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

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

Nor i, didn't even know there were that many.
I'm not sure why if we cease to fund the bbc any of what it does to encrypt it's service will cost the tax payer? But if that were the case then at least it would only be a one of thing to get it started, you'd then have £145 in your pocket every year there after (unless you subscribe.)

The taxpayer pays for everything - as far as I am aware:D

baldmosher

BaldacchinoR wrote: »

The point is why should people be taxed to supply entertainment? And which they may not wish to watch or listen to? Providing entertainment is not a valid reason to tax people. This is a mistaken use of taxing powers.

Eliminate unnecessary taxation - eliminate the TV licence fee.

Yeah!

And the NHS, too. I'm never ill, so why should I have to pay for that!?

And roads: I've got a mountain bike and waterproofs. Increase car and petrol tax to match expenditure.

And, for that matter, why should I have to pay taxes to subsidise unemployed people? I've been working ever since I was 14, screw them, the useless layabouts.

In fact, they should abandon child benefit and tax credits too. If you're daft enough to have kids when you can't afford it, then that's your problem, not mine.



We happen to live in a moderately socialist country and the BBC and NHS and welfare state are all a result of this. I'd go so far as to say that more people use the BBC than the NHS or benefits so it's arguably more important, and certainly better value, although certainly not a matter of life or death.

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that the BBC somehow balances the advertising methods on TV in this country and keeps them from getting like it is in the US, and that people don't realise how bad it "would be" if the BBC wasn't there in its current form.

This is an interesting point. My personal opinion is that, firstly, there's no reason that I can see to suggest that the nature of TV advertising would change if the BBC weren't there. Why isn't it like the US now? Isn't there some other reason that we're not submitted to more ads like they are in the US.

And secondly, even if it were to change to be like it is in the US as you say, I would rather have that than be forced to pay nearly £150 a year just to be able to watch any TV. And it makes it worse when the BBC clearly wastes billions of pounds, takes the money for granted, and has a patronising and beaurocratic way about them.

It is too expensive, I agree. I also agree with one of the other valid points that there should be a cap on wages to stop them getting out of hand. There is a lot of wastage which is why - although I am in general a fan, think they should have to take a good look at how to reduce this and become more cost effective. It appears on the whole most people want the bbc to stick around but they don't want to pay such a huge amount when it goes to things people are against like huge bonuses and wages. I think the poll was very badly worded.

If the fees were lowered and were adjusted more fairly for low paid families would you feel more satisfied or still want it scrapped? If they keep the licence many people remain without a choice and if they scrap it others like me lose the right to a choice too so it's never going to be fair. Most people are sensible to note in the discussions that a subscription service won't work as it stands so the real only fair way is to look at the cost I would have thought. None of us want to pay it, but do so to avoid ads and to preserve the identity of this country's journalism and programme making, especially for my kids.

Lastly when you ask why haven't we become like the US yet already, it's because of the BBC - among other things yes, including that our culture is slightly different to the US at the moment. BUT that is being changed as we speak and has been changing around us for a few years now. A additional set of ads slipped in for one. Just look at product placement. The wheels are and have been in motion for a long time. Why do you think Murdoch supported and funded the Tories so heavily? If you do a bit of research on how hand in hand they are you might be surprised. When product placements were first agreed it just so happened to coincide with a BBC smear campaign by Murdoch so it smoothed the way and made people less anti placements because they were cross at the way the BBC were seen to be spending our money. I know you are pretty adamant that there is no murdoch-BBC fight going on and that's your opinion which you are fully entitled to. The trouble is I've seen it with my own eyes from my family's journalism backgrounds and it stinks to high heaven. If you read up on NDS you'll see it for yourself. So in my eyes it will change to become like the US and without the BBC there is nothing we can do about it, if you look around you it already is and has been slowly creeping towards it for a few years.

If you're saying you already pay too much in licence fees I warn you now that you will be paying a lot more in the future without the BBC. Subscription fee prices will rise hugely because of the lack of alternatives and you will be so heavily manipulated by what you read and watch. I'm not sure many people who say 'scrap the bbc, get rid of the licence fees' have actually considered that it won't mean TV will get cheaper, it means choice is removed and it'll get far more expensive because you have no alternatives. A bit like the energy companies and supply and demand at Christmas time!

I'm really no lover of conspiracies! Quite the opposite. I may sound barking mad to some but then people who just tut and say don't be stupid haven't bothered to actually check the facts. I'm not accusing anyone of being naive I'm not assuming people would have any idea, all I'm saying is before people campaign to change the BBC they should check who's behind the driving seat and what ulterior motives they have. I think people would be surprised. So for me I'd like the BBC to stick around, just be more fair and less wasteful.

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

If the fees were lowered and were adjusted more fairly for low paid families would you feel more satisfied or still want it scrapped?

First, thanks for your thoughtful reply :-)

I would like to see it scrapped. The reason is that, although people have mentioned the integrity of journalism, public service broadcasting, and other things that you don't get with commercial stations, I see the BBC acting as a commercial operation perverted by a colossal subsidy. You get the same ratings hunting and low-brow programming as the commercial stations, and even internal advertising. But along with that you get patronising and box-ticking programming that not only has to appeal to the masses because of the ratings, but does so in a committee run way that has to cover all the bases. So you have bland, poor quality programming, that tries to appeal to everyone, but is actually brilliant at nothing.

You also don't get some of the benefits of a properly run commercial outfit. Where's the inspiration and the brilliance of something like House or True Blood? Where's the original and risky comedy programming of the old days? Where's the proper competetive business practices? Where's even some decent sports coverage? Even F1 is covered with a layer of expensive and unnecassary packaging.

In fact, as far as the TV is concerned, I can't think of anything great the BBC do that isn't at least equalled a commercial channel somewhere else.

The problem in my view is that the BBC is a publicly funded operation operating in the free market of entertainment services. It doesn't know what it is and ruins the party for everyone else. It's time to make it a properly commercial operation like everything else, and like BT and British Gas.

kcm wrote: »

I know you are pretty adamant that there is no murdoch-BBC fight going on and that's your opinion which you are fully entitled to.

I'm not exactly saying that there is nothing going on there. I'm sure that RM has his agenda, and the BBC theirs. It has some effect on what happens, but that effect is limited.

What I object to is people who insist that it is something that we are all greatly affected by whether we like it or not, and exaggerate the affect of whatever side they happen to disagree with.

Big organisations will always try to manipulate circumstances to their favour, it's old news. But what's also old news is that they never succeed, and it has actually very little impact on real life, in fact virtually none if you choose it to be that way. That's my choice. Let some morons play some game of theirs from an office somewhere. It's got nothing to do with me!

cplatten

Everytime I go to the States I bless the BBC and its license fee!

The ads on television there are every 7!!! minutes during the programmes and less than that as they occur right after the opening credits of a show.

I once watched an episode of "Poirot" which would have been shown over 2 hours here - including ITV ads. In the States that same programme became stretche to 3 hours and I couldn't sit through to the end.

We should treasure the BBC - I would pay the license fee for Radio 4 and iPlayer alone.:T

cplatten

vokesey wrote: »

Also with all these people being against advertising, how exactly do you propose we learn about new products? or the latest offers? And how many people would that see unemployed?

What a stupid argument.

I am one of those "snobs" who NEVER watch ITV because it is such rubbish and rarely Channel 4. I sometimes watch More4 and when I do I record stuff then fast forward over all advertising.

TV advertising is completely irrelevant in our lives today. The commercial channels are becoming desperate to find ways for us to notice advertising now we can ignore it so well.

And yet - I seem to know what new products are out there from going to shops and am completely up to date with fashion, music and culture from quality weekend newspapers.

I don't NEED to see the latest ad for Cillit Bang Tropical Lime Crush Dual Purpose Shampoo / Oven Cleaner!

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

First, thanks for your thoughtful reply :-)

I would like to see it scrapped. The reason is that, although people have mentioned the integrity of journalism, public service broadcasting, and other things that you don't get with commercial stations, I see the BBC acting as a commercial operation perverted by a colossal subsidy. You get the same ratings hunting and low-brow programming as the commercial stations, and even internal advertising. But along with that you get patronising and box-ticking programming that not only has to appeal to the masses because of the ratings, but does so in a committee run way that has to cover all the bases. So you have bland, poor quality programming, that tries to appeal to everyone, but is actually brilliant at nothing.

You also don't get some of the benefits of a properly run commercial outfit. Where's the inspiration and the brilliance of something like House or True Blood? Where's the original and risky comedy programming of the old days? Where's the proper competetive business practices? Where's even some decent sports coverage? Even F1 is covered with a layer of expensive and unnecassary packaging.

In fact, as far as the TV is concerned, I can't think of anything great the BBC do that isn't at least equalled a commercial channel somewhere else.

The problem in my view is that the BBC is a publicly funded operation operating in the free market of entertainment services. It doesn't know what it is and ruins the party for everyone else. It's time to make it a properly commercial operation like everything else, and like BT and British Gas.



I'm not exactly saying that there is nothing going on there. I'm sure that RM has his agenda, and the BBC theirs. It has some effect on what happens, but that effect is limited.

What I object to is people who insist that it is something that we are all greatly affected by whether we like it or not, and exaggerate the affect of whatever side they happen to disagree with.

Big organisations will always try to manipulate circumstances to their favour, it's old news. But what's also old news is that they never succeed, and it has actually very little impact on real life, in fact virtually none if you choose it to be that way. That's my choice. Let some morons play some game of theirs from an office somewhere. It's got nothing to do with me!

We have very different opinions and that's clearly not going to change so for the most part let's leave it at that

If I may ask though, opinions aside and just about the money factor - do you think if the licence fee was scrapped you'd be saving £150 in all honesty? Or do you think that it paves the way for the remaining major player/s to increase their subscriptions or start forcing people to pay for content of any kind?

I 100% believe from both previous history and the present that the money you save from the licence fee will actually be zero, in fact I'd go so far to say if certain companies get their way it's a drop in the ocean to what you will be paying longer term. That's the problem I have with scrapping the licence fee.

vokesey

baldmosher wrote: »

Yeah!

And the NHS, too. I'm never ill, so why should I have to pay for that!?

And roads: I've got a mountain bike and waterproofs. Increase car and petrol tax to match expenditure.

And, for that matter, why should I have to pay taxes to subsidise unemployed people? I've been working ever since I was 14, screw them, the useless layabouts.

In fact, they should abandon child benefit and tax credits too. If you're daft enough to have kids when you can't afford it, then that's your problem, not mine.



We happen to live in a moderately socialist country and the BBC and NHS and welfare state are all a result of this. I'd go so far as to say that more people use the BBC than the NHS or benefits so it's arguably more important, and certainly better value, although certainly not a matter of life or death.

HMM, one way of looking at it,but i think if we stick to sensibilities then the NHS is infinitely better value for money, you're never going to rely on the bbc for your health. Plus the bbc don't pay my wife a large wage to work for them, the NHS does.

cplatten

kcm wrote: »

If I may ask though, opinions aside and just about the money factor - do you think if the licence fee was scrapped you'd be saving £150 in all honesty? Or do you think that it paves the way for the remaining major player/s to increase their subscriptions or start forcing people to pay for content of any kind?

I 100% believe from both previous history and the present that the money you save from the licence fee will actually be zero, in fact I'd go so far to say if certain companies get their way it's a drop in the ocean to what you will be paying longer term. That's the problem I have with scrapping the licence fee.

Exactly. We would end up paying one way or another - just look at the Sky subscription.

Also, you could end up paying out that £150 a year on JUNK you buy after being influenced by the rubbish ADS that would inevitably appear?!!!;)

vokesey

cplatten wrote: »

What a stupid argument.

I am one of those "snobs" who NEVER watch ITV because it is such rubbish and rarely Channel 4. I sometimes watch More4 and when I do I record stuff then fast forward over all advertising.

TV advertising is completely irrelevant in our lives today. The commercial channels are becoming desperate to find ways for us to notice advertising now we can ignore it so well.

And yet - I seem to know what new products are out there from going to shops and am completely up to date with fashion, music and culture from quality weekend newspapers.

I don't NEED to see the latest ad for Cillit Bang Tropical Lime Crush Dual Purpose Shampoo / Oven Cleaner!

maybe you don't, but you are not the whole nation are you?! some people aren't as fortunate or able, so to cover EVERYBODY it is there. Plus the vast majority of people own a tv so it get to all who watch it, my argument may seem stupid to you but it isn't a selfish one! The vast majority of you people backing the licence are so blinded and set against advertising it beggars belief! Just what the hell is so wrong with it? Some one some where has gone to the effort to make a brand product whatever, why the hell shouldn't they tell us about it. And it shouldn't be that much of a problem these days as quite a few of us have the ability as you say to record programs and skip through the ads, something i do too.
I hope and pray for the day some one wakes up and makes the bbc subscription based, it the fairest way for those of us that don't care what happens to the "institution" and there are enough of blinkered and narrow minded people to keep it going!