91Èȱ¬

Michael, since the 91Èȱ¬ World Service started, something happened that has transformed the world we live, and has made the need for the 91Èȱ¬ to broadcast to the vast majority of the places it does now COMPLETELY unneccessary! Here's a clue; it was originally invented by two physicists from CERN. Here's another; I'm leaving this message on it right now.

The World service should be majorly reduced to take account of the ease with which billions of people can now log onto the internet and listen and interact with the 91Èȱ¬ and other British media. It should only be broadcast (if you subscribe to the rather sanctimoneous view that this country has some kind of responsibility to preach to the rest of the world that is) into countries where the internet is as yet unavailable or is interfered with.

Will you now cause another 'furious hastily-arranged' round of talks in which the reduced need for the 91Èȱ¬ World Service in the age of the internet is taken fully into account.

Re comment #1 - The Internet currently reaches less than one third of the world's population - there was report recently that there are now 2 billion users, and the global population is nearly 6.9 billion. There are great swathes of the world where the 91Èȱ¬ World service is the only way that people can get access to accurate and (mostly) unbiased news and current affairs. This is especially important where repressive regimes control the local print and electronic media. Thee 91Èȱ¬ World Service is respected worldwide and it would be a national folly if it was to be abandoned or significantly restricted in its work.

Well, it's true then. We listen to world service all night and Radio 4 morning and evening. Please let's make sure WS remains as interesting as it is now. I could personally do without Outlook, but then I could also do without the Shipping Forecast and Thought for the day.

Message 2. Yes I agree that there has to be some kind of of voice for people to hear in oppressed countries, but really Britain with it's chequered imperialist history is not ideal. Should not all member states of the UN contribute to a global radio station, which at least would reduce the load on UK citizens who apparently, according to our host, are worried about the difference between being taxed by the government or being taxed by the 91Èȱ¬!

It would not cost the 91Èȱ¬ one single penny in overhead costs to waive the licence fees for people over 75 years old. Once you transmit the photons they don't cost you any more regardless of how many people are tuning in. Yet again the 91Èȱ¬ are showing themselves to be anti-government, anti-taxpayer, and very much pro-the likes of Jonathon Ross and themselves, by insisting the endangered non-government-borrowed-money-recycling, real-non government-paid taxed income money earners, in other words the absolute suckers of the universe, continue to be forced to pay for the corporation's profligacy.

Only in Britain, anywhere else and there would have been a civil war by now!

I COULD DO WITHOUT DEMENTED BLASTS OF MUSACK (#3)

I live in a semi. Why does World Service behave like Radio 5? In the early hours, if I set the volume to hear speech, the mad musack wakes all the neighbours. Dead edgy though.

Great scoop, Michael! But of course they should have axed the FCO grant to The British Council instead of squeezing the 91Èȱ¬ - but I guess that
would have hurt the finances of British Council/Education UK which is
intimately involved with Hotcourses - company owned by Jeremy Hunt MP!

Thank you Sky News for taking the trouble in their 8 AM bulletin to go through the figures concerning the dire state of the UK economy. Now, when the announcement is made I will be able to see the action the coalition as been forced to take in context. In contrast Radio 4's coverage thus far has been totally focused, as per the rest of the 91Èȱ¬ News pro-Labour coverage, in making ultra-pessimistic analyses of the implications of the cuts, this morning from a foc day care centre for children in Exeter.

How dearly I would love to see a government teach the biased Beeb a real lesson in in the true nature of 21st century reality! I wouldn't freeze the licence fee, I would abolish it completely!

Two senior sources...
This seems to...
I understand..
.. likely to involve..
A 91Èȱ¬ source tells me...
I am told..
As a result of my blog last night...


That last, one presumes, confirmed so definitively by... another source?

I still miss the opening music to PM....sad or what...

QUOTE: "It would not cost the 91Èȱ¬ one single penny in overhead costs to waive the licence fees for people over 75 years old." UNQUOTE
-------------------


Dear Trout Mask Replica (good username BTW),

If the BBc waived the licence fee for over 75s it would cost the 91Èȱ¬ over £500m. The 91Èȱ¬ is not a government department so they are compensated for the over 65s that don't have to pay a licence. (It's the same with bus companies - they are compensated by the government for the pensioners that don't buy bus tickets.)

Re your point about the World Service. Apart from being a fine product, it also allows the UK to project "soft power" around the world. It's a lot cheaper and more sensible than aircraft carriers without planes. Listen a while, you might enjoy it.

Finally, you praise Sky. You do realise who controls Sky? The great man's media empire exists to project his business interests. It's like watching a Coca Cola advert and expecting impartiality. If you feel infomed by it though, fair enough.