"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in
message k...
The message
from martin contains these words:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:54:44 GMT, Pam Moore
wrote:

The Big Dig got a mention on Points of View yesterday
afternoon.
( I was only channel-hopping, honest).
Wogan said that the producers said it had been taken off
because
of low viewing numbers. (They didn't ask me!)

How long has low viewing numbers been a criteria for the BBC?

How long has criteria been singular?

About the same length of time as the words Forum and Agenda

cineman wrote:
As long as they are expecting us to fork (gardening item) out about
£180 per year, so that we can watch living tv and ITV amongst
other
channels. regards
Cineman

OT, I know. I've pondered this long and carefully for years and
years. It does seem an absurd method, and in very rare cases an
unjust one, but nobody's ever suggested a better way of funding two
TV channels, four or even five world-class radio networks, the best
website in the world, countless local radio stations, several major
orchestras, a "big band", a major choir or more, huge quantitiies of
material for schools and universities, and commissioning new writing
and music like nobody else on the planet.

I don't watch more than about ten hours of tv a week, but it's nearly
all BBC, and I listen to Radio 4 and 3 constantly: it's incredible
value for the price of a beer or two a week. One trip to the cinema
costs...how much?When people attack the licence fee, they may not
realise they're actually asking for the BBC to be privatised, and we
know what that means -- just look at ITV. I think people should be
saying this, again and again to anybody who'll listen -- I don't
trust the politicians.

--
Mike.