I don't want Sky hacking my telly

There was a piece in my local newspaper recently about a school in my town having one of its old buildings torn down. Former pupils are being invited to have one last look around the place before it is blown up.

As a former pupil of that school, my fiancée has said she will attend and asked me if I wanted to accompany her. She was, unsurprisingly, not met with much enthusiasm from yours truly. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I was never a pupil at that school so why in the name of Ghandi’s soiled nappies would I want to attend? It holds no nostalgic memories for me. Secondly, even if I had been a pupil there – or if a similar event happened at the school I went to, I still wouldn’t go because I’m just not interested. I would only visit once they had actually demolished the place. Then I would go and piss on the ashes.

That was pretty much the most exciting story worthy of being in my local paper. It has to be said that I don’t generally read the papers much. This is mostly because they are full of rubbish like 50 page articles on the colour of Rihanna’s hair and even less interesting stories about talentless singers, who have a voice like a burglar alarm, snorting themselves to death on coke.

This is why I wasn’t the slightest bit interested in the story about the News of the World closing down after the telephone hacking scandal. Personally, I think the world will be a better place with one less piece of tabloid toilet paper clogging up the shelves in newsagents.

Sure the whole telephone hacking scandal was pretty bad and further proved how much control the tabloids have and how corrupt they are. Still, it was good to see Rupert Murdoch hauled up in front of a judge and being forced to make numerous public apologies – as hollow as they no doubt were.

The only reason I took a vague interest in this story is because there has been recent speculation that Mr Murdoch, through his News Corp Empire, has been involved in some sort of attempted takeover of Formula 1. Given how damaging this telephone hacking scandal was, I thought this would scupper any plans the forces of evil had on such a bid.

So I was very surprised to read that News Corp’s BSkyB had signed a deal to jointly broadcast coverage of the sport from next year. This move is partly due to the BBC wanting to cut back on spending after the freeze on the licence fee for the next 6 years.

It’s all well and good the Beeb trying to cut costs but I don’t quite follow their logic here. They are basically letting go of 50 percent of one of the world’s largest single-event viewed programmes and one where the viewing figures have been rapidly rising year by year. By doing so, they are surely going to be losing more in reduced viewing figures than they are going to save by cutting the number of broadcasts. Also, there are so many more ways they can save money.

Firstly, they could save a huge sum of money by not shipping so many people to each race. Only one person is needed to act as pit lane reporter and journalist at the circuit itself. They only need one anchorman and one commentator and they could do their job just as easily from a BBC studio. Jake Humphrey and Martin Brundle are the only ones worth keeping. The pre-race musical montages, “mood” pieces and clever graphics they employ during the build-up is all very nice but not really essential. I certainly wouldn’t miss that annoying voiceover at the start of every broadcast that attempts to sound like the bloke who does movie trailers.

The BBC could save more money still by not showing so much crap that nobody watches. Also, why not go back to playing the National Anthem at midnight and then shutting the station down until 6’oclock the following morning? With the ability to record programmes and the availability of subtitles, is there really any need for repeats of rubbish telly with sign language?

Then we come to the man responsible for letting this happen; a man who, in my opinion, is too old and senile to be allowed in charge of such a big business. If Bernie Ecclestone was a horse, he would have been shot between the eyes a long time ago.

The fact that Bernie Ecclestone and Rupert Murdoch are buddies suggests to me that there is some sort of favouritism at play here which is not very professional in my humble opinion. I also find myself feeling a bit uneasy about the prospect of a man under investigation for corruption and bribery selling TV rights to a company that is under investigation for corruption and bribery.

I also can’t see Sky maintaining the same sort of service either. Fair enough, the recent scandal suggests that they may be able to provide more detailed pit-to-car communications, but they’ll probably also broadcast the drivers’ voicemail and hack all the viewers’ tellies.

I, for one, will not be getting Sky. I had Sky once and it was pointless. I refuse to spend such an obscene amount of money every year for the privilege of watching half a season of Formula 1. As much of a fan as I am, I’m not that interested. I cannot believe I’m the only fan who feels this way either.

The other thing is the impact this could have on the commercial side of the sport. While this deal is really only going to affect the UK audience, it could still mean a drop in viewing figures that is big enough to make sponsors and investors question their involvement. If sponsors pull out, the teams they support will fold. Without the teams, there is no sport.

Also, Formula 1 is about the only thing I watch on terrestrial TV now. Given the little amount of telly I watch now being forcibly reduced, this makes me question what the point in having a TV licence is even more.

The only good thing I can think of to come of this new deal is the possibility of the BBC having to sack Eddie Jordan as part of their cost cutting measures. God he’s rubbish!