FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Scrap the tv license yes or no.
Scrap the tv license yes or no.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Ditched my license a couple of years ago. They put up a slight battle a bit like leaving a phone company but eventually I even got a refund for being 6month in advance of when I signed off.. lived on my own at the time working shifts. Have Netflix & catch up apps now which suits me at half the price. The BBC is outdated garbage covering the queens calander and showing the same old crap since the 70's. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Ditched my license a couple of years ago. They put up a slight battle a bit like leaving a phone company but eventually I even got a refund for being 6month in advance of when I signed off.. lived on my own at the time working shifts. Have Netflix & catch up apps now which suits me at half the price. The BBC is outdated garbage covering the queens calander and showing the same old crap since the 70's. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's going to be scrapped soonish anyway. BBC and ITV are going to be bringing out a subscription service, like Netflix and Amazon prime. They have been told that they will need to produce far more dramas etc for it to be feasible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's outdated
I can understand its original purpose but these days most people watch through another medium they subscribe to
I pay Virgin for TV, WiFi
Another £12 a month for a channel I rarely watch is annoying |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's outdated
I can understand its original purpose but these days most people watch through another medium they subscribe to
I pay Virgin for TV, WiFi
Another £12 a month for a channel I rarely watch is annoying "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hechapMan
over a year ago
Derry |
The BBC and the tv licence should have been abolished years ago.
I wouldnt even take their licence if they were paying me £150 a year.
The paedo ring cover up should be enough to put you off paying! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tbh they do a few good programs and we'd all lose very excellent radio without it ... it's like when anything is scrapped, maybe what it's replaced with won't be anywhere near as good! Ie the trains |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sGivesWoodWoman
over a year ago
ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL |
Im 5 mths in advance with payments. Do they let it correct itself? No chance. I'm still paying in advance, it's a joke and should be scrapped as I'm paying for it several times with other services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though"
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output. "
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though"
No you don't lol I don't have a tv but the radio is ace |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
No you don't lol I don't have a tv but the radio is ace "
why its been forced on them by the current govt as they didnt want to be the ones left holding the ball when the budget cut came so they foisted that onto the bbc budget and let them get the blame .woo you have to pay out a massive £2.86 a week to have the ability to watch four national tv stations 5 national radio stations numerous regional tv and radio stations plus the online content without being bombarded with adverts for casinos and ambulance chasers oh and remember the licence fee also part funds chanel four .be carefull what you wish for it may not be perfect but its damb sight better than what we will get left to comercial tv to take up the gap |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If all I got for my TV license was BBC 6 music and Radio 5 Live I'd be more than happy. As it is I also get iplayer. Which unlike 4OD isn't awash with infuriating adverts.
Think before you hand control of the nation's broadcasting to Rupert Murdoch. They're the only thing standing in his path. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Absolutely should be gotten rid of. If I want to watch ITV which has to fund itself, why do I have to pay their competitor?? Id be laughed out the room if I said I was setting up an independent sandwich shop, but anyone that brought a sandwich from Subway still had to pay me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The BBC is too integrated in the British establishment, not least the world service with the spooks of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for any Government ever to consider giving it away to the private sector. That, and the control of the airwaves in a national crisis/emergency.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES "
Never paid it, never will.
Can’t be enforced so what’s the point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Absolutely should be gotten rid of. If I want to watch ITV which has to fund itself, why do I have to pay their competitor?? Id be laughed out the room if I said I was setting up an independent sandwich shop, but anyone that brought a sandwich from Subway still had to pay me!"
Because the BBC, unlike ITV, has a remit to provide a massive range of content that ITV doesn’t have to.
Anyone who thinks that the output of the BBC and ITV is essentially the same clearly doesn’t fully appreciate just how much the BBC provides.
And whether any of us use it or not isn’t really the point. There are all sorts of publicly funded services that we all contribute to, but might not use, but are nonetheless of enormous benefit to the population as a whole.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace "
Firstly, it wasn’t their decision, it was effectively forced upon them by the government.
Secondly, although it isn’t (I don’t think) means tested, those on Pension Credit will still get the free licence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
Because the BBC, unlike ITV, has a remit to provide a massive range of content that ITV doesn’t have to.
"
Yes.
The idea a privately-run BBC will be the same as a publicly-run BBC needs exposed.
It will become just another ITV, investing only in those programmes that generate the highest audience share and advertising revenue in order to maximise the return to shareholders. Nothing more.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arksxMan
over a year ago
Leicester / London |
"One of the reasons that the license fee is as high as it is, is all the spongers who gain advantage from its existence but do not contribute to it. "
Are sure its not the multimillion contracts they sign with presenters who then invade tax on their income
If you added all the dodgers up together it wouldnt even cover 20% of the salaries
It's just over priced... They need to do more with less or find a way to commercialise their back catalogue.
They must be rakinf in millions with BBC America and even YouTube channels.
I always wonder whether the YouTube advert money goes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the reasons that the license fee is as high as it is, is all the spongers who gain advantage from its existence but do not contribute to it.
Are sure its not the multimillion contracts they sign with presenters who then invade tax on their income
If you added all the dodgers up together it wouldnt even cover 20% of the salaries
It's just over priced... They need to do more with less or find a way to commercialise their back catalogue.
They must be rakinf in millions with BBC America and even YouTube channels.
I always wonder whether the YouTube advert money goes"
It pays for 11 channels and content that covers non profitable projects such as documentaries, arts, news and culture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arksxMan
over a year ago
Leicester / London |
"Scrap it and just ad a £5 a month tax on netflix and the rest tax to pay for it. "
Most of the good stuff is already on there as box sets.
The only thing I would miss is some radio and a bit of their podcast.
Can't cost that much to keep them running |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the reasons that the license fee is as high as it is, is all the spongers who gain advantage from its existence but do not contribute to it.
Are sure its not the multimillion contracts they sign with presenters who then invade tax on their income
If you added all the dodgers up together it wouldnt even cover 20% of the salaries
It's just over priced... They need to do more with less or find a way to commercialise their back catalogue.
They must be rakinf in millions with BBC America and even YouTube channels.
I always wonder whether the YouTube advert money goes"
How is it overpriced? How much should it cost to provide everything that they do?
They do provide a lot more now than they did about 20 years ago, without substantially increasing the cost. It only ever goes up at around the rate of inflation, and was frozen for a few years.
What do you mean “raking in the millions”? It’s not like it’s a commercial entity which creates profit for shareholders.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firstly, it wasn’t their decision, it was effectively forced upon them by the government.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of publicly funded services."
George Osborne, and the Treasury, decided in 2015 and without public discussion to hang on to the monies that were paid to the BBC in lieu of 'licences' for the over-75s.
That money came from general taxation.
Lord Hall accepted the deal as the BBC would be allowed to raise the licence fee in line with inflation and the loophole regarding watching on-demand television would be closed.
Call us cynical, but the outcome was always going to be that the BBC would claim poverty as the annual £750 million that it would no longer receive from the government was, effectively, 20% of the BBC's annual budget.
So, the BBC decides to collect the £750 million missing from its annual budget from the over-75s.
You might be tempted to think that this had always been the plan, and we think you are probably correct, but the public backlash had not been expected.
A couple of additional points:
If the licence fee for the over-75s goes down a 'means tested' route then the system becomes even more complicate and expensive.
The BBC might want to consider 'value for money' with regard to an awful lot of what it does e.g.
BBC Scotland, launched in Feb 19, with a £32 million annual budget and £7 million of this going on news programmes, paying for 80 journalists.
In the period 24 Feb - 2 Jun 19, 21 of BBC Scotland's programmes had zero viewers including its 7 pm evening news bulletin 'The Seven'.
The 'flagship' news programme 'The Nine' recorded a 73% drop in audience figures with the BBC proclaiming that BBC Scotland was 'bucking the trend when it comes to engaging younger audiences' and that the channel’s success would be 'judged using a variety of measures'.
The BBC is an organisation that will spend as much money as it can even if it is employing people to produce programmes that no-one actually watches.
Informstion source for viewing figures: The Press Gazette.
COI: As we keep pointing out to the BBC's CAPITA enforcement goons, we have a television set but we don't watch television. The BBC War of the Worlds mini-series looks as if it might be very good (seen on YouTube) but it's not sufficient to make us part with the licence fee for an overstuffed monolith.
Personal advert: Look, our profile!
SS & TG |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arksxMan
over a year ago
Leicester / London |
"One of the reasons that the license fee is as high as it is, is all the spongers who gain advantage from its existence but do not contribute to it.
Are sure its not the multimillion contracts they sign with presenters who then invade tax on their income
If you added all the dodgers up together it wouldnt even cover 20% of the salaries
It's just over priced... They need to do more with less or find a way to commercialise their back catalogue.
They must be rakinf in millions with BBC America and even YouTube channels.
I always wonder whether the YouTube advert money goes
How is it overpriced? How much should it cost to provide everything that they do?
They do provide a lot more now than they did about 20 years ago, without substantially increasing the cost. It only ever goes up at around the rate of inflation, and was frozen for a few years.
What do you mean “raking in the millions”? It’s not like it’s a commercial entity which creates profit for shareholders.
"
It's not an entity designed for profit but is definitely commercialised. It always has.
BBC America is a paid for Channel in America. Think sky Atlantic as the uk equivalent.
Netflix also buys rights to show they put on their streaming platform.
How much should it cost? I think most people would agree less than netflix.
I understand it produced more than them but the average person doesn't benefit from that
Vite with your wallet this a how commercial markets work
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One of the reasons that the license fee is as high as it is, is all the spongers who gain advantage from its existence but do not contribute to it.
Are sure its not the multimillion contracts they sign with presenters who then invade tax on their income
If you added all the dodgers up together it wouldnt even cover 20% of the salaries
It's just over priced... They need to do more with less or find a way to commercialise their back catalogue.
They must be rakinf in millions with BBC America and even YouTube channels.
I always wonder whether the YouTube advert money goes
How is it overpriced? How much should it cost to provide everything that they do?
They do provide a lot more now than they did about 20 years ago, without substantially increasing the cost. It only ever goes up at around the rate of inflation, and was frozen for a few years.
What do you mean “raking in the millions”? It’s not like it’s a commercial entity which creates profit for shareholders.
It's not an entity designed for profit but is definitely commercialised. It always has.
BBC America is a paid for Channel in America. Think sky Atlantic as the uk equivalent.
Netflix also buys rights to show they put on their streaming platform.
How much should it cost? I think most people would agree less than netflix.
I understand it produced more than them but the average person doesn't benefit from that
Vite with your wallet this a how commercial markets work
"
I don't want commercial interests to run British culture. I realise that's not a popular opinion these days, but if we put a dollar sign on everything we'll miss out on so much that's valuable in art... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One of the reasons that the license fee is as high as it is, is all the spongers who gain advantage from its existence but do not contribute to it.
Are sure its not the multimillion contracts they sign with presenters who then invade tax on their income
If you added all the dodgers up together it wouldnt even cover 20% of the salaries
It's just over priced... They need to do more with less or find a way to commercialise their back catalogue.
They must be rakinf in millions with BBC America and even YouTube channels.
I always wonder whether the YouTube advert money goes
How is it overpriced? How much should it cost to provide everything that they do?
They do provide a lot more now than they did about 20 years ago, without substantially increasing the cost. It only ever goes up at around the rate of inflation, and was frozen for a few years.
What do you mean “raking in the millions”? It’s not like it’s a commercial entity which creates profit for shareholders.
It's not an entity designed for profit but is definitely commercialised. It always has.
BBC America is a paid for Channel in America. Think sky Atlantic as the uk equivalent.
Netflix also buys rights to show they put on their streaming platform.
How much should it cost? I think most people would agree less than netflix.
I understand it produced more than them but the average person doesn't benefit from that
Vite with your wallet this a how commercial markets work
"
Why should it cost less than Netflix though? It provides a lot more than Netflix, on a much smaller budget.
BBC America and BBC Worldwide are commercial arms of the BBC, but IIRC their profits just go back into the BBC’s pot for producing content.
The main BBC isn’t really a commercial entity.
The arguments for getting rid of it and/or the licence fee amount to little more than an “I don’t watch it / I’m alright Jack” attitude.
Someone mentioned that the BBC was a dinosaur. Given that around 80%-90% of the tv watching population watch the BBC for an average of around 6-7 hours per week, with an audience share of around 30%.... before you even consider the radio or online stuff like the website and iPlayer, I’d say it’s still very relevant indeed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES
Never paid it, never will.
Can’t be enforced so what’s the point "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When people are against the tv license, they just need to consider what it would be like without it any BBC channels or radio or iplayer. BBC bite size is an amazing tool used by literally 1000s of kids every year to get through their gcses... most people use the BBC most of the time without realizing it I think, and it's marvelous with no advertising
I personally don't have a tv and never really have and don't use iplayer because need a license ... but would happily pay a fee just for the radio! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Don't watch BBC or any of its subsidiaries, don't watch ITV, Ch4 or 5 either. I stopped paying the tac 5 years ago when I started watching Netflix and Prime. I have control over what I watch, when I watch it. It's ad free, I'm not forced into paying under threat of prosecution, I'm treated like a grown up and allowed to do what I want to do.
Nothing the BBC puts out interests me so I'm not missing anything, and if it ever did, it turns up on streaming a few months later so no loss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ocbigMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace "
at last a voice of reason...I can't see the problem except it being 'compulsory'..a sort of tax. when I look at how much sky etc charge for a bundle which comprises shows/programming never watched or likely to including repeats of you guessed it BBC programmes the licence fee is a bargain. Also the 75+ decision was really a government thing for which the BBC got railroaded & blamed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Scrapped the licence a while ago and not paying it, happily watching my fully loaded firestick with a finger or two up the the bbc and the government! Have a great day  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rufinWoman
over a year ago
notts |
I'd rather state sponsored content than billionaire sponsored content (or other states sponsored content).
There was a consultation about what to do with over 75s licence fee charges. I voted to remove it for all but the poorest ie means test it. Most pensioners have greater disposable income than working people nowadays. My parents generation got/get enough free stuff anyway. Anyone who felt strongly enough to voice an opinion had their chance to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abs..Woman
over a year ago
.. |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace
at last a voice of reason...I can't see the problem except it being 'compulsory'..a sort of tax. when I look at how much sky etc charge for a bundle which comprises shows/programming never watched or likely to including repeats of you guessed it BBC programmes the licence fee is a bargain. Also the 75+ decision was really a government thing for which the BBC got railroaded & blamed."
ITV don’t have a licence fee but they are willing to have adverts. BBC apparently don’t have adverts and the money they earn from the fee pays for the provision. What a load of tosh! There are constants adverts of sorts on BBC. They’re paid too much and need to work harder for their money. There is no argument for a licence fee these days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace
at last a voice of reason...I can't see the problem except it being 'compulsory'..a sort of tax. when I look at how much sky etc charge for a bundle which comprises shows/programming never watched or likely to including repeats of you guessed it BBC programmes the licence fee is a bargain. Also the 75+ decision was really a government thing for which the BBC got railroaded & blamed.
ITV don’t have a licence fee but they are willing to have adverts. BBC apparently don’t have adverts and the money they earn from the fee pays for the provision. What a load of tosh! There are constants adverts of sorts on BBC. They’re paid too much and need to work harder for their money. There is no argument for a licence fee these days. "
A lot of products from manufacturers can be seen quite clearly on bbc programmes if you look  .
Advertising media is big business just look at the james bond films they get paid mega money from aston martin and tag heuer and many other companies to display their wares, the bbc is not aloof from this clever advertising.
They will deny it of course......just like jimmy saville ?????????????. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Then no more radio 1 etc, no more bite size for the kids, no more world service as said before, like lots of things that are scrapped, will the alternative be better? Who actually enjoys the adverts?
Are people moaning at just having to pay for it? Is it different to paying for netflix etc?
Are people looking at the bigger picture? How about when you are old and tv is all you have? Kids tv has to be better without the pressure of adverts? Are we being selfish about this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In the midst of all the BBC-bashing, I'd just like to stick up for the them a bit. There are obviously things wrong with them but I think they do some things well. I think their journalism is good and I have BBC radio on in the house fairly constantly.
Id vote to keep the licence fee but it sounds like I'm in a small minority on here.
Luke |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't watch BBC or any of its subsidiaries, don't watch ITV, Ch4 or 5 either. I stopped paying the tac 5 years ago when I started watching Netflix and Prime. I have control over what I watch, when I watch it. It's ad free, I'm not forced into paying under threat of prosecution, I'm treated like a grown up and allowed to do what I want to do.
Nothing the BBC puts out interests me so I'm not missing anything, and if it ever did, it turns up on streaming a few months later so no loss. "
I always think it sounds a bit of a stretch when people say that nothing interests them on the BBC, given how varied it’s output actually is. I know we all have our tastes and preferences, but to not be interested in anything suggests a pretty narrow and niche range of interests.
And what do you mean “treated like a grown up”? How on earth does paying for a tv licence mean people aren’t treated like a grown up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace
at last a voice of reason...I can't see the problem except it being 'compulsory'..a sort of tax. when I look at how much sky etc charge for a bundle which comprises shows/programming never watched or likely to including repeats of you guessed it BBC programmes the licence fee is a bargain. Also the 75+ decision was really a government thing for which the BBC got railroaded & blamed.
ITV don’t have a licence fee but they are willing to have adverts. BBC apparently don’t have adverts and the money they earn from the fee pays for the provision. What a load of tosh! There are constants adverts of sorts on BBC. They’re paid too much and need to work harder for their money. There is no argument for a licence fee these days.
A lot of products from manufacturers can be seen quite clearly on bbc programmes if you look .
Advertising media is big business just look at the james bond films they get paid mega money from aston martin and tag heuer and many other companies to display their wares, the bbc is not aloof from this clever advertising.
They will deny it of course......just like jimmy saville ?????????????."
The BBC don’t receive money for product placement. You don’t see lingering shots on products in the same way you do with paid for product placement.
There are not constant adverts on the BBC at all. Unless you can’t tell the difference between commercials for products and services, and trailers for tv programmes?
Who is paid too much, and compared to who?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Way past it's sell by date"
Given that around 80%-90% of the tv watching population watch the BBC for an average of around 6-7 hours per week, with an audience share of around 30%.... before you even consider the radio or online stuff like the website and iPlayer....
...how exactly is “way past it’s by date”?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes scrap it, I haven't watched or payed the license for over five years and I feel so much better for not having to sit through the rubbish. It's basically a stealth tax to brainwash yourself!"
So scrap it because you don’t watch it?
What other publicly funded services should be scrapped because you don’t use them?
How are people being brainwashed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uxinteriorMan
over a year ago
south west , continental |
"Yes scrap it, I haven't watched or payed the license for over five years and I feel so much better for not having to sit through the rubbish. It's basically a stealth tax to brainwash yourself!
So scrap it because you don’t watch it?
What other publicly funded services should be scrapped because you don’t use them?
How are people being brainwashed? "
I didn't say scrap other public services.
If the BBC is a public service in my opinion its lost the plot and is heavily biased, it no longer represents an impartial viewpoint.
I choose not to watch any TV, including the BBC, that's my choice
If you love the BBC, great I am very happy for you, continuing watching and paying for the service which suits you.
I'm not alone in having the opinion that the TV licence should be scrapped. It is long overdue a complete overhaul, to give people a wider choice and control over what they view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes scrap it, I haven't watched or payed the license for over five years and I feel so much better for not having to sit through the rubbish. It's basically a stealth tax to brainwash yourself!
So scrap it because you don’t watch it?
What other publicly funded services should be scrapped because you don’t use them?
How are people being brainwashed?
I didn't say scrap other public services.
If the BBC is a public service in my opinion its lost the plot and is heavily biased, it no longer represents an impartial viewpoint.
I choose not to watch any TV, including the BBC, that's my choice
If you love the BBC, great I am very happy for you, continuing watching and paying for the service which suits you.
I'm not alone in having the opinion that the TV licence should be scrapped. It is long overdue a complete overhaul, to give people a wider choice and control over what they view. "
I know you didn’t, but I’m still interested if you would want other publicly funded services scrapped because you don’t use them?
And I disagree that the BBC has lost its impartiality. All too often, people claim “bias”, when really they mean “something I don’t agree with”. That the BBC sometimes airs something you happen to disagree run does not men it isn’t impartial.
Given that people of all political leaning accuse the BBC of bias, we would have to believe that the BBC is simultaneously a bunch of leftie luvvies, and also a mouthpiece spouting propaganda in support of the incumbent right wing government.
The BBC is accused of being pro Brexit, pro Europe, pro Palestine and pro Israel. It clearly can’t be all of those things, and so is probably simply doing a pretty good job of remains impartial.
You already have control over what you view. Scrapping be licence would not give you a wider choice, it would give you less choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why do you assume I love the BBC, and predominantly watch the BBC?
I never step foot in a library, or walk in public parks, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate their value to communities as a whole. Because it’s not all about me, or what I want or make use of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do you assume I love the BBC, and predominantly watch the BBC?
I never step foot in a library, or walk in public parks, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate their value to communities as a whole. Because it’s not all about me, or what I want or make use of."
No one said that, but you’re coming across like you’re Anthony Hall.
It’s clearly an outmoded system which fewer and fewer people pay for (mainly as there is no real way of enforcing payment) so it needs changing.
Changing to what however is way above my pay grade.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you assume I love the BBC, and predominantly watch the BBC?
I never step foot in a library, or walk in public parks, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate their value to communities as a whole. Because it’s not all about me, or what I want or make use of.
No one said that, but you’re coming across like you’re Anthony Hall.
It’s clearly an outmoded system which fewer and fewer people pay for (mainly as there is no real way of enforcing payment) so it needs changing.
Changing to what however is way above my pay grade.
"
A poster above said “if you love the BBC....”
There’s a difference between arguing that the BBC per se is outdated and arguing that the licence fee needs to be replaced with a more enforceable means of collection. The only viable option is some form of ringfencing of general taxation. But even that runs the risk of being unringfenced by a future government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I remember reading an article a few years back that suggested the BBC-only licence would be replaced with a "media tax". I don't know what happened to that. Some are saying that the BBC is a "public service". Twaddle. It's a company who provide entertainment channels. It provides nothing more than 100's of other channels, radio stations and online services provide. They're still paying out compensation to victims of their various disgusting employees, and you're paying for it. "Oh, but it's only £2.86 a month" That's great if you're not on the breadline - £2.86 will buy a loaf of bread, tins of beans etc - enough to feed yourself for a few days if necessary. Hungry people still have to pay for it even if they don't watch it and have no need of it. Have a look at the queues for food banks - those people pay for the BBC's excesses even whilst queuing for food just to survive. Of all the countries I've lived in, or visited - none that I know of have such a ridiculous tax. A question to those who do want the BBC to continue - how much are you willing to pay? Perhaps you should offer to pay more voluntarily? Everyone has their "cut-off" price for what they think something is worth. Personally, I don't think it's worth what I scraped off my shoe yesterday.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Christ! I thought posts about cheating attracted the most ill informed, touchy, follow the herd and ignorant types. Turns out it's this. The BBC is only unappreciated in this country. And they don't pay anywhere near the salaries that ITV and alike pay, these companies don't have to disclose what they pay or to whom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ! I thought posts about cheating attracted the most ill informed, touchy, follow the herd and ignorant types. Turns out it's this. The BBC is only unappreciated in this country. And they don't pay anywhere near the salaries that ITV and alike pay, these companies don't have to disclose what they pay or to whom."
Is it unappreciated in this country because this country's citizens have to pay for it even if they don't want it? As far as I'm aware, and I have done - you can watch it in any country with the right kit and not pay for it. everyone loves a freebie  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ! I thought posts about cheating attracted the most ill informed, touchy, follow the herd and ignorant types. Turns out it's this. The BBC is only unappreciated in this country. And they don't pay anywhere near the salaries that ITV and alike pay, these companies don't have to disclose what they pay or to whom."
Tell me about it. The climate change threads are just as bad. Ill informed invective. We are living in the age of what I reckonry. Say it loud enough and use derogatory language and people who want to believe your point will. I think the British people have had enough of facts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ! I thought posts about cheating attracted the most ill informed, touchy, follow the herd and ignorant types. Turns out it's this. The BBC is only unappreciated in this country. And they don't pay anywhere near the salaries that ITV and alike pay, these companies don't have to disclose what they pay or to whom.
Tell me about it. The climate change threads are just as bad. Ill informed invective. We are living in the age of what I reckonry. Say it loud enough and use derogatory language and people who want to believe your point will. I think the British people have had enough of facts. "
which can only do harm. D Trump for example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ! I thought posts about cheating attracted the most ill informed, touchy, follow the herd and ignorant types. Turns out it's this. The BBC is only unappreciated in this country. And they don't pay anywhere near the salaries that ITV and alike pay, these companies don't have to disclose what they pay or to whom.
Is it unappreciated in this country because this country's citizens have to pay for it even if they don't want it? As far as I'm aware, and I have done - you can watch it in any country with the right kit and not pay for it. everyone loves a freebie "
just kinda proved my point there chap. It is viewed as the best news organisation throughout the world. Some will not wright, print or broadcast anything until the BBC says it's true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Christ! I thought posts about cheating attracted the most ill informed, touchy, follow the herd and ignorant types. Turns out it's this. The BBC is only unappreciated in this country. And they don't pay anywhere near the salaries that ITV and alike pay, these companies don't have to disclose what they pay or to whom.
Is it unappreciated in this country because this country's citizens have to pay for it even if they don't want it? As far as I'm aware, and I have done - you can watch it in any country with the right kit and not pay for it. everyone loves a freebie just kinda proved my point there chap. It is viewed as the best news organisation throughout the world. Some will not wright, print or broadcast anything until the BBC says it's true."
Not quite sure how I proved your point, but whatever makes you feel good......
I disagree that it's viewed as the best news organisation throughout the world, unless you mean for paedo enabling |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I remember reading an article a few years back that suggested the BBC-only licence would be replaced with a "media tax". I don't know what happened to that. Some are saying that the BBC is a "public service". Twaddle. It's a company who provide entertainment channels. It provides nothing more than 100's of other channels, radio stations and online services provide. They're still paying out compensation to victims of their various disgusting employees, and you're paying for it. "Oh, but it's only £2.86 a month" That's great if you're not on the breadline - £2.86 will buy a loaf of bread, tins of beans etc - enough to feed yourself for a few days if necessary. Hungry people still have to pay for it even if they don't watch it and have no need of it. Have a look at the queues for food banks - those people pay for the BBC's excesses even whilst queuing for food just to survive. Of all the countries I've lived in, or visited - none that I know of have such a ridiculous tax. A question to those who do want the BBC to continue - how much are you willing to pay? Perhaps you should offer to pay more voluntarily? Everyone has their "cut-off" price for what they think something is worth. Personally, I don't think it's worth what I scraped off my shoe yesterday.
"
If you think that the BBC only provides the same as other FTA commercial tv, then you clearly have little idea about everything that the BBC provides.
It is only £3 a week, but those on the breadline should be receiving benefits to lift them out if the breadline. If the difference between them having enough to get by and not having enough to get by is less than £3 a week, then the problem is with the benefits system, but the tv licence.
Again, it’s not really about what you, me, or anyone else thinks it’s worth. To reduce it to that is to completely miss the point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We don't mind the BBC continually pushing Marxist, snowflake and anti-Brexit propaganda, because we don't have to watch or listen to it. It's the broadcasting equivalent of The Guardian.
BUT we don't have to buy The Guardian, whereas we DO have to pay for the BBC, which seems totally wrong.
Despite many of the answers, non-payment is a crime and if charged and found guilty, you will end up with a criminal record. Plus a big fine. Non-payment shouldn't be a crime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't mind the BBC continually pushing Marxist, snowflake and anti-Brexit propaganda, because we don't have to watch or listen to it. It's the broadcasting equivalent of The Guardian.
BUT we don't have to buy The Guardian, whereas we DO have to pay for the BBC, which seems totally wrong.
Despite many of the answers, non-payment is a crime and if charged and found guilty, you will end up with a criminal record. Plus a big fine. Non-payment shouldn't be a crime."
What is some if this anti Brexit propaganda?
And what is a “snowflake”? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *htcMan
over a year ago
MK |
"Tbh they do a few good programs and we'd all lose very excellent radio without it ... it's like when anything is scrapped, maybe what it's replaced with won't be anywhere near as good! Ie the trains "
You must be joking. I don't listen to a single BBC radio channel. Out of 36 radio stations saved in my car. Not a single one is BBC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Absolutely. It's daylight robbery. Actually, I don't pay for a license. I don't have a TV connected to an aerial, I don't watch I-player, there's a couple of other things you need to do, but as long as you do, you can claim exemption. Which I do! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For all its faults, the BBC sort of works.
Let politicians start playing with it and it'll end up like everything else they get their grubby mitts on to give us "choice" - it'll cost three times more, have half the options and make a small number of cronies very rich... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes scrap it. I don't pay it anyway. So not worried if they scrap or not. If everyone did the same their wouldn't be a licence fee."
So if no-one paid it, everyone would get the BBC for free? Genius! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The only issue I have with the tv licence is that you need one to access live content broadcast on non-BBC channels. Despite this, I'm happy to pay the licence as it does provide a wide range of quality programming that people enjoy - not all of it by me but then again it's not all aimed at me.
It's interesting to hear from the people criticising the channels as biased/rubbish/brainwashing etc.. then in the same breath claim they don't watch it. Hmmm.
Finally, the comments about paedos. Sadly, these despicable people are in all walks of life - they don't represent the establishment they work for. School teachers for example have been caught and prosecuted for their crimes, I don't see people calling schools paedo-enablers. I would say that all companies and institutions coming into contact with vulnerable people have had to wake up and safeguard against these type of people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Yes scrap it. I don't pay it anyway. So not worried if they scrap or not. If everyone did the same their wouldn't be a licence fee.
So if no-one paid it, everyone would get the BBC for free? Genius! "
Put it to the vote like brexit.....i wonder what would really happen ????. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes definitely they can run advertising. "
Where is the money for that coming from?
Advertisers only have a finite pot to spend. If the BBC was funded by advertising, existing commercial channels would lose a big chunk of their revenue.
And if the BBC was reliant on ad revenue, it would need to produce more populist output, and less content that was less populist.
So if the BBC was funded by advertising, it would have a negative impact on both itself and existing commercial channels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes scrap it. I don't pay it anyway. So not worried if they scrap or not. If everyone did the same their wouldn't be a licence fee.
So if no-one paid it, everyone would get the BBC for free? Genius!
Put it to the vote like brexit.....i wonder what would really happen ????."
Yeah, look how that turned out!
What’s your point? That people prefer to get stuff for free?
Given that far more people use it than don’t use it, who’s to how that vote would go.
Do you have an argument for scrapping it other than “I don’t like it or use it”? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES "
Mine would be NO, I don't watch much BBC content, but do listen to the radio about 9 hours a day, which is worth paying for to avoid the adverts.
It is already optional, take down your aerial and don't watch broadcast channels, and you won't need a license.
The BBC is a funded tax collector, gets a lot of shit that has nothing to do with them, e.g. removal of free license for over 75's it is the government doing that not the BBC. Equal pay for presenters, its down to the presenters agent not the employer, they want to pay the least they can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES
Mine would be NO, I don't watch much BBC content, but do listen to the radio about 9 hours a day, which is worth paying for to avoid the adverts.
It is already optional, take down your aerial and don't watch broadcast channels, and you won't need a license.
The BBC is a funded tax collector, gets a lot of shit that has nothing to do with them, e.g. removal of free license for over 75's it is the government doing that not the BBC. Equal pay for presenters, its down to the presenters agent not the employer, they want to pay the least they can. "
Wow someone talking sense on here wonders never cease! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't mind the BBC continually pushing Marxist, snowflake and anti-Brexit propaganda, because we don't have to watch or listen to it. It's the broadcasting equivalent of The Guardian.
BUT we don't have to buy The Guardian, whereas we DO have to pay for the BBC, which seems totally wrong.
Despite many of the answers, non-payment is a crime and if charged and found guilty, you will end up with a criminal record. Plus a big fine. Non-payment shouldn't be a crime.
What is some if this anti Brexit propaganda?
And what is a “snowflake”?"
A momentum troll! They even inhabit this site, amazing!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't mind the BBC continually pushing Marxist, snowflake and anti-Brexit propaganda, because we don't have to watch or listen to it. It's the broadcasting equivalent of The Guardian.
BUT we don't have to buy The Guardian, whereas we DO have to pay for the BBC, which seems totally wrong.
Despite many of the answers, non-payment is a crime and if charged and found guilty, you will end up with a criminal record. Plus a big fine. Non-payment shouldn't be a crime.
What is some if this anti Brexit propaganda?
And what is a “snowflake”?
A momentum troll! They even inhabit this site, amazing! "
Ah, so it’s not a lazy name calling put down of someone with a perfectly valid view used by the right when they happen to disagree with someone, because it’s easier than stringing a coherent counter argument?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES
Mine would be NO, I don't watch much BBC content, but do listen to the radio about 9 hours a day, which is worth paying for to avoid the adverts.
It is already optional, take down your aerial and don't watch broadcast channels, and you won't need a license.
The BBC is a funded tax collector, gets a lot of shit that has nothing to do with them, e.g. removal of free license for over 75's it is the government doing that not the BBC. Equal pay for presenters, its down to the presenters agent not the employer, they want to pay the least they can.
Wow someone talking sense on here wonders never cease! "
I am sorry, I will return to nonsense asap  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usie pTV/TS
over a year ago
taunton |
Those on benefits shouldn't have a telly or a licence until they damn well get out and get a job and can afford to pay for it and while I am on the case nor should they be buying costa a lot coffee |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Last night on the Robert Peston show, Nicky Morgan the Culture Secretary said she wasn't committed to the licence fee and the BBC should start exploring ways to become a subscription service. At last, a politician speaking sense! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Last night on the Robert Peston show, Nicky Morgan the Culture Secretary said she wasn't committed to the licence fee and the BBC should start exploring ways to become a subscription service. At last, a politician speaking sense! "
Well, it makes sense if you want to see quality / diversity decline and/or costs increase. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It does make me laugh when the BBC are not supposed to advertise but they do it all the time! They advertise their own programmes!
We also noticed that the more they advertise a particular programme the bigger pile of crap it tends to be! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It does make me laugh when the BBC are not supposed to advertise but they do it all the time! They advertise their own programmes!
We also noticed that the more they advertise a particular programme the bigger pile of crap it tends to be! "
Can you really not tell the difference between companies paying to advertise their products, and trailers for upcoming programmes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It does make me laugh when the BBC are not supposed to advertise but they do it all the time! They advertise their own programmes!
We also noticed that the more they advertise a particular programme the bigger pile of crap it tends to be!
Can you really not tell the difference between companies paying to advertise their products, and trailers for upcoming programmes?"
Call it what you like, they are both an arrempt to get you to do something you wouldn't normally have given a second thought too!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Got rid of our licence recently absolutely nothing worth watching on terrestrial TV these days. The BBC is just an establishment mouthpiece funded by licence payers.
It's news is heavily biased.
If you want to go licence free search online for the TV licence resistance forum for lots of good info. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It is already optional, take down your aerial and don't watch broadcast channels, and you won't need a license.
"
There is no legal requirement to take down or disconnect your aerial. Just stop watching broadcast TV and using iPlayer and tell Capita to f*** off if they come to the door (they have no powers whatsoever) if you wish to go licence free. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well overdue for an over haul the license is a fossil from the past like a dog license ??? just bring out a scrambler box so you the customer can choose to subscribe or not .......simples.
My answer would be ....YES "
Couldn’t care less is my answer. I follow the letter of the law (and licensing T&Cs)
I don’t have equipment to receive live tv. I give access to them when they visit. I’ve always been upfront with them and not had a licence for the last 4 years. In fact, they haven’t even visited me in the last 18 months lol
I get a letter asking me if anything’s changed. I reply and that’s it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It does make me laugh when the BBC are not supposed to advertise but they do it all the time! They advertise their own programmes!
We also noticed that the more they advertise a particular programme the bigger pile of crap it tends to be!
Can you really not tell the difference between companies paying to advertise their products, and trailers for upcoming programmes?
Call it what you like, they are both an arrempt to get you to do something you wouldn't normally have given a second thought too!
"
That’s hardly the definition of ‘commercial’ though, or changes the fact that they are clearly two very different things.
There’s also a massive difference between two minutes of trailers, and interrupting the programme you are watching for four to five minutes every 15-20 minutes.
To not see the difference is just to be obtuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t have equipment to receive live tv. I give access to them when they visit. I’ve always been upfront with them and not had a licence for the last 4 years. In fact, they haven’t even visited me in the last 18 months lol
I get a letter asking me if anything’s changed. I reply and that’s it. "
Just wondering why you give some commission based sales person from Capita access to your home or indeed reply to computer generated letters designed to intimidate people? Would you let anyone just walk into your house to check if your electric wiring met current building regs for example?
The so called TV licence inspectors are just high pressure cold calling salespeople who get £20 a time commission for frightening someone to sign up for a licence. They have no powers at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Got rid of our licence recently absolutely nothing worth watching on terrestrial TV these days. The BBC is just an establishment mouthpiece funded by licence payers.
It's news is heavily biased.
If you want to go licence free search online for the TV licence resistance forum for lots of good info."
Ignoring the fact that you obviously don’t even watch the BBC, how exactly is it’s news biased? As mentioned already, given that pretty much all sides accuse it of bias, that probably suggests it’s doing a pretty good job of being impartial.
“Bias” isn’t defined as “something that someone happens to disagree with”.
But humour me, which is the BBC this week... a bunch of liberal left luvvies.... or a mouthpiece for right wing Conservative propaganda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t have equipment to receive live tv. I give access to them when they visit. I’ve always been upfront with them and not had a licence for the last 4 years. In fact, they haven’t even visited me in the last 18 months lol
I get a letter asking me if anything’s changed. I reply and that’s it.
Just wondering why you give some commission based sales person from Capita access to your home or indeed reply to computer generated letters designed to intimidate people? Would you let anyone just walk into your house to check if your electric wiring met current building regs for example?
The so called TV licence inspectors are just high pressure cold calling salespeople who get £20 a time commission for frightening someone to sign up for a licence. They have no powers at all."
I guess it depends on wether or not someone wants to take 10 minutes of their time to act like a reasonable grown up, in order to stop the letters hassling them about not having a licence.
And yes, I know people don’t have any legal obligation to do that. So I guess it all depends on whether or not people only ever choose to do things they have a legal obligation to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Scrap the licence? No it's worth every penny
Only to the establishment for whom it spouts propaganda whilst getting Joe Public to pay for it. "
Jeez, you make it sound like North Korean state television.
Ignoring the fact that you don’t even watch the BBC, what is some of this propaganda supposed to be? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's going to be scrapped soonish anyway. BBC and ITV are going to be bringing out a subscription service, like Netflix and Amazon prime. They have been told that they will need to produce far more dramas etc for it to be feasible "
This already exists as it was created for the USA they just looking at adding it for UK as well now.
As of today I saw article that BBC i player also might become subscription based. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's going to be scrapped soonish anyway. BBC and ITV are going to be bringing out a subscription service, like Netflix and Amazon prime. They have been told that they will need to produce far more dramas etc for it to be feasible
This already exists as it was created for the USA they just looking at adding it for UK as well now.
As of today I saw article that BBC i player also might become subscription based. "
Oooo that'll be grand! I'll be able to watch it woohoo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Only country in the world that requires one to have this shit in order to watch anything. And I’ve lived in 6 different countries : Canada, USA, Australia, Italy, Portugal and my home country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Ignoring the fact that you obviously don’t even watch the BBC, how exactly is it’s news biased?
"
Cardiff University school of Journalism has produced a number of reports on the bias.
However, if you want a specific example of establishment bias the BBC website still reports that the paparazzi following Princess Diana contributed to her death. The coroner's report says no such thing it merely refers to the ' 'following vehicles' (?secret service). Look them both up they still exist online. Only because of the BBC spin (lies) at the time most people think the paparazzi had something to do with it.
To date they still have not corrected their report. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Ignoring the fact that you don’t even watch the BBC, what is some of this propaganda supposed to be?"
Too much to go into here but would be happy to discuss. People need to wake up as to how much they are being played. Start reading independent journalists like Vanessa Beely who actually went to Syria and exposed the fiction of the 'white helmets' or Eva Bartlett or Cory Morningstar who has written brilliant researched exposes of how Greta Thunberg has been manufactured to help hijach the green agenda for business and the Corporations.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Ignoring the fact that you obviously don’t even watch the BBC, how exactly is it’s news biased?
Cardiff University school of Journalism has produced a number of reports on the bias.
However, if you want a specific example of establishment bias the BBC website still reports that the paparazzi following Princess Diana contributed to her death. The coroner's report says no such thing it merely refers to the ' 'following vehicles' (?secret service). Look them both up they still exist online. Only because of the BBC spin (lies) at the time most people think the paparazzi had something to do with it.
To date they still have not corrected their report."
Eh? So the only reason people think that is because the BBC reported it? Nothing to do with the fact that it was pretty much what was reported by everyone? Has everyone else gone back and amended years old web pages?
It’s hardly the best example of bias though, “anti paparazzi” bias.
So what, exactly, does the BBC actually even say? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Ignoring the fact that you don’t even watch the BBC, what is some of this propaganda supposed to be?
Too much to go into here but would be happy to discuss. People need to wake up as to how much they are being played. Start reading independent journalists like Vanessa Beely who actually went to Syria and exposed the fiction of the 'white helmets' or Eva Bartlett or Cory Morningstar who has written brilliant researched exposes of how Greta Thunberg has been manufactured to help hijach the green agenda for business and the Corporations.
"
What is this green agenda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Ignoring the fact that you don’t even watch the BBC, what is some of this propaganda supposed to be?
Too much to go into here but would be happy to discuss. People need to wake up as to how much they are being played. Start reading independent journalists like Vanessa Beely who actually went to Syria and exposed the fiction of the 'white helmets' or Eva Bartlett or Cory Morningstar who has written brilliant researched exposes of how Greta Thunberg has been manufactured to help hijach the green agenda for business and the Corporations.
What is this green agenda?"
How much are you willing to pay for the BBC licence - what's your financial cut-off point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's talk of it being abolished in Ireland, yeahhhh but being replaced with a new tax that covers watching on laptops or tablets, a communication tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Going to cancel mine. This is 2019 and they have the ability to encrypt and charge for their service. They do not own the fookin airwaves and it is ridiculous trying tell us we have to buy a license.
BBC go do one ...and I'm not talking about Big xxxxx xxxxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Last night on the Robert Peston show, Nicky Morgan the Culture Secretary said she wasn't committed to the licence fee and the BBC should start exploring ways to become a subscription service. At last, a politician speaking sense!
Well, it makes sense if you want to see quality / diversity decline and/or costs increase."
Are you funded by the BBC or the Labour party? (Not that there's much difference!)
You seem rather obsessed by the subject and for you the BBC can do no wrong. Never mind that the aged, the poor and the infirm have to pay their mandatory 'poll tax' whether they watch or listen to the BBC's outpourings. The important thing for you seems that they must keep paying at all costs.
I guess you work for them and would have to get a proper job if they cut back on their expenses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hechapMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"Firstly, it wasn’t their decision, it was effectively forced upon them by the government.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of publicly funded services.
George Osborne, and the Treasury, decided in 2015 and without public discussion to hang on to the monies that were paid to the BBC in lieu of 'licences' for the over-75s.
That money came from general taxation.
Lord Hall accepted the deal as the BBC would be allowed to raise the licence fee in line with inflation and the loophole regarding watching on-demand television would be closed.
Call us cynical, but the outcome was always going to be that the BBC would claim poverty as the annual £750 million that it would no longer receive from the government was, effectively, 20% of the BBC's annual budget.
So, the BBC decides to collect the £750 million missing from its annual budget from the over-75s.
You might be tempted to think that this had always been the plan, and we think you are probably correct, but the public backlash had not been expected.
A couple of additional points:
If the licence fee for the over-75s goes down a 'means tested' route then the system becomes even more complicate and expensive.
The BBC might want to consider 'value for money' with regard to an awful lot of what it does e.g.
BBC Scotland, launched in Feb 19, with a £32 million annual budget and £7 million of this going on news programmes, paying for 80 journalists.
In the period 24 Feb - 2 Jun 19, 21 of BBC Scotland's programmes had zero viewers including its 7 pm evening news bulletin 'The Seven'.
The 'flagship' news programme 'The Nine' recorded a 73% drop in audience figures with the BBC proclaiming that BBC Scotland was 'bucking the trend when it comes to engaging younger audiences' and that the channel’s success would be 'judged using a variety of measures'.
The BBC is an organisation that will spend as much money as it can even if it is employing people to produce programmes that no-one actually watches.
Informstion source for viewing figures: The Press Gazette.
COI: As we keep pointing out to the BBC's CAPITA enforcement goons, we have a television set but we don't watch television. The BBC War of the Worlds mini-series looks as if it might be very good (seen on YouTube) but it's not sufficient to make us part with the licence fee for an overstuffed monolith.
Personal advert: Look, our profile!
SS & TG"
Its a wonder the BBC never thought on running fraud phone in competitions to raise money.
They would rake in millions from scaming the viewers.
Thats right they already done that scam and got caught out.
The bbc are master conn artists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Last night on the Robert Peston show, Nicky Morgan the Culture Secretary said she wasn't committed to the licence fee and the BBC should start exploring ways to become a subscription service. At last, a politician speaking sense!
Well, it makes sense if you want to see quality / diversity decline and/or costs increase.
Are you funded by the BBC or the Labour party? (Not that there's much difference!)
You seem rather obsessed by the subject and for you the BBC can do no wrong. Never mind that the aged, the poor and the infirm have to pay their mandatory 'poll tax' whether they watch or listen to the BBC's outpourings. The important thing for you seems that they must keep paying at all costs.
I guess you work for them and would have to get a proper job if they cut back on their expenses. "
Yeah, you’ve got me. The only possible explanation for the view that the BBC isn’t shit is that I must be funded by them or the Labour Party.
Surprised you say the Labour Party though, when I thought they were a mouthpiece for (Conservative) government propaganda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t have equipment to receive live tv. I give access to them when they visit. I’ve always been upfront with them and not had a licence for the last 4 years. In fact, they haven’t even visited me in the last 18 months lol
I get a letter asking me if anything’s changed. I reply and that’s it.
Just wondering why you give some commission based sales person from Capita access to your home or indeed reply to computer generated letters designed to intimidate people? Would you let anyone just walk into your house to check if your electric wiring met current building regs for example?
The so called TV licence inspectors are just high pressure cold calling salespeople who get £20 a time commission for frightening someone to sign up for a licence. They have no powers at all."
Cause the luck I’ve had, I’d be the one taken to court. So it’s either be compliant and give them access or be an arse and get a potential court date.
My ways easier, they only write to me once a year asking if my circumstances have changed.
#EasyLife |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Happy to pay it, given that it is the equivalent of one coffee at Starbucks or 1/2 pint of beer a week, it isn’t excessive and provides content that other service providers don’t."
Bump - people seem to get very animated about the small things in life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should have been scrapped years ago
Why?"
How much are you willing to pay for the licence? I'm guessing you're well-off enough to pay what you may consider a paltry amount, but why are you so arrogantly dismissing those that can't? Also, you've mentioned "quality" programming. Since there's no real definition as to what "quality" means in regards to television programmes, it must then be purely subjective. Why do you believe your definition of "quality" is the right one, and not anybody else's who don't watch the BBC? It just seems like elitism to me. And I looked at the "services" that the BBC provides - there's not one that you can't get elsewhere, for free. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abs..Woman
over a year ago
.. |
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace
at last a voice of reason...I can't see the problem except it being 'compulsory'..a sort of tax. when I look at how much sky etc charge for a bundle which comprises shows/programming never watched or likely to including repeats of you guessed it BBC programmes the licence fee is a bargain. Also the 75+ decision was really a government thing for which the BBC got railroaded & blamed.
ITV don’t have a licence fee but they are willing to have adverts. BBC apparently don’t have adverts and the money they earn from the fee pays for the provision. What a load of tosh! There are constants adverts of sorts on BBC. They’re paid too much and need to work harder for their money. There is no argument for a licence fee these days.
A lot of products from manufacturers can be seen quite clearly on bbc programmes if you look .
Advertising media is big business just look at the james bond films they get paid mega money from aston martin and tag heuer and many other companies to display their wares, the bbc is not aloof from this clever advertising.
They will deny it of course......just like jimmy saville ?????????????.
The BBC don’t receive money for product placement. You don’t see lingering shots on products in the same way you do with paid for product placement.
There are not constant adverts on the BBC at all. Unless you can’t tell the difference between commercials for products and services, and trailers for tv programmes?
Who is paid too much, and compared to who?
"
If they are trying to promote something around other programmes I am watching then that is advertising of sorts, but they won’t receive money for that. The BBC say they don’t advertise but clearly they do. You can’t have it both ways.
The BBC is a business and has to fund itself but in their case they are using us to fund it. No other organisation is doing that. They do pay high salaries to big names and I don’t really know what we get for that compared to other broadcasters. The difference is of course, they don’t receive a sum of money from practically every household in the country, unlike the BBC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does it cover radio broadcasting too?
Not any more
It covers lots of radio? Local and national stations?
I don't believe you have to possess a licence to listen to the radio though
That's very true but it does fund the radio stations. I love radio 2, radio 4, radio 5 and 6 plus BBC4 has some brilliant programmes. I don't mind paying the licence fee, it's only a few quid per month and produces a lot of quality output.
However their decision to remove the free licence from 75+ age is a disgrace
at last a voice of reason...I can't see the problem except it being 'compulsory'..a sort of tax. when I look at how much sky etc charge for a bundle which comprises shows/programming never watched or likely to including repeats of you guessed it BBC programmes the licence fee is a bargain. Also the 75+ decision was really a government thing for which the BBC got railroaded & blamed.
ITV don’t have a licence fee but they are willing to have adverts. BBC apparently don’t have adverts and the money they earn from the fee pays for the provision. What a load of tosh! There are constants adverts of sorts on BBC. They’re paid too much and need to work harder for their money. There is no argument for a licence fee these days.
A lot of products from manufacturers can be seen quite clearly on bbc programmes if you look .
Advertising media is big business just look at the james bond films they get paid mega money from aston martin and tag heuer and many other companies to display their wares, the bbc is not aloof from this clever advertising.
They will deny it of course......just like jimmy saville ?????????????.
The BBC don’t receive money for product placement. You don’t see lingering shots on products in the same way you do with paid for product placement.
There are not constant adverts on the BBC at all. Unless you can’t tell the difference between commercials for products and services, and trailers for tv programmes?
Who is paid too much, and compared to who?
If they are trying to promote something around other programmes I am watching then that is advertising of sorts, but they won’t receive money for that. The BBC say they don’t advertise but clearly they do. You can’t have it both ways.
The BBC is a business and has to fund itself but in their case they are using us to fund it. No other organisation is doing that. They do pay high salaries to big names and I don’t really know what we get for that compared to other broadcasters. The difference is of course, they don’t receive a sum of money from practically every household in the country, unlike the BBC. "
In that sense is your local council a business? It advertises. Large profits are made, big wages are paid for council execs... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should have been scrapped years ago
Why?
How much are you willing to pay for the licence? I'm guessing you're well-off enough to pay what you may consider a paltry amount, but why are you so arrogantly dismissing those that can't? Also, you've mentioned "quality" programming. Since there's no real definition as to what "quality" means in regards to television programmes, it must then be purely subjective. Why do you believe your definition of "quality" is the right one, and not anybody else's who don't watch the BBC? It just seems like elitism to me. And I looked at the "services" that the BBC provides - there's not one that you can't get elsewhere, for free."
It’s a bit like asking how long a piece of string is.
It’s utterly absurd to suggest that I’m somehow “well off” because I can afford a tv licence.
It’s also a little absurd to suggest this is about “elitism”. The fact remains that the BBC still gets about one third of audience share, and is watched, on average, for several hours a week by the overwhelming majority of tv viewers.
Is there a lot of crap on there? Sure. Is there a lot of stuff I don’t watch? Of course. But it’s not really about me, and it’s a nonsense to suggest that it’s all shit. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it shit.
Spin it around... what would you like to see in the BBC that you think would be good quality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should have been scrapped years ago
Why?
How much are you willing to pay for the licence? I'm guessing you're well-off enough to pay what you may consider a paltry amount, but why are you so arrogantly dismissing those that can't? Also, you've mentioned "quality" programming. Since there's no real definition as to what "quality" means in regards to television programmes, it must then be purely subjective. Why do you believe your definition of "quality" is the right one, and not anybody else's who don't watch the BBC? It just seems like elitism to me. And I looked at the "services" that the BBC provides - there's not one that you can't get elsewhere, for free.
It’s a bit like asking how long a piece of string is.
It’s utterly absurd to suggest that I’m somehow “well off” because I can afford a tv licence.
It’s also a little absurd to suggest this is about “elitism”. The fact remains that the BBC still gets about one third of audience share, and is watched, on average, for several hours a week by the overwhelming majority of tv viewers.
Is there a lot of crap on there? Sure. Is there a lot of stuff I don’t watch? Of course. But it’s not really about me, and it’s a nonsense to suggest that it’s all shit. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it shit.
Spin it around... what would you like to see in the BBC that you think would be good quality? "
No, it's not utterly absurd to suggest that you're somehow “well off” because you can afford a tv licence. "Well-off" is a comparative term. It's a valid point and you've shirked it. That's elitism.
I don't really care what programmes the BBC broadcasts, my life isn't centred around a television screen. I just think it's wrong that people are forced to pay for such meagre entertainment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Happy to pay it, given that it is the equivalent of one coffee at Starbucks or 1/2 pint of beer a week, it isn’t excessive and provides content that other service providers don’t.
Bump - people seem to get very animated about the small things in life "
Bump... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should have been scrapped years ago
Why?
How much are you willing to pay for the licence? I'm guessing you're well-off enough to pay what you may consider a paltry amount, but why are you so arrogantly dismissing those that can't? Also, you've mentioned "quality" programming. Since there's no real definition as to what "quality" means in regards to television programmes, it must then be purely subjective. Why do you believe your definition of "quality" is the right one, and not anybody else's who don't watch the BBC? It just seems like elitism to me. And I looked at the "services" that the BBC provides - there's not one that you can't get elsewhere, for free.
It’s a bit like asking how long a piece of string is.
It’s utterly absurd to suggest that I’m somehow “well off” because I can afford a tv licence.
It’s also a little absurd to suggest this is about “elitism”. The fact remains that the BBC still gets about one third of audience share, and is watched, on average, for several hours a week by the overwhelming majority of tv viewers.
Is there a lot of crap on there? Sure. Is there a lot of stuff I don’t watch? Of course. But it’s not really about me, and it’s a nonsense to suggest that it’s all shit. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it shit.
Spin it around... what would you like to see in the BBC that you think would be good quality?
No, it's not utterly absurd to suggest that you're somehow “well off” because you can afford a tv licence. "Well-off" is a comparative term. It's a valid point and you've shirked it. That's elitism.
I don't really care what programmes the BBC broadcasts, my life isn't centred around a television screen. I just think it's wrong that people are forced to pay for such meagre entertainment."
You can suggest that I don’t live in poverty, but suggesting that anyone who can afford £12 a month for a tv licence is “well off” is ridiculous.
My life isn’t centred around a television screen either. But as you have basically said that you think everything on the BBC is shit, I was interested to know what you do like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"my life isn't centred around a television screen. I just think it's wrong that people are forced to pay for such meagre entertainment."
Well how many channels are on Sky/Virgin? Is 100% of the shows (including what’s on BBC) worth watching? No! And never will be.
Netflix, do you watch every show on there?
Amazon Prime? Do they only show what YOU want?
No, that’s not how it works. I don’t watch tv so don’t need a tv licence. But there are people who do watch tv and so they need one.
Whilst I don’t pay for it; I fully support the licence fee for those that watch it. And if my circumstances change, then I’d be paying the licence fee without hesitation
Don’t like it? Get rid of your tv and go out into the countryside and enjoy the sun x  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
