movies being made than there
have ever been.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
They need to bring in Elon Musk and DOGE to put an end to the woke waste.
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
If they BBC wants
people's money than it must make programmes people want to watch, than
that means putting an end to wokery and sexually grooming children.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand. Maybe even
the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show that the >corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as well.
On 2025-02-22 14:59:01 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vpbi9i$3qao9$[email protected]>,
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-22 00:03:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The BBC don't have the money to compete with the likes of
Netflix, Amazon or Disney+ (etc.) when it comes to making
top quality drama shows... which is why they don't make a
lot of the big dramas you see on BBC1 themselves these
days. Generally they outsource and commission shows from
independent production companies instead.
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place and for them to do so the UK government would have to
put the TV licence fee up!
Yep. Which is exactly why they signed the Doctor Who deal
with Disney. In the short term, an instant infux of cash
looked good on paper to the bean counters and management
morons ... in the long term though, that bad decision could
come back to bite them in the backside and cost them, and
the dwindling number of remaining fans, very very dearly.
Who is buying Dsiney+ just for DW?
If you mean subscribing, then I wouldn't think there would be
too many.
I think the dimbulb "The Doctor" got the wrong end of the stick, as usual.
I said the BBC got an instant influx of cash from Disney.
I can believe that some people in the US subscribed to Disney+
for the Star Wars or Marvel stuff. I find it highly unlikely
that many people subscribed to Disney+ 'just' for Doctor Who
though. Maybe when Disney did their $1.99 a month trail offer
some fans might have tried it out? "Doctor Who" is more niche
than Star Wars and the MCU, so no matter how much was spent on
promoting "Doctor Who" in the USA I doubt it was 'the' show to
bring in many new subscribers to Disney+.
The US audience was likely a minor part of Disney's decision. Disney
may have thought they would get more subscribers joining up in places
like Australia and New Zealand, but that was a fallacy that was never
going to happen.
OTOH, I do know someone who subscribed to Disney+ for a month
just for The Beatles "Get Back" a few years ago, and then
unsubscribed after they watched the episodes... so it does
happen.
A few people do sign-up for short term just to watch a season of a
show, then swap to another streaming service for another show, etc.
There are also some people who simply have more money than sense, but
most people are not in that category.
There was an auction here recently that included a framed feather from
an extinct New Zealand bird. The auction estimate was about
NZ$2000-$3000, but some loonies pushed the winning bid out to
NZ$45,000!!
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand. Maybe even
the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as well.
On 22/02/2025 21:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4, and
Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do so will
make them no different so they might as well close it down.
The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription service
and if they don't put an end to the degenerate woke crap and
and stop attacking heterosexual women and men and masculinity
then people will not subscribe to it.
On 22/02/2025 21:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 >already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do so will make them no
different so they might as well close it down. The BBC has to become a >voluntary subscription service and if they don't put an end to the
degenerate woke crap and stop attacking heterosexual women and men and >masculinity them people will not subscribe to it.
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand. Maybe even
the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show that the
corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as well.
The BBC morons tried it on Doctor Who once during Matt Smith's tenure
and got savaged by people complaining.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will
learn that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate
viewers instead of providing them with escapist
entertainment will put them out of business because no one
will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New
Zealand.
Maybe even the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner
during the show that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network
here in New Zealand uses as well.
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New
Zealand.
We have a TV licence and adverts on our national channels.
People in the UK might not like commercials on the BBC, as that
has been one of the benefits of the BBC compared to ITV/C4/Ch5,
but I'm sure that 'adverts' will be on the agenda when the BBC's
charter expires in 2027.
It's probably cheaper for the BBC to earn money from adverts
than have a third-party organisation - and the administration
that goes with it - collecting taxes and licence fees on their
behalf.
Maybe even the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner
during the show that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network
here in New Zealand uses as well.
We have tons of adverts and they are still talking about a
digital media tax here in Ireland to replace our licence fee.
Knowing the Irish government they will probably just copy
whatever the UK does as our politicians haven't got an original
idea in their bodies.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 21:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4, and
Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do so will
make them no different so they might as well close it down.
The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription service
A voluntary subscription service? Are you for real? That's
bonkers! It would be a voluntary subscription service that
nobody would pay! The BBC would end up with less money than they
have now.
and if they don't put an end to the degenerate woke crap and
and stop attacking heterosexual women and men and masculinity
then people will not subscribe to it.
Human nature is more likely to mean that people just wouldn't
pay it anyway...
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4, and
Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do so
will make them no different so they might as well close it
down. The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription
service
A voluntary subscription service? Are you for real? That's
bonkers! It would be a voluntary subscription service that
nobody would pay! The BBC would end up with less money than
they have now.
and if they don't put an end to the degenerate woke crap
and and stop attacking heterosexual women and men and
masculinity then people will not subscribe to it.
Human nature is more likely to mean that people just wouldn't
pay it anyway...
Are you familiar with the CBC model?
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will
learn that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate
viewers instead of providing them with escapist
entertainment will put them out of business because no one
will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to bitch
about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
On 23/02/2025 12:24, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4,
and Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do
so will make them no different so they might as well close
it down. The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription
service
A voluntary subscription service? Are you for real? That's
bonkers! It would be a voluntary subscription service that
nobody would pay! The BBC would end up with less money than
they have now.
Then so be it. The BBC has become totally irrelevant.
What does anyone need it for? Oh, I know, so that disgusting,
degenerate, woke perverts like Russell T Davies can use it it
to sexually groom children.
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will
learn that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate
viewers instead of providing them with escapist
entertainment will put them out of business because no one
will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to bitch about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 23/02/2025 12:24, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4,
and Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do
so will make them no different so they might as well close
it down. The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription
service
A voluntary subscription service? Are you for real? That's
bonkers! It would be a voluntary subscription service that
nobody would pay! The BBC would end up with less money than
they have now.
Then so be it. The BBC has become totally irrelevant.
In 2025 most terrestrial TV channels have become irrelevant...
all they seem to be full of is games shows, cookery programmes
and reality shows with non-celebrities and has-beens.
Most of the decent TV shows are on the streaming services.
What does anyone need it for? Oh, I know, so that disgusting,
degenerate, woke perverts like Russell T Davies can use it it
to sexually groom children.
That's the thing, the younger generation don't need the BBC or
ITV at all.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4, and
Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do so
will make them no different so they might as well close it
down. The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription
service
A voluntary subscription service? Are you for real? That's
bonkers! It would be a voluntary subscription service that
nobody would pay! The BBC would end up with less money than
they have now.
and if they don't put an end to the degenerate woke crap
and and stop attacking heterosexual women and men and
masculinity then people will not subscribe to it.
Human nature is more likely to mean that people just wouldn't
pay it anyway...
Are you familiar with the CBC model?
No, why would I be? I am not Canadian!
On 23/02/2025 12:24, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 21:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as
I'm not paying to watch commercials. The ITV, Channel 4, and
Channel 5 already have adverts. Allowing the BBC to do so will
make them no different so they might as well close it down.
The BBC has to become a voluntary subscription service
A voluntary subscription service? Are you for real? That's
bonkers! It would be a voluntary subscription service that
nobody would pay! The BBC would end up with less money than they
have now.
Then so be it. The BBC has become totally irrelevant. What does anyone
need it for? Oh, I know, so that disgusting, degenerate, woke perverts
like Russell T Davies can use it it to sexually groom children.
and if they don't put an end to the degenerate woke crap and
and stop attacking heterosexual women and men and masculinity
then people will not subscribe to it.
Human nature is more likely to mean that people just wouldn't
pay it anyway...
Good. Then the BBC can die like Doctor Who. Either it makes programmes
people want to watch and stops sexually grooming children or it goes
bust. No one needs it when they can watch ITV or subscribe to a
streaming service or buy DVDs or Blu-Rays.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to bitch
about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
That's called quality control... he watches Doctor Who so that
we don't have to!
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
On 23/02/2025 16:01, Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will
learn that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate
viewers instead of providing them with escapist
entertainment will put them out of business because no one
will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to bitch about
(endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
Doctor Who ended in 2017.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
That's called quality control... he watches Doctor Who so that
we don't have to!
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 2/21/2025 03:40, Woozy Song wrote:
What, characters called "Pussy Galore"? Did anybody over 14
years old think that was funny?
And in the book "Goldfinger" (you know, Ian Fleming's original
version), not only was the character named "Pussy Galore",
she, and the other pilots in her crew, were lesbians.
<shocked face> You mean, lesbians are not a modern invention
created by the woke media?!
Who'd have thought it.
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will want
the franchise cancelled then...
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New
Zealand.
We have a TV licence and adverts on our national channels.
People in the UK might not like commercials on the BBC, as that
has been one of the benefits of the BBC compared to ITV/C4/Ch5,
but I'm sure that 'adverts' will be on the agenda when the BBC's
charter expires in 2027.
It's probably cheaper for the BBC to earn money from adverts
than have a third-party organisation - and the administration
that goes with it - collecting taxes and licence fees on their
behalf.
Maybe even the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner
during the show that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network
here in New Zealand uses as well.
We have tons of adverts and they are still talking about a
digital media tax here in Ireland to replace our licence fee.
Knowing the Irish government they will probably just copy
whatever the UK does as our politicians haven't got an original
idea in their bodies.
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to bitch
about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
That's called quality control... he watches Doctor Who so that
we don't have to!
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
Up until they started forcing you to pay to watch adverts for
tampons and women's yeast infections even if you are man.
There's only one point for Amazon Prime now and that's free
next day shipping.
On 2/23/2025 10:41, Blueshirt wrote:
That's called quality control... he watches Doctor Who so
that we don't have to!
More likely he watches in order to be thought of as a
martyr...otherwise he would do blogs on his YouTube channel so
that his 8 subscribers can pay him for his efforts.
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
After all this time, you still expect logical thought patterns
from Aggy?
On 2/21/2025 07:38, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will
want the franchise cancelled then...
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring to
it. :)
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
It is a wee bit convoluted to say the least, I think he should get a
pet, name it "Life" and then he would have one.
On 2/23/2025 14:50, Idlehands wrote:
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
It is a wee bit convoluted to say the least, I think he should get a
pet, name it "Life" and then he would have one.
And when he takes his "Life" for a walk, he will be able to "touch grass".
On 2/23/2025 10:41, Blueshirt wrote:
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
That's called quality control... he watches Doctor Who so that
we don't have to!
More likely he watches in order to be thought of as a martyr...otherwise
he would do blogs on his YouTube channel so that his 8 subscribers can
pay him for his efforts.
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
After all this time, you still expect logical thought patterns from Aggy?
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
On 2025-02-23 12:43:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New
Zealand.
We have a TV licence and adverts on our national channels.
People in the UK might not like commercials on the BBC, as that
has been one of the benefits of the BBC compared to ITV/C4/Ch5,
but I'm sure that 'adverts' will be on the agenda when the BBC's
charter expires in 2027.
It's probably cheaper for the BBC to earn money from adverts
than have a third-party organisation - and the administration
that goes with it - collecting taxes and licence fees on their
behalf.
Maybe even the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner
during the show that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network
here in New Zealand uses as well.
We have tons of adverts and they are still talking about a
digital media tax here in Ireland to replace our licence fee.
Knowing the Irish government they will probably just copy
whatever the UK does as our politicians haven't got an original
idea in their bodies.
You can count the number of politicians who have a brain on the fingers
of one *foot* ... same with business managers (which is usually where >politicians come from).
The True Doctor wrote:
Up until they started forcing you to pay to watch adverts for
tampons and women's yeast infections even if you are man.
There's only one point for Amazon Prime now and that's free
next day shipping.
Reacher!
You've surely watched the first episodes of S3 on Prime Video?!
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 2/21/2025 07:38, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will
want the franchise cancelled then...
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring to
it. :)
Wait until Amazon do to "James Bond" what Disney did to the Star
Wars franchise... multiple mediocre movies, hated by the fans...
multiple spin-offs... hated by the fans... a Jane Bond
mini-series exclusive to Prime Video subscribers... (etc.)
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and "REtcon
James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
On 2/23/2025 14:50, Idlehands wrote:
But then says Doctor Who finished in 2017... <shrugs>
It is a wee bit convoluted to say the least, I think he should get a
pet, name it "Life" and then he would have one.
And when he takes his "Life" for a walk, he will be able to "touch grass".
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 2/21/2025 07:38, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will
want the franchise cancelled then...
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring to
it. :)
Wait until Amazon do to "James Bond" what Disney did to the Star
Wars franchise... multiple mediocre movies, hated by the fans...
multiple spin-offs... hated by the fans... a Jane Bond
mini-series exclusive to Prime Video subscribers... (etc.)
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and "REtcon
James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
Your Name wrote:
In the UK comedy series "Are You Being Served?" (1972-1985)
and it's sequel "Grace & Favour" (1992-1993) changed to "Are
You Being Served? Again!" in America), the character Mrs
Slocombe was often making such innuendos about her pet cat.
You mean with lines like...
"If my pussy isn't attended to by eight o'clock, I shall be
stroking it for the rest of the evening"
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If they BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes people want to watch, than
that means putting an end to wokery and sexually grooming children.
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will
learn that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate
viewers instead of providing them with escapist
entertainment will put them out of business because no one
will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in
2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to
help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one of
the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to bitch about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand.
Maybe even
the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as well.
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
On 2/21/2025 07:38, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will
want the franchise cancelled then...
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring to
it. :)
Wait until Amazon do to "James Bond" what Disney did to the Star
Wars franchise... multiple mediocre movies, hated by the fans...
multiple spin-offs... hated by the fans... a Jane Bond
mini-series exclusive to Prime Video subscribers... (etc.)
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and "REtcon
James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way ------->
--
Daniel70
On 22/02/2025 10:50 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
In the UK comedy series "Are You Being Served?" (1972-1985)
and it's sequel "Grace & Favour" (1992-1993) changed to "Are
You Being Served? Again!" in America), the character Mrs
Slocombe was often making such innuendos about her pet cat.
You mean with lines like...
"If my pussy isn't attended to by eight o'clock, I shall be
stroking it for the rest of the evening"
Or, in the case of "James Bond", should that be "by eight o'cock"??
--
Daniel70
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does .... when a program ends, they have a >promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for the show NEXT up .... then go to a >promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for an upcoming program .... and then go
to the upcoming program .... you know, the program they promoted before
they promoted another program!! ;-P
Maybe even
the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show that the
corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as well.
Some of our Commercial stations do that but no yet at Our ABC!!
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
On 2/21/2025 07:38, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
I guess, with Dr. Who allegedly getting axed, Aggy is just
looking for another target to vent & deflect his repressed
feelings towards.
"Jane Bond" is probably only a few years away, people will
want the franchise cancelled then...
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring to
it. :)
Wait until Amazon do to "James Bond" what Disney did to the Star
Wars franchise... multiple mediocre movies, hated by the fans...
multiple spin-offs... hated by the fans... a Jane Bond
mini-series exclusive to Prime Video subscribers... (etc.)
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and "REtcon
James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way ------->
everything will happen in this group
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring
to it. :)
Wait until Amazon do to "James Bond" what Disney did to the
Star Wars franchise... multiple mediocre movies, hated by
the fans... multiple spin-offs... hated by the fans... a
Jane Bond mini-series exclusive to Prime Video
subscribers... (etc.)
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and "REtcon
James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way --->
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If they
BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
So that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
Beautie!! ;-P
On 24/02/2025 3:01 am, Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one
of the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to
bitch about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
Come on, Idlehands, surely you are aware "Doctor Who" finished
in 2017.
Since then Aggy has been watching 'Doctor Woke' or 'Doctor
Whinger' or some such!!
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in
New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does ....
Some of our Commercial stations do that but no yet at Our ABC!!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and
"REtcon James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way ------->
everything will happen in this group
In article <vphpvh$13923$[email protected]>,
Daniel70 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If
they BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
So that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
Beautie!! ;-P
Flame on!
In article <vphpbv$13463$[email protected]>,
Daniel70 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 22/02/2025 10:50 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
In the UK comedy series "Are You Being Served?" (1972-1985)
and it's sequel "Grace & Favour" (1992-1993) changed to
"Are You Being Served? Again!" in America), the character
Mrs Slocombe was often making such innuendos about her pet
cat.
You mean with lines like...
"If my pussy isn't attended to by eight o'clock, I shall be
stroking it for the rest of the evening"
Or, in the case of "James Bond", should that be "by eight
o'cock"??
Boo!!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
Yeah...but, "Retcon James Bond" doesn't have the same ring
to it. :)
Wait until Amazon do to "James Bond" what Disney did to the
Star Wars franchise... multiple mediocre movies, hated by
the fans... multiple spin-offs... hated by the fans... a
Jane Bond mini-series exclusive to Prime Video
subscribers... (etc.)
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and "REtcon
James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
If it's marked OT it's acceptable!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way --->
It's alt.fan.james-bond actually... ;-)
Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If theySo that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
Beautie!! ;-P
Why would anyone want porn 24/7? There's only so much bashing
the Bishop anyone can do... you'd have to sleep at some stage!!!
Plus, I think porn is available free these days.
Well... that's what I'm told anyway...
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and
"REtcon James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way --->
It's alt.fan.james-bond actually... ;-)
You see where I do crosspost to.
% wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 8:07 am, Blueshirt wrote:
.... but at least that will not be in THIS NG!!
I could see a day when "James Bond isn't himself" and
"REtcon James Bond" become the war cries of Bond fandom!
rec.arts.jamesbond is that-a-way ------->
everything will happen in this group
And why not? Every other topic under the sun seems to get
covered here...
If RADW was solely for "Doctor Who" discussion and nothing else
at all, this place would be full of cobwebs... dead like a lot
of other newsgroups where people just gave up and left.
So in a way the tangents help keep this place alive.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vphpvh$13923$[email protected]>,
Daniel70 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If
they BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
So that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
Beautie!! ;-P
Flame on!
Or hard on even...
Daniel declared
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does .... when a program ends, they have a
promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for the show NEXT up .... then go to a
promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for an upcoming program .... and then go
to the upcoming program .... you know, the program they promoted before
they promoted another program!! ;-P
The BBC already does that, along with promotions for BBC
apps, websites, etc.
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does .... when a program ends, they have
a promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for the show NEXT up .... then go to a promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for an upcoming program .... and then go
to the upcoming program .... you know, the program they promoted before
they promoted another program!! ;-P
Maybe even the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show
that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as
well.
Some of our Commercial stations do that but no yet at Our ABC!!
Daniel declared
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does .... when a program ends, they have a
promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for the show NEXT up .... then go to a
promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for an upcoming program .... and then go
to the upcoming program .... you know, the program they promoted before
they promoted another program!! ;-P
The BBC already does that, along with promotions for BBC
apps, websites, etc.
On 2025-02-24 13:07:05 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/02/2025 00:03, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC do not have a lot of spare cash lying around the
place
It's got billions.
The BBC might earn billions, most of it income from the TV
Licence fee - but its not laying around the place to be spent
willy-nilly... or they wouldn't have gone cap in hand to outside
investors to help produce "Doctor Who".
and for them to do so the UK government would have to put
the TV licence fee up!
The should scrap the licence fee and then the BBC will learn
that making woke garbage to lecture and indoctrinate viewers
instead of providing them with escapist entertainment will put
them out of business because no one will watch it.
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee in 2027
they would replace it with some sort of 'media tax' to help fund
the BBC instead... so be careful what you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show breaks, as
the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does .... when a program ends, they have
a promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for the show NEXT up .... then go to a
promotion (No Ads on Our ABC!) for an upcoming program .... and then go
to the upcoming program .... you know, the program they promoted before
they promoted another program!! ;-P
You should subscribe to Sky TV New Zealand ... a couple of their
channels insist on playing adverts during a show's ad breaks for the
current episode of the show that you are actually already watching! Or
worse, playing the adverts for the previous show's episode during the
next show!
Not to mention all the numerous screw-ups with the Sky TV electronic guide.
Maybe even the moronic pop-up adverts in the corner *during* the show
that the corporate-owned MediaWorks network here in New Zealand uses as
well.
Some of our Commercial stations do that but no yet at Our ABC!!
New Zealand's TV3 is particularly bad at pop-up adverts during the
show, and they are not just little things in the corner either. Luckily
TV3 is mostly American rubbish so we rarely watch anything on that
channel anyway.
I often wonder if pop-up adverts, squashed closing credits,
badly-placed advert breaks, and cutting out small parts of episodes to
fit more adverts into the "one hour" timeslot should be reported to the >show's makers. The makers are unlikely to be happy at the way some
networks butcher their hard work.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 3:01 am, Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one
of the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to
bitch about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
Come on, Idlehands, surely you are aware "Doctor Who" finished
in 2017.
Since then Aggy has been watching 'Doctor Woke' or 'Doctor
Whinger' or some such!!
Agamemnon calls it "Doctor Whoke"... which is actually quite
witty. (I wonder what YouTube channel he got that one from?!)
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 3:01 am, Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one
of the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to
bitch about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
Come on, Idlehands, surely you are aware "Doctor Who" finished
in 2017.
Since then Aggy has been watching 'Doctor Woke' or 'Doctor
Whinger' or some such!!
Agamemnon calls it "Doctor Whoke"... which is actually quite
witty. (I wonder what YouTube channel he got that one from?!)
Maybe himself.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vphpvh$13923$[email protected]>,
Daniel70 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If
they BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
So that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
Beautie!! ;-P
Flame on!
Or hard on even...
On 2/24/2025 09:17, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/02/2025 3:01 am, Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-02-23 5:24 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription.
I have a funny feeling that come 2027 that will not be one
of the options on the table for the UK government...
Aggy would subscribe just so he would have something to
bitch about (endlessly).
My offer of proof, his continued watching of Doctor Who.
Come on, Idlehands, surely you are aware "Doctor Who" finished
in 2017.
Since then Aggy has been watching 'Doctor Woke' or 'Doctor
Whinger' or some such!!
Agamemnon calls it "Doctor Whoke"... which is actually quite
witty. (I wonder what YouTube channel he got that one from?!)
Doomcock
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
On 2/24/2025 09:37, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vphpvh$13923$[email protected]>,
Daniel70 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If
they BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
So that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
Beautie!! ;-P
Flame on!
Or hard on even...
DUDE!! You just made me spray out my Coke all over the desk!! (No
double entendre intended)
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
In article <vpg2is$lnuu$[email protected]>,
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-23 12:43:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
We have tons of adverts and they are still talking about a
digital media tax here in Ireland to replace our licence fee.
Knowing the Irish government they will probably just copy
whatever the UK does as our politicians haven't got an original
idea in their bodies.
You can count the number of politicians who have a brain on the fingers
of one *foot* ... same with business managers (which is usually where
politicians come from).
IYIO
Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If theySo that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
Beautie!! ;-P
Why would anyone want porn 24/7? There's only so much bashing
the Bishop anyone can do... you'd have to sleep at some stage!!!
Plus, I think porn is available free these days.
Well... that's what I'm told anyway...
Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/02/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 14:23:52 +0000, Blueshirt said:
If the UK government decided to scrap the TV licence fee
in 2027 they would replace it with some sort of 'media
tax' to help fund the BBC instead... so be careful what
you wish for.
Or simply start having advertising between shows and in-show
breaks, as the government-owned TVNZ networks does here in
New Zealand.
Or they could do what Our ABC does ....
Not show Doctor Who? !
--Some of our Commercial stations do that but no yet at Our ABC!!
That's why your ABC couldn't afford to pay the BBC/Disney+ for
the rights to stream Doctor Who post 2023! I mean, RTE managed
it somehow... !!!
:-)
On 2025-02-24 16:06:23 +0000, solar penguin said:
The BBC already does that, along with promotions for BBC apps,
websites, etc.
Most supposed "no adverts" networks usually still have promo adverts
for their shows and themselves, and sometimes show sponsors. The term
"no adverts" really means "no commercial adverts selling third-party
commerical products".
The BBC could always go 'whole hog'and turn into something like the
shopping channel and be nothing but adverts / "infomercials". ;-)
On 24/02/2025 11:52 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-paedophile talker noted ^^^^<-paedophile talker noted
In article <vpg2is$lnuu$[email protected]>,
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-02-23 12:43:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
<Snip>
Who's opinion would YOU, Binky, expect Your Name to be spouting, Binky??We have tons of adverts and they are still talking about a
digital media tax here in Ireland to replace our licence fee.
Knowing the Irish government they will probably just copy
whatever the UK does as our politicians haven't got an original
idea in their bodies.
You can count the number of politicians who have a brain on the fingers
of one *foot* ... same with business managers (which is usually where
politicians come from).
IYIO
--
Daniel70
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >www.avg.com
On 25/02/2025 2:15 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 23/02/2025 5:41 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The should replace it with a voluntary subscription. If theySo that means .... if the people want PORN 24/7 .... You
BBC wants people's money than it must make programmes
people want to watch, than that means putting an end to
wokery and sexually grooming children.
Beautie!! ;-P
Why would anyone want porn 24/7? There's only so much bashing
the Bishop anyone can do... you'd have to sleep at some stage!!!
Yes, but your 'downtime' would be different to my 'downtime'!!
Plus, I think porn is available free these days.
Well... that's what I'm told anyway...
Oh!! O.K., then.
--
Daniel70
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >www.avg.com
On 25/02/2025 8:35 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-24 16:06:23 +0000, solar penguin said:
<Snip>
If that were the case, at least people wouldn't be complaining about the >'shows'. ;-)The BBC already does that, along with promotions for BBC apps,
websites, etc.
Most supposed "no adverts" networks usually still have promo adverts
for their shows and themselves, and sometimes show sponsors. The term
"no adverts" really means "no commercial adverts selling third-party
commerical products".
The BBC could always go 'whole hog'and turn into something like the
shopping channel and be nothing but adverts / "infomercials". ;-)
--
Daniel70
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >www.avg.com
Like we have with the CBC.
The Doctor wrote:
Like we have with the CBC.
The only thing I know about CBC is they have HNIC on a Saturday
night...
(Bring back Don Cherry!)
The Doctor wrote:
Like we have with the CBC.
The only thing I know about CBC is they have HNIC on a Saturday
night...
(Bring back Don Cherry!)
The Doctor wrote:
Like we have with the CBC.
The only thing I know about CBC is they have HNIC on a Saturday
night...
(Bring back Don Cherry!)
On 26/02/2025 8:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:"HNIC"?? 'Hard Nights In Canada', maybe!!
Like we have with the CBC.
The only thing I know about CBC is they have HNIC on a Saturday
night...
(Bring back Don Cherry!)
--
Daniel70
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >www.avg.com
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:08:20 |
| Calls: | 12,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,017 |