Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

newcook

impy78 wrote: »

As for it being calculated by people who want it, can I therefore pay no tax for the military/nuclear arms, nuclear power, roads, quangos, the olympics, the royal family, Ken Livingston, Academy schools, Craft, design technology lessons in schools hospital admin idiots and crazy millennium dome type projects, please, as I do not use any of these, I do not want them, I did not ask for them, and I don't want to pay for them.

I pay over £100 a week and yet I have not subscribed to any of these services..why?


Does this give you an idea of how silly the above argument is becoming?

I take it you flap your arms really hard to get to work/shop/go out etc?? oh, you use the roads - that will be the road tax then.

the people who got flooded a few weeks back were helped out by the army as well as police, firebrigade etc. they also stop our country from being invaded.
I have no idea what quangos are (and cant be bothered to google it!)
you would think that with the olympics being shown on BBC that they would pay for this...
Craft, design technology lessons in schools - lets just do away with all the lessons, it wont be long before we are all born knowing how to draw anything in a design format (including angles etc)...
academy schools - I take it you are on about the majority of which are privately paid and a small minority of pupils who are exceptional get to audition and if they are good enough will be given a grant?

hospital admin idiots and crazy millennium dome type projects I agree with

ckerrd

Defiant wrote: »

You are one or do you spend all this time on the subject just for the fun of it ? You did try comparing vital public services before to a ruddy TV station duh




We've provided proof you have given nothing other than what you think so please go away and tell your line member to send the next one :rolleyes:

Ok then prove I work for the BBC.

Can't cos I don't. You wont believe that just like you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you.

We've provided proof

Who is this "we"
You are the only one who seems to be suggesting that two unequal amounts are the same.

I have provided facts, in the form of subtraction of your figures.

Why wont you comment on the fact that what you said was wrong?
Scared?

And what the hell is a "line member"?

newcook

ckerrd wrote: »

Run time is the programme duration including (on TV) the titles and end credits.

Posts #119 highlights the difference between the amounts of advertising allowed in the UK and US.

If a show was in a 30 minute slot and was only 5 minutes long in the US they could have 25 minutes of adverts. In the UK they could not.

thanks for that - though to be honest a show lasting 5 minutes would be pants really!!!

going home now - see you all tomorrow!!!

Defiant_3

ckerrd wrote: »

Ok then prove I work for the BBC.

Can't cos I don't. You wont believe that just like you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you.

The BBC pitches give you away and the way you always say people are wrong while refusing to give proof and thats typical of the BBC employees like YOU :rotfl:

ckerrd wrote: »

Who is this "we"
You are the only one who seems to be suggesting that two unequal amounts are the same.

In case you aren't that good at math those against the BBC TV Licence out number you by a huge amount in this country

ckerrd wrote: »

I have provided facts, in the form of subtraction of your figures.

And I've given you the runtime of a UK 60 minute show and a US 60 minute show both with adverts taken out which shows how long the show itself is run both here and in the US. No matter what tripe you come up with next you can't get around the actual facts


Please can you tell everyone why you and the other BBC employees have refused to answer my question now ?

Would you subsidise those who have Cable/Sky as they have to subsidise what you watch ?

ckerrd

I cannot speak for any BBC employee as I am not one and I dont not know why you persist with your lies in saying I am.

You still have not admitted that your statement about adverts being the same in the UK and US is another lie. Nothing to do with runtimes, I have never disputed that.

and to answer your question. No I wouldn't subsidise cable/satellite subscribers. Sadly though I fear I do buy buying some of the Newspapers that cross fund some of BSkyB

Now you answer my question - Prove anything I have said is a lie!.

Defiant_3

ckerrd wrote: »

I cannot speak for any BBC employee as I am not one and I dont not know why you persist with your lies in saying I am.

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz yea yea blah blah blah people aren't going to believe you

ckerrd wrote: »

You still have not admitted that your statement about adverts being the same in the UK and US is another lie. Nothing to do with runtimes, I have never disputed that.

So provide me proof which changes the FACTS I've posted and you've ignored :rotfl:

ckerrd wrote: »

and to answer your question. No I wouldn't subsidise cable/satellite subscribers.

R but your happy for them to be forced to pay for what you like :rolleyes:

ckerrd wrote: »

Sadly though I fear I do buy buying some of the Newspapers that cross fund some of BSkyB

Oh !!!!!! I've heard it all know I just hope you know people reading you who may have been for a TV Licence are perhaps now thinking again

ckerrd wrote: »

Now you answer my question - Prove anything I have said is a lie!.

Ok then as the BBC is supposed to be a public service paid by the state give me the public records on it oh wait the BBC is exempt from this isn't it but nice try

ckerrd

Didn't think you could.

Just too easy a target really, I shouldn't have done it.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Anyway have fun on Planet Defiant.

jinkssick

Okay the topic has gone too far. We do not want to pay the BBC fee, simple as that. This means them having to make do with the other funds available and I am all for adverts in between shows wether they are 2 to 4 mins. Heres the solution for the Pro-fee.

Lets get calculating. So if 31.5 million pounds (a one year old figure)
was generated from the licence fee by the BBC in one year, so this gives a figure of 233,000 people in the UK that pay the 135 pound a year fee.

Say roughly that 50% of us oppose the fee (this figures nowhere near close, id speculate 70%) but lets just say 50% to be fair to both sides.

This would mean that the pro-BBC (who admire their relentless quality, availability on show, love the content, etc) would not be fussed about paying 270 pounds a year between 116,500 of the population. Even if it means the others getting adverts or not watching BBC in any mediums at all.

Its the simplest solution and would elaborate on the power of freedom of speech. A simple solution, very very simple.

squirreltufty

Apologies if I don't understand where you got those figures from - I really can't be bothered to wade back through Defiant's ranting drivel.

edpgc

Very disappointed by this poll.
I'm 25 and appreciate the BBC for the following reasons

BBC sets the standard, in many cases it wrote them, these professional standards are what the whole industry aspires too. When you go abroad don't you feel the TV is dire, tried watching TV in America, graphics all over the screens, sensationalism, ad breaks every 5 minutes, product placement a plenty it goes on and on.

Radio 1, I think its marvelous, John Peels show was fantastic and taught me a lot. Chris Moyles makes the run into work more enjoyable, the Essential Mix provides 2 hours of uninterrupted music, and the late night programming is often brilliant and easily accessible these days.

TV programming, from the open university to Top Gear these are shows that simply wouldn't be made in a commercial environment. Top Gear would be cut back to reduce offensive to the big money advertising budgets of the car companies, and science/documentary programming would be even more lacking. Planet Earth was worth a third of the fee alone.

Internet, the BBC news website is rather fantastic.

Finally where does a lot of this stuff on the sat channels come from originally, quite often the BBC, its not programming that would of been paid for in the first place from the tiny funds of UKtv Gold.

Across the world the BBC is respected for what it is, many people are far too keen to throw away a great british instuition. Just like we all pay for libraries its your choice to grasp it and make use of it, if you chose not too so be it. But don't attack those who do.

Clearly the BBC isn't perfect, BBC One costs way too much, it has a tendency to self promote itself far too much and I could carry on the list of issues with it.

My final point is a fair chunk of the license fee doesn't go to the bbc at all.

Thanks