A few media commentators have used the Brand/Ross fall out to take swipes at the BBC licence fee. I fear it’s a debate that will escalate even more now that Jonathan Ross has been suspended for 12 weeks, an admission that the presenter got it very, very wrong.
I feel I’ll struggle to show objectivity with this post, given my current career developments, but hopefully people who know me can verify that my admiration of the BBC has existed for a long time — not just in the past few weeks.
When I taught in New Zealand, I introduced the BBC website as being the greatest news organisation on earth. Several students expressed their envy at not having such a well-respected public broadcaster on their own shores.
So why do I constantly come across opinion pieces, comments and blogs rallying fiercely against the £131.50 yearly fee? Do we really believe it isn’t good value for money?
The fact that we pay the wages of both Brand and Ross seems to have added an unwelcome fuel to this current fire. Anyone resents having to pay compulsory fees for anything; even something we enjoy as much as television and radio. Surprisingly, though, millions upon millions of us think nothing of paying the fee amount three for four times over to receive Sky Sports. Ironically, if the licence fee were higher, BBC Sport would be able to compete in that arena too.
It’s not often I agree with Noel Edmonds, but a while ago he made a terrific point about the BBC licence fee. Here it is (from the Independent):
Edmonds claimed his one-man protest was against the corporation’s “we know where you are” ad campaigns against those who didn’t have a TV licence, which he argued were threatening.
Spot on my shoddy-shirt wearing friend. The TV Licensing adverts are disgusting. They’re said in the same grumped-up tone as the adverts on benefit fraud. The psychology is all wrong. The BBC shouldn’t just be telling payers that they have to pay, they should be shouting about why it’s good to pay. What am I getting? Where’s the benefit? Where does my fee go?
Fonejacker — brilliant show about, topically enough, prank calling — has a wonderful character named Terry Tibbs. Terry is your old-school business man. And, ridiculous as he is, he could have some choice words when it comes to persuading people that the licence fee is worth it. In one sketch, he says this about buying a car:
“Hang about. Look. We’re not talkin’ money jus yet. Alright? I wanna know a bit more about the car before we get into that. Come on, you gotta seduce me. You don’t just jump into bed with Terry Tibbs. You take Terry Tibbs out to lunch. You wine and dine him. You give him an oil massage, and then he gives you nineteen-fifty, if you’re lucky.”
Now while that may just be an excuse to mention Terry Tibbs in a blog post, I think if the BBC imagined Terry when pushing TV licence adverts, there’d be a lot more enthuasiasm for our public broadcaster.
Rather than: “We’ll find you.” They should be saying: “Look what you’re getting, isn’t it brilliant?”
Yesterday, I visited a friend in Norwich. While I was there, I went to the wonderful new BBC building. In it was a library, cafes, studios… loads of stuff. Around the floor, stalls sold products for charity or small business. It was packed out — on a Wednesday. It’s just one small example of the goodness an organisation like the BBC can bring.
Think of the licence fee as a tax on a nation’s intellectual well-being. We pay tax to keep our roads in order. We pay tax to keep our health service running. Personally, I think a tax that ensures knowledge, entertainment and world class journalism is just as valid. Let’s never forget how important it is.
Sure, you may not like Russell Brand. That’s fine. Millions of people, however, do like Russell Brand, making the money paid for his services justified. The same can be said for Jonathan Ross, too.
I don’t like Cash in the Attic all that much, but I don’t object to my licence fee going towards it because I know many people do.
If we can get the public to understand all the goodness that comes from the BBC licence fee, then the battle to regain faith is almost complete. The first step is some positive fee-related adverts. Seduce me.
Don’t like Ross. Don’t like Brand. Each to his or her own. But I do recognise propaganda. Don’t like that either. I do recognise polital correctness. Don’t like that either. Not much else on the BBC. So don’t like that either.
Do You interesting of Non Prescription Viagra Substitute? You can find below…
10]>>>Non Prescription Viagra Substitute<<<
http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/img0/buy%20viagra/1_headsex1.png
http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/img0/buy%20viagra/2_headsex1.png
http://imgwebsearch.com/30269/img0/buy%20viagra/3_headsex1.png
Bonus Policy
Order 3 or more products and get free Regular Airmail shipping!
Free Regular Airmail shipping for orders starting with $200.00!
Free insurance (guaranteed reshipment if delivery failed) for orders starting with $300.00!
Description
Generic Viagra (sildenafil citrate; brand names include: Aphrodil / Edegra / Erasmo / Penegra / Revatio / Supra / Zwagra) is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction regardless of the cause or duration of the problem or the age of the patient.
Sildenafil Citrate is the active ingredient used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. It can help men who have erectile dysfunction get and sustain an erection when they are sexually excited.
Lowest Cost Viagra in US
Generic Viagra is manufactured in accordance with World Health Organization standards and guidelines (WHO-GMP). Also Sex Pill Viagra you can find on our sites.
Generic Viagra is made with thorough reverse engineering for the sildenafil citrate molecule – a totally different process of making sildenafil and its reaction. That is why it takes effect in 15 minutes compared to other drugs which take 30-40 minutes to take effect.
Even in the most sexually liberated and self-satisfied of nations, Viagra 100mg pills many people still yearn to burn more, to feel ready for bedding no matter what the clock says and to desire their partner of 23 years as much as they did when their love was brand new.
The market is saturated with books on how to revive a flagging libido or spice up monotonous sex, and sex therapists say “lack of desire” is one of the most common complaints they hear from patients, particularly women.
And though there may be legitimate sociological or personal underpinnings to that diminished desire — chronic overwork and stress, a hostile workplace, a slovenly or unsupportive spouse — still the age-old search continues for a simple chemical fix, Sex Pill Viagra Cupid encapsulated, a thrill in a pill.
Since the spectacular success of Viagra and similar drugs, Viagra 100mg pills the pharmaceutical industry has been searching for the female equivalent of Viagra — a treatment that would do for women’s most common sexual complaint, lack of desire, what sildenafil did for men’s, erectile dysfunction.
Initial trials of Viagra in women proved highly disappointing.
True, the drug enhanced engorgement of vaginal tissue, just as it had of the penis, but that extra bit of pelvic swelling did nothing to amplify women’s desire for or enjoyment of sex.
What is needed for the treatment of so-called female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, researchers decided, is a reasonably safe and effective drug that acts on the central nervous system, on the pleasure centers of the brain or the sensory circuitry that serves them.
For a while, many sex therapists and doctors were optimistic about Procter & Gamble’s Intrinsa, a testosterone patch that delivers small transdermal pulses of the sex hormone thought to play a crucial if poorly understood role in male and female libido alike. But in 2005, the Food and Drug Administration refused to approve Intrinsa, declaring that its medical risks outweighed whatever modest and spotty benefits it might offer.
More recently, another potentially promising treatment for hypoactive desire has been making its way through clinical trials. The compound, called bremelanotide, is a synthetic version of a hormone involved in skin pigmentation, and it was initially developed by Palatin Technologies of New Jersey as a potential tanning agent to help prevent skin cancer. But when male college students participating in early safety tests began reporting that the drug sometimes gave them erections, the company began exploring bremelanotide’s utility as a treatment for sexual disorders.
Sex Pill Viagra Studies in rodents demonstrated that the drug not only gave male rats spontaneous erections, but also fomented sexual excitement in female rats, prompting them to wiggle their ears, hop excitedly, rub noses with males and otherwise display unmistakable hallmarks of rodent arousal.
Importantly, the females responded to the drug only under laboratory conditions where they could maintain a sense of control over the mating game. Take away the female’s opportunity to escape or proceed at her preferred pace, and no amount of bremelanotide would get those ears to wiggle. In other words, Annette M. Shadiack, director of biological research of Palatin, said, “this doesn’t look like a potential date-rape drug.”
Inspired by the rodent work, the company decided to give the drug a whirl on women. Results from a pilot study of 26 postmenopausal women with diagnoses of sexual arousal disorder suggest that bremelanotide may well have some mild aphrodisiacal properties.
Responding to questionnaires after taking either the drug or a dummy pill, 73 percent of the women on bremelanotide reported feeling genitally aroused, compared with 23 percent given the placebo; and 43 percent of the bremelanotide group said the treatment augmented their sexual desire, against only 19 percent of those on dummy pills.
Sex Pill Viagra Women in the treatment group also were slightly more likely to have sex with their partners during the course of the trial than were those in the control group, although who initiated the romps was not specified.
Larger trials of the drug at some 20 clinical centers around the United States are now under way. Among other things, the researchers will try adjusting the dosage to see if more bremelanotide may provoke a more robust response with a minimum of unpleasant or embarrassing side effects.
For example, researchers are as yet unsure whether sustained use of bremelanotide will end up doing what the drug was meant to do in the first place, and bestow on its beaming clients a truly healthy tan.