Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

harvey1947

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the BBC budget is dedicated to sporting events. It appears that any minor event means a full outside broadcast team are shipped out, often for only 2 minutes of highlights on the news, some of these events have practically no spectators attending so why does the BBC consider it is going to be of interest to the nation in general. Often more than 20 hours on a weekend of sporting events over the chanels. Why oh why does the Beeb consider it is acceptable to disrupt all other porgrams in order that a group of bores can carry out a post mortem on whatever the latest sporting event is. Whatever happened to good Drama, Comedy, Music etc etc.

Ictmims

I quit the TV license in May 2005, and don't miss it. I class it as a tax. A tax on the TV set (and broadband live viewing). Radio is no longer licensed and so does not come into the equation.

I often get threatening letters from the enforcement bloke. These would be better worded to enquire if a TV is being used etcetera, and offer the 0800 number (sorry I can’t find it or I would put it here) not a premium rate 0870 number to contact them!

I have no interest in a ball being moved about or any other spectator sport. Years ago, I watched Horizon pre the P.C. dumbing down, and some drama. Apart from one program (House Ch5) am happy to miss out. I can buy a series of programs on DVD for a lot less than £135. (Especially from an auction site).

:money: Save yourself £135.50, and hundreds of hours in front of the box, just dump it!

Caparn

If the BBC wants to charge for their channels they should encrypt the signal like every other pay channel has to. Also, just about everyone watches too much tv so it there wern't so much of it maybe it would help reduce the national obesity problem as people could go for a walk instead. And why do we have to pay for the world BBC channel services aren't even broadcast in the country of the license payer?

Defiant_3

Ictmims wrote: »

I quit the TV license in May 2005, and don't miss it. I class it as a tax. A tax on the TV set (and broadband live viewing). Radio is no longer licensed and so does not come into the equation.

No but the TV Licence still pays for the ruddy BBC stations so much for the trades descriptions act

alb0679

There is absolutely nothing that the BBC provide that I cannot find elsewhere. As an ex servicemen I was forced to buy a second license
for the accommodation dorm I was located in at my barracks, in addition
to the license I paid for at my civilian address where my wife and daughter lived :mad:. With all the reality TV dross, overpaid presenters, dwindling coverage of major sports and ludicrous wastes of public money, give me Discovery any day. Although I subscribe to a cable service, scrapping the license fee would pay for 4 months of that subscription !!!!!!

squirreltufty

Defiant wrote: »

which costs me sod all but lets see the kind of tosh which you are happy with to see the majority of the public being forced to pay for

Cash in the attic

oops sorry http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2907_bbc_antique.shtml

Homes under the Hammer (yawn)

Bargin Hunt (ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

To buy or not to buy :rotfl:

And if the BBC has to rely on advertising for its existence, that's the sort of thing we'll probably get at peak times, not just during the day.

I'm very interested to know what you consider to be a good example of 'quality' on the commercial channels, by the way.

CalvadosJnr

the licence is a rip off !! ... the only decent honest tv show i watch is current TV .... and thats made by the viewers

even the news is bias ... bbc sucks

if the bbc gets soooo much money for its documentaries/programmes then why are the documentaries almost 9/10 better on C4 ?

Sir David is the only thing the bbc puts on i like.

impy78

t8769 wrote: »

This is a tired old brand that would have gone out of business years ago in the open market.

Good TV comes from America and Channel 4.

I agree to an extent ... but really, all good tv comes from America, most of the cr*p comes from America too.

And I can't thank the lord enough that old iron balls Thatcher did not get her claws into another piece of public property. (I am not particularly a leftie, but as The Grandchild, niece, great niece and daughter to a family of miners and dockers, suffice to say I am not fond of "Mrs" T so much).

I also dislike the fact because you don't like the programmes on a television channel, this suddenly makes them pro-terrorist. Does that mean that Noel Edmonds is the Leader of Al Queda, because his show is abysmal and so is he?

Defiant_3

squirreltufty wrote: »

And if the BBC has to rely on advertising for its existence, that's the sort of thing we'll probably get at peak times, not just during the day.

No thats an opinion you have and as we've seen you'd say just about anything to try and make out we need your BBC TV Licence. The facts are the BBC have the converted slots of channel 1 & 2 so they could make hundreds of millions if they give the public what they want. Anyway like I've said before you brainwashed give us your money BBC people keep telling us millions of people would subscribe to the BBC so why not do that could it be you know the truth is we don't want it :rolleyes:

squirreltufty wrote: »

I'm very interested to know what you consider to be a good example of 'quality' on the commercial channels, by the way.

Everyone has different likes and dislikes for instance I wouldn't like something you enjoy because you need millions of people to be forced into paying for it.

worbikeman

Few people doubt the quality of BBC broadcasting and the extras such as BBC Online, Radio, etc. The problem licence-payers like me have is the wastage of our licence fee such as the obscene telephone number salaries paid to the likes of Woss, Wogan, Evans, et al. Their jobs could all be done by any Tom !!!!!! or Harry with a half-decent education for a tenth of their asking price. Give these jobs to unknowns, eg drama school or journalist school graduates who would be glad of the work. And here's another one - as time passes surely the corporation has more and more archive programmes which can be sold overseas (or repeated here), thus causing our licence fees to reduce over time? But this is the problem: if the BBC finds itself awash with too much cash it would rather find something to spend it on such as director bonuses or wastage than refund it to the licence payer, who is seen as one almighty cash cow to be milked ad infinitum.