Reply to: Why ?

[oracleslave]

.

If they can create a safe environment for children to play then great.

For some reason I have my doubts

[PRC1964]

I agree. The money could be injected into better quality programmes. That's what we fork out our license money for.

It fits very nicely into the idea of the BBC as a cradle to grave supplier of entertainment and information.

If they can create a safe environment for children to play then great.

No child aged over 12 is going to use it though.

[PRC1964]

But it won't keep the license fee down.

Probably not, but every little helps keep it down.

The licence fee should be scrapped anyway. It costs too much to police/administer and should just be paid for out of general taxation.

I have many misgivings about the BBC but would be very saddened for them to be privatised.

[Denny]

"The BBC insists that the site is designed to encourage discussion of the Corporation’s shows and will help raise awareness among youngsters about the risks of using the internet"

What a load of bolloox.

I agree. The money could be injected into making better quality programmes. That's what we fork out our license money for.

[xoggoth]

They will need a well known BBC actor to promote this. Chris Langham would appear to be ideal.

[Churchill]

My brother works for auntie. as long as they pay his wages I will be happy.

Why? You're not your brothers keeper!

[BrilloPad]

But it won't keep the license fee down.

My brother works for auntie. as long as they pay his wages I will be happy.

[SueEllen]

The BBC has a commercial arm and if they want to get an extra income stream from this then why not? Especially if it keeps the license fee down.

But it won't keep the license fee down.

[Clippy]

The BBC is funded by the tax payer. Disney et al are commercial channels.

If ITV decided to set up a social networking site for brats I would be fine with it.

Like any business, they have to generate revenue, particularly as the license fee falls well short of their needs. If they didn't, the license fee would go up.

They are leveraging their assets which is a smart move.

As for ITV & Friends Reunited, classic case of not developing your assets and being overtaken by newer rivals - Facebook, MySpace, Bebo.

But ITV is in a mess at the moment, so not surprising.

[gingerjedi]

The BBC is funded by the tax payer. Disney et al are commercial channels.

If ITV decided to set up a social networking site for brats I would be fine with it.

The BBC has a commercial arm and if they want to get an extra income stream from this then why not? Especially if it keeps the license fee down.

[PAH]

The BBC is funded by the tax payer. Disney et al are commercial channels.

If ITV decided to set up a social networking site for brats I would be fine with it.

Don't ITV own FriendsReunited nowadays? That site has certainly benefitted from their take over.

[SueEllen]

Reason 1.

Reason 2,

Reason 3.

The BBC is funded by the tax payer. Disney et al are commercial channels.

If ITV decided to set up a social networking site for brats I would be fine with it.

[BrilloPad]

why not?

[Clippy]

Business lesson for Milan

Reason 1.

Reason 2,

Reason 3.

[SueEllen]

Waste of bl**** money.