The BBC  permalink

Why Are You Killing The Archers Message board?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 119
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Why why why?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Money, money, money,

    save, save, save.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    You would think a tiny percentage of the massive budget could be spared for the best message board out there.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peter (U15306870) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Hi everyone,

    please use this thread on The Archers message board for any discussion of the decision to close that board:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Thanks
    Peter

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Sorry for spreading the word and all that.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Please don't close this thread, Peter.

    This is the BBC board - what's more BBC than Mustardland, messageboards or The Archers?

    Why can't POVers talk about it here?

    Leave this one open, please? smiley - cake

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) ** on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Just use your favourite search engine on Graef report ...
    Basically the BBC should not be running message boards which have peripheral contact with programme content ..... as it is an abuse of market power ...and of marginal PVT.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Peter (U15306870) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Okay - will keep this open for now. But will be keeping a close eye on it.

    Peter

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    What's the betting that the POV boards won't last the year out?

    It's not so long ago that the Messageboard Homepage actually needed its aphabetical index, but now the Luddites have finally killed off the BBC's experiment in online, interactive customer service.

    I don't want to sign up to Twitface or any other commercial site, which will use my personal information and the messages I post to make a profit in some way or another, in order to take part in BBC inspired debates or to interact with programmes.
    Nor should I have to.

    I have in the past used, and hopefully contributed to, several of the boards, only to see them disappear.

    This is just one more of a series of shameful decisions.

    The BBC should remind itself that, for the world's largest and most respected broadcaster to be rapidly removing all meaningful onsite communication with its financiers, is ludicrous.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Cheers smiley - smiley

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    The BBC have become experts at shooting themselves in the foot recently and they don't like being told about it.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 11th February 2013

    Keep the board, kill the prog! smiley - smiley

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Tadpole (U2267185) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Hi everyone,

    please use this thread on The Archers message board for any discussion of the decision to close that board:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Thanks
    Peter 


    Isn't it relevant to a discussion of the BBC's standards, policies etc, then?

    What a great resource, a great online community, is the Archers Messageboard. Far more than just a board about a radio prog, it's become a social support network for people with cancer and those caring for elderly parents; a book club, a gardening club, a film club, a music club; a current affairs debating society; a forum for creative writing and humour and word games; a wide ranging and hugely knowledgeable advice forum; a place for intelligent conversation with people worldwide; an insight which should be cherished by the BBC, if it had any sense, into the views and interests of a large group of R4 listeners, and much much more.

    Shame on you, BBC.


    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Annie-Lou (U4502268) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    Hi everyone,

    please use this thread on The Archers message board for any discussion of the decision to close that board:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Thanks
    Peter 


    Isn't it relevant to a discussion of the BBC's standards, policies etc, then?

    What a great resource, a great online community, is the Archers Messageboard. Far more than just a board about a radio prog, it's become a social support network for people with cancer and those caring for elderly parents; a book club, a gardening club, a film club, a music club; a current affairs debating society; a forum for creative writing and humour and word games; a wide ranging and hugely knowledgeable advice forum; a place for intelligent conversation with people worldwide; an insight which should be cherished by the BBC, if it had any sense, into the views and interests of a large group of R4 listeners, and much much more.

    Shame on you, BBC.


     
    Sorry to say this Tadpole, but the one and only time I've ventured onto the Archers Board (after 25 years as a listener) I found it to be far from the caring place you describe.
    I only took a look, because as a mum of two severely disabled children, I was interested to see the reaction to the Archer's first ever disabled character (baby Bethany).
    About 10% of messageboard members reacted to this development positively. From the other 90%, it prompted an uninhibited outpouring of vicious anti-disability prejudice which was appalling to see and very upsetting for me personally. I was astounded to see this from "nice, middle-class" Archers listeners, but its amazing what people will say under the cover of anonymity.

    I'm afraid I won't miss it....

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) ** on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    <quote postid='115310420'

    What a great resource, a great online community, is the Archers Messageboard. Far more than just a board about a radio prog, it's become a social support network for people with cancer and those caring for elderly parents; a book club, a gardening club, a film club, a music club; a current affairs debating society; a forum for creative writing and humour and word games; a wide ranging and hugely knowledgeable advice forum; a place for intelligent conversation with people worldwide;
    </quote>

    If it does all of that it certainly does not meet the Graf criterion for what the BBC message boards / on line presence should be doing .... see news.bbc.co.uk/nol/s...

    These may all be good things but should the BBC being doing them,.....?????
    how do they fit in the current BBC charter Six public purposes???
    www.bbc.co.uk/aboutt...

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    These may all be good things but should the BBC being doing them,.....?????
    how do they fit in the current BBC charter Six public purposes??? 

    Where does it say in the charter about closing virtually all on-site interaction with viewers (who finance the BBC), and replacing them with less safe, commercial, social meeja sites, who's aim is to profit from the information they store about those who sign up and post messages?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    There's always the BBC blo .... < splutter> No, sorry. Can't even finish that.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by EggOnAStilt (U7111730) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    There's always the BBC blo .... < splutter> No, sorry. Can't even finish that.  smiley - rofl

    smiley - friedegg

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) ** on Wednesday, 13th February 2013


    Where does it say in the charter about closing virtually all on-site interaction with viewers (who finance the BBC), and replacing them with less safe, commercial, social meeja sites, who's aim is to profit from the information they store about those who sign up and post messages?
     
    Sixth one perhaps....
    But the BBC is under financial pressure ... And as Graf said should not be exploiting its market power to do what the market can provide ... Like that long list of things which were on the Archers board ...... DS does that quite well.
    There is a lot of interaction available WITH the BBC on its main business via the websites .. But the BBC is not set up to be a message board on any general thing.

    And just for the record the BBC is funded from the consolidated fund ... To an amount set by the government. ....

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    Sorry to say this Tadpole, but the one and only time I've ventured onto the Archers Board (after 25 years as a listener) I found it to be far from the caring place you describe. ...  That sounds like a ghastly experience, and I was sad to read about it.

    I was put off the Archers board after seeing other posters get mobbed for insufficient deference - but that was nothing like as bad as what you describe.
    I think most posters are decent folk, but The Archers does seem to attract a noticeable minority of fans who are also blithering idiots, unfortunately.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    The BBC have closed loads of MB's.Out of their £3billion annual budget it would barely register to keep The Archers one open.It's not about finance it is about doing things their way.All those twitter ads tells you all you need to know

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Wednesday, 13th February 2013

    But the BBC is not set up to be a message board on any general thing 
    A change of policy then, because it used to be a very thriving community.
    Demonstrated by this link supplied by Sue_Aitch on the other thread about closures.

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Annie-Lou (U4502268) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Sorry to say this Tadpole, but the one and only time I've ventured onto the Archers Board (after 25 years as a listener) I found it to be far from the caring place you describe. ...  That sounds like a ghastly experience, and I was sad to read about it.

    I was put off the Archers board after seeing other posters get mobbed for insufficient deference - but that was nothing like as bad as what you describe.
    I think most posters are decent folk, but The Archers does seem to attract a noticeable minority of fans who are also blithering idiots, unfortunately.  
    Thanks, Huckers. I must say (setting aside my area of special interest) that I was taken aback by the fact that nearly all the posts on the Archers board consisted of strongly-felt bile poured out about the characters and plotlines!! I was amazed at the genuine anger over what is, after all, a work of fiction.
    The main function of the board seems to be as an outlet for people's repressed fury. I couldn't believe these were supposed to be the "die hard fans" when they all seem to hate the show (and all the characters) so much!

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Sorry to say this Tadpole, but the one and only time I've ventured onto the Archers Board (after 25 years as a listener) I found it to be far from the caring place you describe. ...  That sounds like a ghastly experience, and I was sad to read about it.

    I was put off the Archers board after seeing other posters get mobbed for insufficient deference - but that was nothing like as bad as what you describe.
    I think most posters are decent folk, but The Archers does seem to attract a noticeable minority of fans who are also blithering idiots, unfortunately.  
    Thanks, Huckers. I must say (setting aside my area of special interest) that I was taken aback by the fact that nearly all the posts on the Archers board consisted of strongly-felt bile poured out about the characters and plotlines!! I was amazed at the genuine anger over what is, after all, a work of fiction.
    The main function of the board seems to be as an outlet for people's repressed fury. I couldn't believe these were supposed to be the "die hard fans" when they all seem to hate the show (and all the characters) so much! 
    Completely missed the point.Discuss the Archers (DTA) is a sub board and there are others that go along with it.And they are great you might want to look at the whole before criticising.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Nemo399 (U14258777) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Sorry to say this Tadpole, but the one and only time I've ventured onto the Archers Board (after 25 years as a listener) I found it to be far from the caring place you describe.
    I only took a look, because as a mum of two severely disabled children, I was interested to see the reaction to the Archer's first ever disabled character (baby Bethany).
    About 10% of messageboard members reacted to this development positively. From the other 90%, it prompted an uninhibited outpouring of vicious anti-disability prejudice which was appalling to see and very upsetting for me personally. I was astounded to see this from "nice, middle-class" Archers listeners, but its amazing what people will say under the cover of anonymity.

    I'm afraid I won't miss it....  


    Annie-Lou, I agree. A dark vein of prejudice and even cruelty runs through that board, despite the many witty and friendly people there. I started posting when the new website was set up in 2010, and found it was it was a bit like entering a war zone at times. I was very shocked by the reaction to the Down's Syndrome story line (the 'Selfish, selfish Vicky thread) and left for a while.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Sue_Aitch (U3336990) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Hi everyone,

    please use this thread on The Archers message board for any discussion of the decision to close that board:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Thanks
    Peter 


    Isn't it relevant to a discussion of the BBC's standards, policies etc, then?

    What a great resource, a great online community, is the Archers Messageboard. Far more than just a board about a radio prog, it's become a social support network for people with cancer and those caring for elderly parents; a book club, a gardening club, a film club, a music club; a current affairs debating society; a forum for creative writing and humour and word games; a wide ranging and hugely knowledgeable advice forum; a place for intelligent conversation with people worldwide; an insight which should be cherished by the BBC, if it had any sense, into the views and interests of a large group of R4 listeners, and much much more.

    Shame on you, BBC.


     
    Sorry to say this Tadpole, but the one and only time I've ventured onto the Archers Board (after 25 years as a listener) I found it to be far from the caring place you describe.
    I only took a look, because as a mum of two severely disabled children, I was interested to see the reaction to the Archer's first ever disabled character (baby Bethany).
    About 10% of messageboard members reacted to this development positively. From the other 90%, it prompted an uninhibited outpouring of vicious anti-disability prejudice which was appalling to see and very upsetting for me personally. I was astounded to see this from "nice, middle-class" Archers listeners, but its amazing what people will say under the cover of anonymity.

    I'm afraid I won't miss it.... 
    That reminds me of some of the posts on Sports blogs when Sarah Storey, Ellie Simmonds and David Weir all made it to the shortlist for Sports Personality of the Year 2012 award.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Nemo399 (U14258777) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Having said that, and tagging on to my own thread, Annie-Lou, had you entered the "Village Hall" section of the board you would have found a very different response, and it would have been better in The Bull, too. The Discuss the Archers section is the problematic place, I think, but that's not all bad either, once you know some of the poster's style better.


    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Surely the point is being missed here- if a long time listener of the Archers wanted to add a comment about the programme would they visit that message board-as a new contributor-to be greeted by a number of bewildering boards most of which have nothing to do with the programme and those that have are just mostly vitriol

    Is it the BBC's job in this economic climate to provide a social messaging service? -even if it may have done so in the past -for the benefit of a 1000 or so contributors in a country of 60 million people when there are plenty of other forums for discussion that are not funded by a licence fee paid by all

    It is sad when a message boards closes-it does have a community-but as when the gardening boards and food boards closed last year that community moved to a different and it most cases a better spot with a more up to date facility

    If people don't want to do that that that is up to them

    There is no point in getting all sentimental and forming petitions -the decision is made- get over it -time to pack up and move on.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Well some of us who have been moved from closed board to closed board think it worth making a final stand.The annual BBC budget is over £3 billion.If there are a 1,000 regular users (not convinced btw) and many more lurking why can't we have somewhere to talk to each other? We are licence payers and I am sick of reading about the big salaries they get and the way they treat the people who pay their wages.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    But it is not going to happen-you know that-no matter how much you go on about money

    Find another place to talk to each other-we did on the gardening board and a better place where the rules are not quite so stringent-and any nasty comments are jumped on quickly.

    Again -why should your neighbour pay for you to have a chat?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    But it is not going to happen-you know that-no matter how much you go on about money

    Find another place to talk to each other-we did on the gardening board and a better place where the rules are not quite so stringent-and any nasty comments are jumped on quickly.

    Again -why should your neighbour pay for you to have a chat? 
    There are other alternatives.But the BBC site was trusted by all.Why should the BBC send so many people to cover the US election, why should they have an Asian service why why why etc?

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    The BBC-British Broadcasting Corporation-whose prime objective is broadcasting

    When message boards were set up -for whatever reason there was not the social media available there is now-now come on these boards are creaky enough-I cannot post pictures directly -cannot message another forum member and have to wait 3 minutes before replying.

    Social media in this form is dead-it is like black and white tv in comparison to HD 3D

    And funded out of the licence fee-yet a small population use it -so small could not even give you the percentage.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    The BBC-British Broadcasting Corporation-whose prime objective is broadcasting

    When message boards were set up -for whatever reason there was not the social media available there is now-now come on these boards are creaky enough-I cannot post pictures directly -cannot message another forum member and have to wait 3 minutes before replying.

    Social media in this form is dead-it is like black and white tv in comparison to HD 3D

    And funded out of the licence fee-yet a small population use it -so small could not even give you the percentage. 
    Yes and a very small percentage of the budget, although no one seems to want to provide a figure.They have turned their backs on lots of good communities they helped create and could have used to their benefit.And directed them to US based Twitter and Facebook.And their blogs are less than useless.Have you any idea of the amount of goodwill they have lost over the closure of so many message boards.No wonder they have lost so many friends and supporters.They haven't a clue.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Do commercial broadcasters provide such an outlet?-no- so why should the BBC?

    I appreciate people arent happy-believe me when the gardening board closed people were bereft-part of their world had been snatched away

    But you find a new place and soon settle in-look on it as one door closes another opens wide smiley - smiley

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Commercial broadcasters do have messageboards don't they?

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    In this form? -not that I am aware.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    In this form? -not that I am aware.  Well they have feed back and why shouldn't we licence payers have somewhere to post other than the awful blogs.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Do commercial broadcasters provide such an outlet?-no- so why should the BBC? 
    Because the BBC is a publicly funded public service broadcaster.
    It isn't supposed to be like the rest, it has a social responsibility not shared by commercial companies.

    It's the largest broadcaster in the World, and is apparently keen on developing its internet presence, witnessed by the latest experiment to pre-empt programmes by showing them online, ignoring the fact that many of us are far away from having the necessary broadband speed.

    Yet, they have moved virtually all interactive contact between the fee payers, the corporation and its programmes, to off-site, rather insecure commercial sites, that use the data mined from registration details and messages posted to make a profit.

    Completely retrograde!

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    You have that here-all the time it remains open-but a lot of people just want to comment and move on -not get in a discussion-so they use e-mail or phone

    There is the green room on here of you want to talk about anything and everything-they are a welcoming bunch-why not try that?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Nemo399 (U14258777) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Surely the point is being missed here- if a long time listener of the Archers wanted to add a comment about the programme would they visit that message board-as a new contributor-to be greeted by a number of bewildering boards most of which have nothing to do with the programme and those that have are just mostly vitriol  

    I'm afraid that if a newcomer tried to start a new thread or even joined a thread on the 'Discuss the Archers" section of the board they could run into all kinds of trouble. Some would welcome the new imput, but others would greet a newbie with suspicion and accuse them of being a troll. Then, if they said something that didn't fit in with the general trend of OTT criticism of the programme, they'd meet with sarcasm from some quarters. I suppose this kind of thing would happen on a lot of boards where over a period of time the board users have morphed into a community, but it's difficult when there's so much shared history and almost a 'private language', plus cliques.
    I think, too, that some listeners to The Archers became even more embittered after the 60th anniversary episode when a popular character was killed off and the editor, Vanessa Whitburn, failed to acknowldge the listeners' anger.

    My own view is that the Archers boards have had a good run and it's probably the right time to pull the plug. BUT I do think the BBC should have a messageboard somewhere for longer comments.

    OK--cleared all my discussions from DTA, off now to read the BEING HUMAN thread on POV before that, too, disappears!

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    DTA is but a small part of it.How many times?

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Nemo399 (U14258777) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Yes, I know, and I do sympathise. I'd only just started posting on the more congenial 'Ambridge Extra' board and was enjoying it. But the BBC has said that they're closing all the messageboards on that site, Village Hall, Bull etc. because of falling numbers of users and the main thrust of the site is to Discuss the Archers. I'd probably be lynched for saying this but why did the numbers fall? Could it be that those who wanted to discuss the Archers were put off by the difficulties of trying to discuss the programme rationally and without sarcasm on that board?

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Agreed, those other discussions would be more useful if they were taken out from under the Archers' hegemony.
    As it is, it's hard to justify their retention.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Might be, as you know sarcasm abounds on the internet.But The Bull (which I use) is a great place to read and post opinions.A place that can be informative and fun and with one or two exceptions the best bunch of posters I have seen on any board anywhere.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Annie-Lou (U4502268) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Surely the point is being missed here- if a long time listener of the Archers wanted to add a comment about the programme would they visit that message board-as a new contributor-to be greeted by a number of bewildering boards most of which have nothing to do with the programme and those that have are just mostly vitriol  

    I'm afraid that if a newcomer tried to start a new thread or even joined a thread on the 'Discuss the Archers" section of the board they could run into all kinds of trouble. Some would welcome the new imput, but others would greet a newbie with suspicion and accuse them of being a troll. Then, if they said something that didn't fit in with the general trend of OTT criticism of the programme, they'd meet with sarcasm from some quarters. I suppose this kind of thing would happen on a lot of boards where over a period of time the board users have morphed into a community, but it's difficult when there's so much shared history and almost a 'private language', plus cliques.
    I think, too, that some listeners to The Archers became even more embittered after the 60th anniversary episode when a popular character was killed off and the editor, Vanessa Whitburn, failed to acknowldge the listeners' anger.

    My own view is that the Archers boards have had a good run and it's probably the right time to pull the plug. BUT I do think the BBC should have a messageboard somewhere for longer comments.

    OK--cleared all my discussions from DTA, off now to read the BEING HUMAN thread on POV before that, too, disappears!  
    Yes, I'm afraid that pretty much sums up my experience, Nemo. I wasn't aware that other sud-boards might be friendlier but I would think most newbies wouldn't get past the hostility of the main board.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Annie-Lou (U4502268) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Agreed, those other discussions would be more useful if they were taken out from under the Archers' hegemony.
    As it is, it's hard to justify their retention. 
    smiley - ok

    The OP appears to be arguing that the Archers board must be kept open to discuss everything other than the Archers....smiley - erm

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by FowPah (U1746998) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Agreed, those other discussions would be more useful if they were taken out from under the Archers' hegemony.
    As it is, it's hard to justify their retention. 
    smiley - ok

    The OP appears to be arguing that the Archers board must be kept open to discuss everything other than the Archers....smiley - erm 
    The Bull (sub board) is for any topic.Which is what makes it so good and why so many people are trying to keep it open.It represents a very tiny cost in the scheme of things.Look at that and The Village Hall which is for special interests and the valuable stuff that goes on there.Things that effect people's very lives and I am not being over dramatic.It is such a rich source of feedback they are throwing away.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Dover Soul (U14934992) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    But you have to admit that there is little or nothing about the Archers in The Bull, there is little or nothing about the BBC either, unless it is about high salaries and the sort. So why should the BBC fund a board it has nothing to do with? They have no obligation to do so at all.

    There are other places you can do exactly what you do in The Bull. The only difference is that there will be no links with the BBC.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    The Bull (sub board) is for any topic.Which is what makes it so good and why so many people are trying to keep it open.  How are non-Archers fans supposed to find it?

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by thedogcody (U14659366) ** on Thursday, 14th February 2013

    Agreed, those other discussions would be more useful if they were taken out from under the Archers' hegemony.
    As it is, it's hard to justify their retention. 
    smiley - ok

    The OP appears to be arguing that the Archers board must be kept open to discuss everything other than the Archers....smiley - erm 
    The Bull (sub board) is for any topic.Which is what makes it so good and why so many people are trying to keep it open.It represents a very tiny cost in the scheme of things.Look at that and The Village Hall which is for special interests and the valuable stuff that goes on there.Things that effect people's very lives and I am not being over dramatic.It is such a rich source of feedback they are throwing away. 
    So if there is such a great community-what is this great community doing to find a new home?

    There is not much effort involved to set up a new forum-with little or no cost-it was done when other boards closed

    To keep saying it should be kept open is not accepting it is to close-which it will-so the ball is in the users court not the BBC's-the plug WILL be pulled

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.