Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.
The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!
At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.
1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.
2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.
3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).
4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?
5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?
Why is this idea important?
Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.
The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!
At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.
1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.
2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.
3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).
4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?
5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?
Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.
This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.
The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.
Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).
Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.
Why is this idea important?
Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.
This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.
The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.
Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).
Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.
Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.
Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.
The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.
In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.
Why is this idea important?
Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.
Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.
The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.
In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.
I live in an area of Mid Wales where digital TV availability is limited to about a third of the channels available in other areas. Also, there is no DAB coverage at all and I am unlikely to be able to receive DAB in the near future.
Why, then, should I pay the same license fee as someone in, for example, London, who can enjoy a much better service? Why should I be expected effectively to subsidise others?
I suggest that there should be a graduated scale of license fee, with those unable to receive the full service paying proportionately less.
Why is this idea important?
I live in an area of Mid Wales where digital TV availability is limited to about a third of the channels available in other areas. Also, there is no DAB coverage at all and I am unlikely to be able to receive DAB in the near future.
Why, then, should I pay the same license fee as someone in, for example, London, who can enjoy a much better service? Why should I be expected effectively to subsidise others?
I suggest that there should be a graduated scale of license fee, with those unable to receive the full service paying proportionately less.
Under the Gambling Act 2005, if a charity obtains a licence to organise large society lotteries all the non-exempt lotteries they organise in the following three years (however small) are considered to be large society lotteries.
This provision should be changed so that no lottery below a certain threshold is considered to be a large society lottery, even if the charity organising it also organises large society lotteries.
Why is this idea important?
Under the Gambling Act 2005, if a charity obtains a licence to organise large society lotteries all the non-exempt lotteries they organise in the following three years (however small) are considered to be large society lotteries.
This provision should be changed so that no lottery below a certain threshold is considered to be a large society lottery, even if the charity organising it also organises large society lotteries.
Under the Gambling Act 2005 a lottery is ilegal unless it fits in one of the following categories:
a large society lottery under a Gambling Commission Licence
a small society lottery under a local authority registration
a lottery at a non-commercial event
a workplace, residence or customer lottery where all the proceeds are spent on costs or prizes i.e. non can go to charity so this cannot be used for fundraising.
I think a threshold (perhaps £1000 in one lottery or £2,000 in a calendar year) should be introduced so that people can organise small fundraising lotteries other than at events.
The requirement that all proceeds from workplace, residence or customer lotteries go to a prize winner should be changed to allow proceeds to go to charities and other non-commercial societies.
Why is this idea important?
Under the Gambling Act 2005 a lottery is ilegal unless it fits in one of the following categories:
a large society lottery under a Gambling Commission Licence
a small society lottery under a local authority registration
a lottery at a non-commercial event
a workplace, residence or customer lottery where all the proceeds are spent on costs or prizes i.e. non can go to charity so this cannot be used for fundraising.
I think a threshold (perhaps £1000 in one lottery or £2,000 in a calendar year) should be introduced so that people can organise small fundraising lotteries other than at events.
The requirement that all proceeds from workplace, residence or customer lotteries go to a prize winner should be changed to allow proceeds to go to charities and other non-commercial societies.
is`nt about time that all royals pay the same taxes as it`s UK citizens ?even in death ?
stop the law society members strangling our court system and judges without readdress
also looking in to there fees e..g make a will ,then you pay again , again after carrying it out .sending out letter of action then no action without readdress .
reclaim the civil courts to it`s citizens .stop the main party`s dictating our political system with selected mps and make the system fair for independents so laws can have scrutiny not by infringes of party will . removal of percentages ,remove the upper house,to fair independent manor .
stop taking the most with one hand then say your giving with the other which has a affect on all markets you earn then you take you pay you claim expenses to do you job selected by you party .
end tv licensing and make it a even market place .
Why is this idea important?
is`nt about time that all royals pay the same taxes as it`s UK citizens ?even in death ?
stop the law society members strangling our court system and judges without readdress
also looking in to there fees e..g make a will ,then you pay again , again after carrying it out .sending out letter of action then no action without readdress .
reclaim the civil courts to it`s citizens .stop the main party`s dictating our political system with selected mps and make the system fair for independents so laws can have scrutiny not by infringes of party will . removal of percentages ,remove the upper house,to fair independent manor .
stop taking the most with one hand then say your giving with the other which has a affect on all markets you earn then you take you pay you claim expenses to do you job selected by you party .
end tv licensing and make it a even market place .
There is a small local theatr, wih a combined foyer/cafeteria/bar attached, where our society stages ligjht operatic concerts. We would like to have a cocktail pianist playing background music in the foyer before concerts while patrons arrive and during the interval. We can't because only the theatre has a music license and not the adjacent foyer/cafeteria area. The licensing regulaton may be well-intentioned but is too draconian and needs to be reviewed and common sense applied.
Why is this idea important?
There is a small local theatr, wih a combined foyer/cafeteria/bar attached, where our society stages ligjht operatic concerts. We would like to have a cocktail pianist playing background music in the foyer before concerts while patrons arrive and during the interval. We can't because only the theatre has a music license and not the adjacent foyer/cafeteria area. The licensing regulaton may be well-intentioned but is too draconian and needs to be reviewed and common sense applied.
The workings of this "apparently" non-profit making organisation should be investigated and the laws under which they purport to operate should be abolished. A recent appraisal conducted by this limited company was carried out late, due to a backlog of work; the license it granted contained totally false information and applied a penalty for the late appraisal. Upon appeal, the false information was corrected, the penalty remained in place and the vendor had to pay the full, penalised amount.
Why is this idea important?
The workings of this "apparently" non-profit making organisation should be investigated and the laws under which they purport to operate should be abolished. A recent appraisal conducted by this limited company was carried out late, due to a backlog of work; the license it granted contained totally false information and applied a penalty for the late appraisal. Upon appeal, the false information was corrected, the penalty remained in place and the vendor had to pay the full, penalised amount.
These days everyone has some use of TV and/or radio and it is very expensive to administer a system of collection and enforcement for the few who don't.
This can simply be added to taxation – tax on spending may work since it takes more from those who spend more.
But by reducing the administrative overhead there is no need to collect as much from the taxpayer and this should be recognised by making the new system revenue neutral to the Treasury/ BBC.
To prevent overfunding in future years, the funding should be assessedas against a per capita costing (i.e. work out what the funding per person would be and determine whether or not this would be a reasonable amount to give the BBC(.
Why is this idea important?
These days everyone has some use of TV and/or radio and it is very expensive to administer a system of collection and enforcement for the few who don't.
This can simply be added to taxation – tax on spending may work since it takes more from those who spend more.
But by reducing the administrative overhead there is no need to collect as much from the taxpayer and this should be recognised by making the new system revenue neutral to the Treasury/ BBC.
To prevent overfunding in future years, the funding should be assessedas against a per capita costing (i.e. work out what the funding per person would be and determine whether or not this would be a reasonable amount to give the BBC(.
Only a limited number of domain registrars are allowed to handle .sch.uk domain names. This restriction needs to be removed so that any registrar can manage them.
Why is this idea important?
Only a limited number of domain registrars are allowed to handle .sch.uk domain names. This restriction needs to be removed so that any registrar can manage them.
I have a DAB radio but do not use it as the reception fluctuates. it is going to be impossible for me to listen to the radio once they force the change over unless a great deal of tax payers money is spent on improving reception.
Why is this idea important?
I have a DAB radio but do not use it as the reception fluctuates. it is going to be impossible for me to listen to the radio once they force the change over unless a great deal of tax payers money is spent on improving reception.
Allow PTAs to continue to distribute raffle tickets for sale by parents using children’s book bags.
Why is this idea important?
Allow PTAs to continue to distribute raffle tickets for sale by parents using children’s book bags.
Establish an exemption for regulated entertainment at schools.
A temporary event notice is currently required for all unlicensed premises for regulated entertainment, the supply of alcohol and late night refreshments with specific requirements being determined by local authority licensing officers.
Currently, a temporary event notice can be required to hold a school disco for pupils and the screening of a film.
Why is this idea important?
Establish an exemption for regulated entertainment at schools.
A temporary event notice is currently required for all unlicensed premises for regulated entertainment, the supply of alcohol and late night refreshments with specific requirements being determined by local authority licensing officers.
Currently, a temporary event notice can be required to hold a school disco for pupils and the screening of a film.
I represent a small national youth charity which organises events, and locally much smaller organisations affiliated to our national charity organise events, which probably have no more than 1,500 people attending.
In recent years, the bureaucracy and costs have spiraled. So, charities who run events for public good, for their members and the public without planning to make a profit, risk running events at a loss by have to pay £300+ to the local authority for a full Ent Lic – WHY? When a T.E.N., would do.
The events I speak of aren't rock concerts with tens of thousands of spectators and very loud amplified music, neither do they have the crowds known to be at hundreds of football matches every week, and do the latter require a license? No.
Make the process simpler. Make it consistently applied across all local authorities. Reduce the costs to something like £50 per day, and make those costs consistent across all local authorities.
Why is this idea important?
I represent a small national youth charity which organises events, and locally much smaller organisations affiliated to our national charity organise events, which probably have no more than 1,500 people attending.
In recent years, the bureaucracy and costs have spiraled. So, charities who run events for public good, for their members and the public without planning to make a profit, risk running events at a loss by have to pay £300+ to the local authority for a full Ent Lic – WHY? When a T.E.N., would do.
The events I speak of aren't rock concerts with tens of thousands of spectators and very loud amplified music, neither do they have the crowds known to be at hundreds of football matches every week, and do the latter require a license? No.
Make the process simpler. Make it consistently applied across all local authorities. Reduce the costs to something like £50 per day, and make those costs consistent across all local authorities.
Repeal the Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (and thus the Printer's Imprint Act 1961) and the Newspaper, Libel and Registration Act 1881
Why is this idea important?
Repeal the Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (and thus the Printer's Imprint Act 1961) and the Newspaper, Libel and Registration Act 1881
In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too. These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public. Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back. This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals. In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true. Firstly there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days. It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public.
If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public. If that drives up the competition, so much the better. The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.
Why is this idea important?
In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too. These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public. Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back. This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals. In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true. Firstly there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days. It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public.
If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public. If that drives up the competition, so much the better. The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.
Scrap English Heritage (set up in 1983) & let The National Trust (set up in 1895) do their job.
Why have two? merge them under the more trusted National Trust.
It would be much cheaper and much less political.
As it would also stop English Heritage arm twisting their candidates in to jobs in every planning office up & down the country.
Its also undemocratic allowing them to derail developments, stirring up local opposition, dictating planning against local wishes.
and still allowing excellent old buildings to be demolished.
Like allowing there own Art Deco HQ on Savile Row to be demolished just after they moved out, against locals and architects opinions.
Stop them listing 1970s & 1980s buildings against the wishes of tenants the owners and local councilors and residents.
Why is this idea important?
Scrap English Heritage (set up in 1983) & let The National Trust (set up in 1895) do their job.
Why have two? merge them under the more trusted National Trust.
It would be much cheaper and much less political.
As it would also stop English Heritage arm twisting their candidates in to jobs in every planning office up & down the country.
Its also undemocratic allowing them to derail developments, stirring up local opposition, dictating planning against local wishes.
and still allowing excellent old buildings to be demolished.
Like allowing there own Art Deco HQ on Savile Row to be demolished just after they moved out, against locals and architects opinions.
Stop them listing 1970s & 1980s buildings against the wishes of tenants the owners and local councilors and residents.
I am tentatively submitting this idea as I have noticed previous similar suggestions have been dismissed due the fact they involve creating new laws instead of changing existing laws. I must have misunderstood some of the PM's pre election promises of changing Britain for the better.
Anyway, I do not wish to digress too much. Like other people who have made similar suggestions I am also appalled at this country's general attitude to alcohol. However I think this attitude has now become a culture that has got progressively worse due to government action and private company greed for profit.
It is a sad fact that in this country if you go out to socialise you are almost forced into drinking alcoholic beverages. It is expected, you are constantly bombarded by offers, and there is simply a lack of alternative choices. The irony is that youngesters experiment with alcohol as it is so eay and cheap for them to get and the gang type culture increases peer pressure. Then when they get drunk and cause trouble we simply chastise them and do nothing about the root cause.
I cannot believe that there are not more non alcoholic choices that people can make. There is no incentive to produce and market these products and we seem to focusing on educating people how to drink poison responsibly instead of not drinking it at all.
Exisiting laws must be altered to make it more appealing to produce and market non alcoholic beverages. Producing and marketing new non/low alcoholic beverages should be encouraged and companies that do so should be rewarded. It would be great to see regular adverts for "Carlsberg free, probably the best alcohol free lager in the world" or for Carling zero, WKD safe etc. Every pub in the land should be encouraged to stock and sell more alcoholic free beers and beverages and again be rewarded for doing so.
We know from statistics that alcohol comsumption is a huge issue. So please start donig something postive about it that involves more than just an increase in duty.
Regards,
James Wynn (aged 37)
Why is this idea important?
I am tentatively submitting this idea as I have noticed previous similar suggestions have been dismissed due the fact they involve creating new laws instead of changing existing laws. I must have misunderstood some of the PM's pre election promises of changing Britain for the better.
Anyway, I do not wish to digress too much. Like other people who have made similar suggestions I am also appalled at this country's general attitude to alcohol. However I think this attitude has now become a culture that has got progressively worse due to government action and private company greed for profit.
It is a sad fact that in this country if you go out to socialise you are almost forced into drinking alcoholic beverages. It is expected, you are constantly bombarded by offers, and there is simply a lack of alternative choices. The irony is that youngesters experiment with alcohol as it is so eay and cheap for them to get and the gang type culture increases peer pressure. Then when they get drunk and cause trouble we simply chastise them and do nothing about the root cause.
I cannot believe that there are not more non alcoholic choices that people can make. There is no incentive to produce and market these products and we seem to focusing on educating people how to drink poison responsibly instead of not drinking it at all.
Exisiting laws must be altered to make it more appealing to produce and market non alcoholic beverages. Producing and marketing new non/low alcoholic beverages should be encouraged and companies that do so should be rewarded. It would be great to see regular adverts for "Carlsberg free, probably the best alcohol free lager in the world" or for Carling zero, WKD safe etc. Every pub in the land should be encouraged to stock and sell more alcoholic free beers and beverages and again be rewarded for doing so.
We know from statistics that alcohol comsumption is a huge issue. So please start donig something postive about it that involves more than just an increase in duty.
Regards,
James Wynn (aged 37)
i want to stop the BBC charging us a lisence to use our computers like they do with the tv
Why is this idea important?
i want to stop the BBC charging us a lisence to use our computers like they do with the tv
Don't let the International Olympic Committee's pressure to create laws that outlaw the community in East London from benefitting financially from the Olympic Games. We saw at the recent World Cup that local people were not allowed to use any word in their marketing that associated their product with the tournament. This was grossly unfair and it would be a great shame if London followed suit during the Olympics. There are already reports surfacing that suggest that laws will be brought in to stop so called ambush marketing. We must make sure that these laws do not penalise local business around the Olympic park or across London.
Why is this idea important?
Don't let the International Olympic Committee's pressure to create laws that outlaw the community in East London from benefitting financially from the Olympic Games. We saw at the recent World Cup that local people were not allowed to use any word in their marketing that associated their product with the tournament. This was grossly unfair and it would be a great shame if London followed suit during the Olympics. There are already reports surfacing that suggest that laws will be brought in to stop so called ambush marketing. We must make sure that these laws do not penalise local business around the Olympic park or across London.
Cornwall is one of the few places in the country that hasn't yet been hit by the mass networking of radio that has seen the closure of many, many once cherished local stations.
However, the governments plan to switch to DAB will spell disaster for pretty much every station in Cornwall.
Cornwall isn't London. We don't have huge wages down here. Sure London can afford to switch over, and it makes logical sense but smaller stations such as Atlantic FM and Pirate FM would either fail to afford the switchover, or due to the setup of the multiplexes have to serve a much bigger region, which would result in the fiasco of ITV again down here. I for one don't want to listen to what's going on in Exeter from where I live 64 miles away from there. Besides DAB sets cost a bomb, and to be honest, they don't sound too snazzy either.
The only stations that really benefit from the switchover are stations operated by Global Radio. I dread the day where my alarm clock goes off and some guy (or indeed girl) in London or a networked place too far from me to care about says "Welcome to Heart". I think it'd give me a heart attack with the horror. Give me Bob McCreadie over the woeful offerings of networked stations anyday. If I wanted to know what the traffic was like in Islington, i'd tune into BBC Radio 2.
It's about time the media was respected, and not just turning into a cash farm for the fat cats. (Rupert Murdoch and Global, i'm looking at you here). Think back to the snow induced chaos we had beginning of 2010. Would a huge station covering pretty much the South West be able to do the same job as Pirate or Atlantic would in Cornwall. Probably not. Even more so if its networked from London.
Don't forget community radio. Where do we fit into all this? (North Cornwall Broadcasting operates a small internet radio station for North Cornwall). If Pirate and Atlantic would struggle to go to digital, we have no hope at all! No community station i know of knows what the future holds for us.
Think demise of Regional ITV. Think snow chaos. Think Global Shareholders sitting waving cash in the air, while perfectly good radio teams are made redundant. Think Sensibly. Think FM. Scrap the digital switchover, unless you plan a disaster.
Why is this idea important?
Cornwall is one of the few places in the country that hasn't yet been hit by the mass networking of radio that has seen the closure of many, many once cherished local stations.
However, the governments plan to switch to DAB will spell disaster for pretty much every station in Cornwall.
Cornwall isn't London. We don't have huge wages down here. Sure London can afford to switch over, and it makes logical sense but smaller stations such as Atlantic FM and Pirate FM would either fail to afford the switchover, or due to the setup of the multiplexes have to serve a much bigger region, which would result in the fiasco of ITV again down here. I for one don't want to listen to what's going on in Exeter from where I live 64 miles away from there. Besides DAB sets cost a bomb, and to be honest, they don't sound too snazzy either.
The only stations that really benefit from the switchover are stations operated by Global Radio. I dread the day where my alarm clock goes off and some guy (or indeed girl) in London or a networked place too far from me to care about says "Welcome to Heart". I think it'd give me a heart attack with the horror. Give me Bob McCreadie over the woeful offerings of networked stations anyday. If I wanted to know what the traffic was like in Islington, i'd tune into BBC Radio 2.
It's about time the media was respected, and not just turning into a cash farm for the fat cats. (Rupert Murdoch and Global, i'm looking at you here). Think back to the snow induced chaos we had beginning of 2010. Would a huge station covering pretty much the South West be able to do the same job as Pirate or Atlantic would in Cornwall. Probably not. Even more so if its networked from London.
Don't forget community radio. Where do we fit into all this? (North Cornwall Broadcasting operates a small internet radio station for North Cornwall). If Pirate and Atlantic would struggle to go to digital, we have no hope at all! No community station i know of knows what the future holds for us.
Think demise of Regional ITV. Think snow chaos. Think Global Shareholders sitting waving cash in the air, while perfectly good radio teams are made redundant. Think Sensibly. Think FM. Scrap the digital switchover, unless you plan a disaster.
The new licensing acts require all live music events to be covered entirely in red tape. Live music should be spontaneous, and subject to regulation only when it may cause annoyance.
I propose that "live music" should not be regulated, but "loud music" should be. Thus an acoustic guitar in the town square should not be regulated, but a heavily amplified should be.
Why is this idea important?
The new licensing acts require all live music events to be covered entirely in red tape. Live music should be spontaneous, and subject to regulation only when it may cause annoyance.
I propose that "live music" should not be regulated, but "loud music" should be. Thus an acoustic guitar in the town square should not be regulated, but a heavily amplified should be.
what is the point of closing perfectly good FM stations when at the moment there is not enough
frequency space in Suffolk for BBC Radio Suffolk to go onto DAB. So many people use multiple
radio sets round the house and also use FM car radios it will cost a fortune to replace them all.
Why is this idea important?
what is the point of closing perfectly good FM stations when at the moment there is not enough
frequency space in Suffolk for BBC Radio Suffolk to go onto DAB. So many people use multiple
radio sets round the house and also use FM car radios it will cost a fortune to replace them all.
Currently a venue has to have an entertainments licence to play music and to allow dancing. This is absurb, at what point was it reasonable to regulate peoples natural and instinctive right to dance. Get rid of this.
Music is a fundamental tradition of humanity as are social gatherings, this right should not be restricted. I understand that there are health and safety issues surrounding the number of people in one area this issue however is adequately catered for under other regulations to do with health and safety. It is not right that people are not allowed to dance and listen to music without the venue paying a fee for the privilege. Get rid of it.
Why is this idea important?
Currently a venue has to have an entertainments licence to play music and to allow dancing. This is absurb, at what point was it reasonable to regulate peoples natural and instinctive right to dance. Get rid of this.
Music is a fundamental tradition of humanity as are social gatherings, this right should not be restricted. I understand that there are health and safety issues surrounding the number of people in one area this issue however is adequately catered for under other regulations to do with health and safety. It is not right that people are not allowed to dance and listen to music without the venue paying a fee for the privilege. Get rid of it.