Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

squirreltufty

guppy wrote: »

One more question for the anti-tv licence people...

Do you not watch the BBC on principle, or do you genuinely hate every single programme on all their radio, tv and internet channels?

I can't understand the latter argument, because there really does seem to be something for everyone these days.

As well as all the high quality comedy and documentaries etc. etc. the BBC also punts out quite a bit of low brow pap that is comparable to Sky and ITV.

I think it has to be a minority that never watches anything...

(That isn't to say £135 is worth it, so calm down.)

Oh, and to the people that thought I was mean spirited for suggesting most people can afford the licence, even on a low income, I think the free BBC channels are pretty good value to someone on a limited income that can't afford Sky (like me). As many others have said...its still cheaper than a newspaper every day.

I think some of them are closet Dr Who fans.;)

Tetsuko

guppy wrote: »

As many others have said...its still cheaper than a newspaper every day.

But I can choose to go and buy a newspaper....or not, on whichever day I please. I don't choose to pay a lump sum to have a newspaper delivered daily to some other random person's house.

guppy

Tetsuko wrote: »

But I can choose to go and buy a newspaper....or not, on whichever day I please. I don't choose to pay a lump sum to have a newspaper delivered daily to some other random person's house.

So do you fall in to the "refuse to watch any BBC programmes on principle" camp?

Defiant_3

guppy wrote: »

One more question for the anti-tv licence people...
.

One question for the give us your money brigade which so far they've refused to answer. Why do you insist on everyone else contributing towards a biased broadcaster you just happen to enjoy why can't you bbc people club together and pay for it by subscription ?

impy78

newcook wrote: »

this is including films which were made 8 years ago or older - 2 of which were back in the late 40's shown back to back. there is probably more of repeats in this period but as I said it was a quick tally up.

you would also think that they would show premiers of films rather than films that have been shown over and over both on the bbc and other channels. Channel 4 are able to show premier movies so why cant bbc???

I agree with programmes being shown over and over again like the vicar of Dibley and sodding only fools and horses, but I don't see the problem with older films. Yes a premier is good now and again, but if you've not seen the film, then it doesn't really matter when it was made.

Defiant_3

guppy wrote: »

So do you fall in to the "refuse to watch any BBC programmes on principle" camp?

Would you be happy subsidising people who just don't want the rubbish you enjoy so contribute towards our Cable and Sky packages ? I have cable but to tell you the truth I just tend to watch the freeview pvr these days which shouldn't cost anyone but alas their forced by the nazi organisation called the BBC.

Why are you people so selfish in your ways can't you see not everyone wants what you happen to like YOU PAY FOR THE BBC

impy78

Defiant wrote: »

Would you be happy subsidising people who just don't want the rubbish you enjoy so contribute towards our Cable and Sky packages ? I have cable but to tell you the truth I just tend to watch the freeview pvr these days which shouldn't cost anyone but alas their forced by the nazi organisation called the BBC.

You do have a lot of really good points, but you detract from them by insulting people who don't agree with you, and bandying terms like nazi about.

jinkssick

I dont want to pay the licence fee regardless wether they make wonderful, inspiring and unmissable telly (which to me they dont) I still dont want it.

What we are talking about is having an option! so I dont have to see a BBC production in whatever medium, if I dont want to and the other option for the BBC enthusiasts who arent fussed about forking out 700 every five years.

Martin states that his views on the best deals are not biased, so why should this be any different because of work related connections to the BBC?!

newcook

impy78 wrote: »

I agree with programmes being shown over and over again like the vicar of Dibley and sodding only fools and horses, but I don't see the problem with older films. Yes a premier is good now and again, but if you've not seen the film, then it doesn't really matter when it was made.

what I was getting at is that these films (whether they were made in the 40's or 90's) are old and have probably been shown at least 10 times in the last couple of years on the bbc and the other terrestrial channels.
as we are paying for the licence the bbc should show new films and new programmes - they have other channels that are for repeat shows

Dr_Ali_G

Has any one who reads this site ever watched American TV? Is that what you really want for your little Island?, I think not. The only decient TV over here is PBS which is 90% BBC and brilliant (we pay the BBC for it, before you start complaining). Your goverment says it is charge of inflation, if so why not do the figures correctly and include all life items (mortgages would be start, as the first thing they do is increase the intrest rate). If this was case, pay rates would be higher (an't never gona happern). All fees (the BBC, it is still optional, just don't own a TV) and TAX ie council tax, should never exceed this % rise.
:beer:
P.S. when are gonna export some of that real ale, we only get the rubbish guinness