'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

Options
13567…48

Comments

  • fatbelly
    fatbelly Posts: 20,504 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Cashback Cashier
    Options
    Saucepot wrote: »
    Scrap the TV poll tax!

    Absolutely!
  • ERICS_MUM
    ERICS_MUM Posts: 3,579 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    lewist wrote: »
    I'm happy to pay the licence fee to be free of ads. They destroy programmes on other channels. Not everything on the BBC is to my taste, and some of it is awful, but the documentaries on BBC 2 & 4 are well worth paying for. The website is also outstanding. Leave it alone!

    I agree. I rarely watch the commerical channels, not just because of the ads but also the populist lowest common denominator effect on their programming. I also enjoy the BBC radio channels. All in all I feel the licence is a bargain.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    ERICS_MUM wrote: »
    I agree. I rarely watch the commerical channels, not just because of the ads but also the populist lowest common denominator effect on their programming. I also enjoy the BBC radio channels. All in all I feel the licence is a bargain.

    Wholeheartedly agree! To have the option of so many channels (both TV and Radio) with no advertisements is worth far more than the licence fee. And the website is fantastic. Everything from news to gardening advice to learning a language!

    Being able to watch both programmes and films without a break - luxury!

    Cost - I wonder how many more things we buy as a result of the subliminal persuasion of TV ads? I wonder how much it costs us just in that alone every year ?? No ads = less "stuff" that we're convinced we need = money saved.

    No adverts = far more editorial independence. I think we underestimate this at our cost; when it's gone, we will mourn its passing. (If you want to watch a channel where everything is dictated by its sponsors - try watching FOX News in the US).

    Sky - until the Murdochs stop trying to destroy the BBC, I won't give them a penny of my money.

    All advertisement channels - anyone spent any time in the US flicking channels and trying to find something decent to watch? I have. My most memorable was in a motel room a couple of years ago - after flicking through countless repeats, game shows, and shopping channels, I gave up.

    Having to pay - the system means that we either all pay, or it collapses. I say it's worth keeping it in place for the greater good of our society as a whole (an unfashionable notion, I know - but maybe David Cameron will agree it fits into his idea of The Big Society ??)
  • Gareth_Lazelle
    Gareth_Lazelle Posts: 110 Forumite
    Options
    What does sky cost per year by comparison - £18 x 12 = £216 for just the basic package, and you have to watch the (all too frequent) ads too...

    How could the BBC not be worth it by comparison?
    - GL
  • minerva_windsong
    minerva_windsong Posts: 3,808 Forumite
    Options
    I watch a few commercial channels (mainly Channel 4, Five, Five USA and Dave) but the overwhelming majority of what I watch is on the BBC, and I don't listen to commercial radio with the exception of Geoff Lloyd on Absolute. Considering what the licence fee breaks down to I think it's very good value, although I do think it overadvertises its own programmes a little too much and there needs to be a thorough culling of the dross - although I should add that there are plenty of gems scattered through the BBC schedule.

    I'm all for cutting executives' pay and channelling that money back into programming, but to me this whole thing smells like Jeremy Hunt is dancing to Rupert Murdoch's tune. If it's a choice between £145 a year with no adverts and impartial news reporting, or £200-odd a year with adverts every five minutes and incredibly biased news, I know which one I prefer.
    MrsBartolozzi wrote: »
    BUT I don't think it should be a mandatory "if you want to watch tv at all you must pay even if you will never use BBC channels" heavy handed approach. I think it's this that gets people's backs up.

    I know not everyone has the internet, but the way round it is to use catch-up services after the programme has been broadcast (I stress after because you still need a TV licence to watch a live broadcast over the internet). With very few exceptions most things are on there, including a lot of US imports if that's what you watch, and as for the stuff that isn't up there there's no law that says you need a TV licence if all you're using the TV for is watching DVDs.
    "A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." - Tyrion Lannister
    Married my best friend 1st November 2014
    Loose = the opposite of tight (eg "These trousers feel a little loose")
    Lose = the opposite of find/gain (eg "I'm going to lose weight this year")
  • omnipotentstudenttype
    omnipotentstudenttype Posts: 38 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    I voted for C. But I think a better option that hasn't been put forward is transforming the BBC into a subscription service. That way people who want to watch the BBC can, and those who would prefer to subscribe to SKY or just use the basic 'free' channels would be free to do so without being charged for the BBC too
  • English_Electric
    English_Electric Posts: 51 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Bread is good value but I don't want to be forced to pay for bread and milk when all I want is milk. Those that require services should fund them, those that do not should not be compelled to. Sky is certainly far better value than the BBC IMO but this does not mean that those that choose not to watch Sky should be funding it so why is it ok for non BBC viewers to fund the BBC?
  • robin_banks
    robin_banks Posts: 15,778 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    English_Electric wrote: »
    Bread is good value but I don't want to be forced to pay for bread and milk when all I want is milk. Those that require services should fund them, those that do not should not be compelled to. Sky is certainly far better value than the BBC IMO but this does not mean that those that choose not to watch Sky should be funding it so why is it ok for non BBC viewers to fund the BBC?

    Sky is heap of $h!t, and more expensive.
    "An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".

    !!!!!! is all that about?
  • robin_banks
    robin_banks Posts: 15,778 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    omnipotentstudenttype wrote: »
    I voted for C. But I think a better option that hasn't been put forward is transforming the BBC into a subscription service. That way people who want to watch the BBC can, and those who would prefer to subscribe to SKY or just use the basic 'free' channels would be free to do so without being charged for the BBC too

    Sky prmised that they would never introduce pay-per-view.
    "An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".

    !!!!!! is all that about?
  • lucylucky
    lucylucky Posts: 4,908 Forumite
    Options
    Sky kill competition, it is the Murdoch way.

    Anyone remember BSB?
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards