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

rapido

. .

Swan_2

Swan wrote: »

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

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 ?

I posted the relevant TVLA link in my previous post quoted above, & if you look there, you'll find the following ...

'You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.'

if you're not watching or recording TV as it's being broadcast, then you don't need a licence for your telly, or any other receiving equipment you happen to own

jimmywx11

DJFearRoss wrote: »

It's the NEWS content that I object to the most. Yes, it's great there are no commercials and some good shows come out of it, however PC they are.

But.. the BBC News, which the BBC is known for, isn't same the BBC of many years ago. It has changed and many people haven't woken up to that. It is extremely left wing. In fact it's more dangerous than other commercial News sources because people actually believe BBC News is impartial as it is 'free' (so to say). Too often i've noticed how opinionated the BBC news is, giving their opinion, when i just want the facts and to make up my own opinion.

Just type "BBC Bias" into google and examine the results and make your own conclusion.

The irony of the fact that they force us to pay them, so they can spend billions on misleading us and and spouting out propaganda and misinformation must make the fat cats laugh so much they have to pause as they count our money. LOL

get rid of the news!!!! then I would be happy to pay the license fee. do we really need soooo many news channels all spouting rubbish. really?

oakesave

I don't mind paying for a TV licence. The thing I object to is that you have to pay a fee if you opt to pay quarterly by direct debit but not if you pay monthly. However, the monthly option is not available via the web. That seems a cynical move to me - only allow the free option for the persistent people who write or ring, rather than just have a box to tick when requesting a direct debit. When I complained the pathetic answer was that there isn't room for all the options - since when did a web page have a size limit?

freddy27

I think that the licence fee is worth double what it actually is. In fact anything not to have to watch those dredfuly awful ads, they just interfere with the enjoyment of the programme. Though I have to admit I NEVER watch any of the garbage channels that screen ads. So I am limited to the BBC, and that is why I would gladly pay double not to have them on the BBC.
ITV and SKY are for morons. Though I love the sport, my viewing is taken away by that moron who owns SKY ??, can't think of his name, but reckon he should have been transported many years ago He should be deniged entry to this wonderful Country of ours and have HIS licence to broadcast in this Country recinded. Long may he remain DOWNUNDER, go back you aint wanted here

Scary_

I do support the BBC and think that the country would be much worse off without it. In an age when the other main broadcasters public service commitments are being dropped they're the only ones left. It provides so much that commercial broadcasters just won't provide because its not commercially viable. Local radio and TV being two very good examples - ITV have mostly pulled out of regional TV and large areas of the country have no proper local commercial radio any more.

Children's programmes too - ITV don't do them any more, and the likes of Nick, Disney and Cartoon Network are all American imports.


Making the BBC have adverts would mean that you might as well not have it at all - all the non-commercially viable stuff would have to go and it would be just another ITV or Heart FM.

Making the BBC have a subscription model would again render it pointless, making it free at the point of use means that everyone can listen or watch. The rich would get PSB but those who probably need it the most wouldn't choose to get it and would miss out.


However I do agree that the license fee is out of date... but there are other models. The Australian equivalent, ABC is paid for by the government out of general taxation. That's not perfect either but it will probably be the best way to go.

Scary_

jimmywx11 wrote: »

The irony of the fact that they force us to pay them, so they can spend billions on misleading us and and spouting out propaganda and misinformation must make the fat cats laugh so much they have to pause as they count our money. LOL

In general, the staff and management at the BBC are paid a lot less than their equivalents in commercial broadcasting. The upper management and some of the stars are paid too much, but the majority of ordinary employees making their programmes are paid modestly and after over 10 years of constant redundancies are often doing the jobs of 4 or 5 people

get rid of the news!!!! Iwould be happy to pay the license fee. do we really need soooo many news channels all spouting rubbish. really?

2 news channels in the UK is too many?

vokesey

freddy27 wrote: »

I think that the licence fee is worth double what it actually is. In fact anything not to have to watch those dredfuly awful ads, they just interfere with the enjoyment of the programme. Though I have to admit I NEVER watch any of the garbage channels that screen ads. So I am limited to the BBC, and that is why I would gladly pay double not to have them on the BBC.
ITV and SKY are for morons. Though I love the sport, my viewing is taken away by that moron who owns SKY ??, can't think of his name, but reckon he should have been transported many years ago He should be deniged entry to this wonderful Country of ours and have HIS licence to broadcast in this Country recinded. Long may he remain DOWNUNDER, go back you aint wanted here

A very intellectual argument labelling the majority of the country as morons for daring to have a different view. Nice. Well you'd imagine you would work on your spelling before labelling the majority of the country (and a few others) as morons.

istorey

I would not like to see the format of say ITV adopted by the BBC but would like to see sponsorship of programmes with adverts between programmes and no commercial breaks. How much does it cost to track licence dodgers?

kcm_2

vokesey wrote: »

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.

I completely agree with you! :T