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

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

Or you could just say "oh ok sorry, you didn't mean it in the way I twisted it to mean, I understand that" Yet again you ignore everything that's said. I bet no one dares get into a debate with you elsewhere! You're absolutely awesome at twisting things and avoiding almost every point. Are you a wind up robot only capable of saying "choice" and "conspiracy" and insulting people

A compelling argument.

kcm wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch = Sky, newspapers and online content. That's why he's mentioned. Isn't that obvious? He's the one key player that can affect the prices we pay. Or have you not heard of him. My points all along (on that subject, as if you look I say way more things that don't mention him!) are about money and power. Most other people at least acknowledge that fact. Perhaps you don't know much about it. So I'll leave it there.

I agree that money and power are a huge part of it. What you (and some others who make this point) seem to be missing is that you are arguing for the side with the most money and power.

kcm wrote: »

I think I've expressed myself in sensible ways, the only thing I'm annoyed about is the way you take snipets of conversations and twist them to try and make others look bad. It's beyond ignorant.

I was answering what you said, like I am now.

kcm wrote: »

Don't force the views you may have on the rest of us. Everyone is equal money or no money, it's a shame your own views warp those of us who believe that. . Have a nice day. Our conversation is over. Thank goodness we're all not like you.

I don't really understand your point here. I (and others) are arguing that being forced to pay the BBC isn't a situation of equality. And nobody is (unlike the BBC) forcing anything, including views. This is an open forum where people are free to discuss matters. Perhaps, like your views of Rupert Murdoch, you only see people who oppose you as "forcing", whereas those fighting for your side ore somehow righteous?

Let's see if you can stay away as you said you would. Perhaps this last sentence will ensure that, unless you read it and can't stand the position it puts you in. Oh the dilemma!

vokesey

square-eyes wrote: »

I am surprised about the 50% of people who want adverts funding the BBC. We all moan about the advert pop-ups on our PCs. The BBC is so much more than TV. You have the Internet, radio, cultural events like The Proms and Radio road shows, the orchestras, DVD, CD and books. I watched Sky for a year and I was not impressed. The continual adverts and repetitious output was not worth the money. I defy anyone who says they only watch Sky to go through their life and see if it is really BBC free.

It's not bbc free, and i don't think anyone here wants to see the bbc scrapped at all. i do enjoy many things the bbc do and have done in the past, and i'll openly admit to being a fan of many of it's programs past and present (well not so much present any more apart from top gear.) I am just against the way it is funded.
Let's turn this all on it's head for a moment, how would everyone react if the remaining four channels were to suddenly decide the bbc has more money to fund better programming through the licence fee, so then ditch there ad based funding and follow suit? Would you all be happy paying a "general" tv licence? or would you then be up in arms because of the increase? In essence you would now be paying just to be ad free. And can you say there would be a marked improvement in programme quality?? And can all those who despise the ads so much honestly say they don't watch any of the other channels?
For me the problem is the type of programmes on a whole more than the issue of wether i'm forced to pay or not, if i though i was getting genuine value for money it really wouldn't be that much of an issue. (despite my previous rumblings!) I am sick to the back teeth of the amount of reality pap that is broadcast these days, for me it shows a stark lack of imagination and ability to think outside the box and leaves me wondering just what our money is being used for, it seems more and more that tv is becoming a breeding ground for the next bunch of faux celebrities and people who think that to make it in life means to appear on some pathetic show then get plastered all over the cover of equally pathetic magazines. Well i for one am not happy to fund their lazy lifestyles! I fear i may be going a little off topic now so i think i'll give it a rest.

bennett2kuk

I just personally think it's shocking that without a licence it is illegal to own a TV but then the money only funds 2 "real" channels. I would happily tune out the BBC channels in order to save £150 odd a year. And if it was solely funded by adverts I would be happy as larry, whenever an ad comes on I always switch channels, generally not to a BBC channel and find a channel that isn't airing ads. Adverts would not bother me in the slightest!

Swan_2

bennett2kuk wrote: »

I just personally think it's shocking that without a licence it is illegal to own a TV but then the money only funds 2 "real" channels. I would happily tune out the BBC channels in order to save £150 odd a year. And if it was solely funded by adverts I would be happy as larry, whenever an ad comes on I always switch channels, generally not to a BBC channel and find a channel that isn't airing ads. Adverts would not bother me in the slightest!

it's not illegal to own a TV (or any other receiving equipment) without a licence

provided you're not watching programmes as they're being broadcast TVLA site you can have as many TVs etc as you like without having to buy a licence

lucylucky

bennett2kuk wrote: »

I just personally think it's shocking that without a licence it is illegal to own a TV but then the money only funds 2 "real" channels. I would happily tune out the BBC channels in order to save £150 odd a year. And if it was solely funded by adverts I would be happy as larry, whenever an ad comes on I always switch channels, generally not to a BBC channel and find a channel that isn't airing ads. Adverts would not bother me in the slightest!

What do you mean by 2 "real" channels.

The licence fee covers much much more, including radio and the internet.

And as Swan says you do not need a licence to own any sort of TV receiving equipment.

gendibal

I don't mind paying. I remember the good old days when you can be sure of quality educational and current affairs programmes.

However, with the revelations of "top performers" salaries, and the increasing dumbing down of programmes, I feel that to justify the license fees, we should be given some say in what goes on.

Its not a service where we have a choice like say, utility companies where we can vote with our feet.

The TV license is compulsory, but yet we have no say over the types of programmes that are commissioned, or whether top stars are worth paying millions for.
Indeed, are the raft of directors and senior staff at the BBC worth their 6 figure salaries?

The continuing trend of the last decade seems to be chasing ratings through offering the kind of sensationalist style banal nonsense that ITV, Channel 4 and C5 have been pumping out for years.

Instead of chasing ratings, I feel they should concentrate on what TV is LACKING, and not make more trite of which there is plenty out there already!

(just look at any ITV documentary and then watch some of BBC's, then watch some classic BBC documentaries and you can see the slide in quality)

So I feel that paying the license fee should also give you the right to attend or vote on various issues each year, just like an AGM of a company that you own shares in.

Also, with so many programmes now sold overseas, DVD sales, etc, does the BBC even need our funding?

There should be more accountability, we should be told exactly how much was generated through outside income sources, how much salaries cost, how much was allocated to each sector of programming.

There should be transparent rules and guidelines about how much should be spent on top dog salaries, expenses (fancy dinners, taxis, hotels!), christmas parties.

BBC is a public institution, it shouldn't enjoy the same frivolous spending that big private companies spend.

lucylucky

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/ - a lot of the info is on here. Not all I know, but it may be of interest to anyone who wants a bit more depth

stewaris

I voted no for the licence fee. There are certain programmes the BBC does very well eg period drama, documentaries Dr Who etc but I object to the over inflated salaries of the presenters and of the BBC executives who seem to think it's ok to pay themselves an exorbitant amount . I also object to subsidising the BBC to broadcast in other countries. I have friends in the US and they are " really glad that you guys over there pay a licence fee so that we can see some decent programmes". Everyone else is economising and the BBC should too. I read on the forum that if they had to compete in the open market they would go under. If that is the case that tells me they are not a viable company and I don't want my hard earned cash to subsidise an organisaqtion that can't make it on there own.

bobbikins

From SWAN
it's not illegal to own a TV (or any other receiving equipment) without a licence

SWAN SAID
Provided you're not watching programes as there broadcast You can have as many TV as you like without a LIcence

I've just been the the TVLA as stated above
Please tell me were It says you dont need a licence ?

lucylucky

bobbikins wrote: »

From SWAN
it's not illegal to own a TV (or any other receiving equipment) without a licence

SWAN SAID
Provided you're not watching programes as there broadcast You can have as many TV as you like without a LIcence

I've just been the the TVLA as stated above
Please tell me were It says you dont need a licence ?

You need to look at the site properly as the info is there.

No licence is required to own a television.

Look for the link "What if a TV licence is not needed"