JohnCreedon81 wrote: » Guess that’s a no, you can’t provide that single example then? Oh well, back to “debating” another Thread with your “wisdom” there Francis :pac: Damn right I want the TV license to be held accountable and cut back from its current p!sstaking levels or waste and greed. You keep applauding their money furnace though like a good Brady :rolleyes:
DubInMeath wrote: Don't remember that and I'm in my 40s. Do notice that on the channels provided by Sky etc that this happens a lot however. Given that in the US there are whole groups who campaign to have what they see as foul language removed and the FCC have to levy fines against a broadcaster/station if they receive enough complaints there are for tv edits of films and shows which are often used.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What's a no? The curve ball you threw into the debate? I never claimed any of it was 'critical for survival'. If 'surviving' is all you want to do...knock yourself out there kiddo.
Sleeper12 wrote: » It was common with RTE though. Not just with swear words but scenes could be cut too.
Bunny Colvin wrote: » Just watching Dancing With The Stars, Jennifer Maguire is presenting it and she signs the show off for ad break. The next ad is for RTE Player featuring Jennifer Maguire. The next ad is for Bridget and Eamon, starring (you guessed it) Jennifer Maguire. I think that just about sums up RTE.
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » I’ll reign it in so, 1 of these vitally important services you claim they provide, come on, just 1 bbz.
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » Made a name for herself being the token eejit in the uk apprentice, comes back and gets famous literally insulting celebrities on the red carpet for the republic of Telly, and is now absolutely rolling in our hard earned money. But yeah, pure bargain that €160 lads, only 50c a Day sure :rolleyes:
zoobizoo wrote: It was a common misperception back then that seems to persist but as a tv addict, I can tell you that RTE were a lot more lax than the BBC and the ITV stations.
Sleeper12 wrote: » A lot more lax does not mean that they didn't sensor movie's. RTE 100 percent did buy in sensord versions of movies and Beverly Hills Cop in particular had some of the swear words dubbed out. I know because I saw it. Trying to tell me that I watched it on ITV when I didn't have ITV or UTV as it at the time doesn't compute. RTE would have first shown this movie in 1987 or 1988 and it was definitely sensord
FrancieBrady wrote: » The remit of a national broadcaster is 'vitally important' imo John and well worth paying for in any self respecting sovereign country. You seem to base your rant on dislike for a few presenters, kinda sad.
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » You think people questioning where their hard earned is spent, after they are forced to pay it, is worth arguing against, instead of perhaps making further suggestions on the massive savings they could make by simply cutting some of the overpaid imbeciles they have on the gravy train. 3,125 poor sods are needed each year to pay their €160 in full to cover tubridy’s bill alone. Are you that oblivious to reality that you can’t see the huge waste of OUR money currently happening? Or are you benefiting from this circus? Pathetically sad.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And RTE would say the advertising revenue he brings in pays his way. Are you suggesting they get rid of him and forgo the ad revenue and make your licence fee more expensive? Do you have an understanding of how these things work or is it just jealousy?
FrancieBrady wrote: The BBC censored Frankie Goes To Hollywood and other stuff. They all did it at various times in more conservative days.
Sleeper12 wrote: » It never happens on the sky movie channels. Ever. The movie channels had an 8pm watershed as it was subscriber only but sky don't sensor their movie channels. It was common with RTE though. Not just with swear words but scenes could be cut too.
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » You don’t think the late late would pull in the exact same ad revenue if they replaced him with someone every bit as competent, for around a 5th of his salary? Do you have an understanding that the people who watch that show will watch it even if it’s hosted by a decent DCU media graduate, simply due to routine? Or are you simply that simple and oblivious in all areas?
FrancieBrady wrote: » We get you don't like him, I don't listen to him either. But I can readily accept that a lot of people do and consewuently he attracts ad revenue. Another one of those facts of business life. I find it true to form for someone like you to propose running a TV/Radio station on an ad hoc ('I don't like him or her, get rid, the viewer will watch anyway') and patronising basis. No surprise there at all actually.:rolleyes:
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » And we’ve just established that you think people watch the Late Late for Ryan Tubridy Case closed! That and your satisfaction for spending €160 a year simply to access a bog average radio show says all I need to know about you. :rolleyes: :pac:
Nermal wrote: » I’m don’t face a prison sentence for not ponying up for Virgin merely for the privilege of owning a TV though, do I? That’s why it’s infuriating - I have the option not to watch it, but I still have to pay for it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, again I didn't say that. I said Tubridy's shows bring in revenue. Like it or not, that is true. 160 euro works out at less than 50 cent a day. I get far far more than Ryan Tubridy for that.
DubInMeath wrote: Can't comment on on Sky movies as I never seen the point in paying for it, but I seen loads of films such as Taxi Driver, Goodfellas first on RTE without any cuts.
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » The Late Late show brings in revenue, despite Ryan Tubridy, not because of him. If you do not realize this, you haven’t a clue. It’s an Irish institution, a large portion of the country will watch it even if Dustin the turkey hosted it. You’re not the brightest though, and clearly not in touch with reality, so I’ll say well done on being happy to waste your €160 a year without even questioning how RTÉ spend it, and I’ll leave it there Roisin! Xo
FrancieBrady wrote: » Stops embarrassing youself on this, it is clear that these presenters (Love em or hate em or just indulge your jealousy) bring in huge revenue .
JohnCreedon81 wrote: » [img][/img]
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yeh, we get it, you hate Tubridy. You do know what a remote is for?