Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

Defiant_3

Unhban wrote: »

Also, many people don't realise that the commercial channels costs every person (with or without a television) much more than this charge. When you buy a packet of Persil a certain amount of the cost of the packet goes towards advertising. Everyone is paying much more than £135 a year this way towards our beloved advertising breaks.....

Enjoy!

LOL the old advertising costs us money argument well I see the pro bbc people have hit bottom again. Well advertising has been here longer than the TV and selling in bulk means they can buy in bulk which keeps costs down because they can buy cheaper passing that to the customer

Notice how desperate the pro bbc people get :rotfl: they don't have any real arguments for it because it's just a ruddy biased TV broadcaster at the end of the day and the left love it

squirreltufty

If we lose the BBC we will end up with TV that caters to the lowest common denominator, in which case I would ditch my TV altogether. I don't want to be fed a diet of 'tabloid' journalism, reality shows, chat, phone-in competitions, baby ballroom, game shows, clip shows, the world's biggest, smallest, fastest, stupidest whatever, adverts every 5 minutes. Do we really want a society obsessed with appearances, gadgets, teen fashion, celebrity gossip, material goods, and the resulting envy and resentment when people can't keep up?

newcook

Unhban wrote: »

Also, many people don't realise that the commercial channels costs every person (with or without a television) much more than this charge. When you buy a packet of Persil a certain amount of the cost of the packet goes towards advertising. Everyone is paying much more than £135 a year this way towards our beloved advertising breaks.....

Enjoy!

this is why I dont buy brand (apart from typhoo)

the majority of the amount is actually the expensive packaging they use. there is a thread somewhere about a lot of manufacturers who produce products for many different brands but when they are on the shelves the prices vary somewhat. same product inside different lable outside

Defiant_3

squirreltufty wrote: »

If we lose the BBC we will end up with TV that caters to the lowest common denominator

Is this just your lefie opinion or do you have proof ?

squirreltufty wrote: »

in which case I would ditch my TV altogether.

why wouldn't you be willing to pay for the BBC if it wasn't subisidised by the majority the same majority who don't want it ?

JV90

Of course it's not just "Homes under the hammer" the BBC provides. It adds a lot to the cultural life of the nation. There are orchestras in England, Wales and Scotland. Every summer the proms allows anyone with five pound in their pocket to go and watch some of the greatest musicians and music on earth. There is the BBC website which wins awards year after year. They have provided a lot of the research that has helped advance broadcasting such as digital radio and HD TV. It has one of the most comprehensive news operations in the world. If the BBC were taken off air or funded by advertising or owned by a media mogul this country would lose a lot more than Eastenders.

Skeenfleent

squirreltufty wrote: »

If we lose the BBC we will end up with TV that caters to the lowest common denominator, in which case I would ditch my TV altogether. I don't want to be fed a diet of 'tabloid' journalism, reality shows, chat, phone-in competitions, baby ballroom, game shows, clip shows, the world's biggest, smallest, fastest, stupidest whatever, adverts every 5 minutes. Do we really want a society obsessed with appearances, gadgets, teen fashion, celebrity gossip, material goods, and the resulting envy and resentment when people can't keep up?

Yeah, look at US TV, and media in general. You have huge networks, and they are held to ransom by big advertisers who can withdraw the funding if the programmes broadcast don't suit their interests. For example, if they put 'Supersize Me' on, fast food companies would withdraw their advertising revenue. Therefore, it's censorship in effect, as the networks would rather have the money I believe in many cases. Furthermore, it's censorship by faceless, unelected executives. At least you know where to find the BBC or BBFC if you want to protest to them...

Then you wonder why the US has so many problems, and well, the above system hardly serves an unbiased education of people via TV (and that's all the education some people have it seems). The BBC on the other hand can be accused of bias on occasion, but does NOT suffer from the above issues, to say the least. They do make quality programmes. I would let the BBC sell e.g. EastEnders episodes online in a non-expiring format, at a profit, for those who don't have a license, or whatever. Then the profits could be re-invested instead of part of the license fee in quality programming. Not sure of the economic viability, but with the new online services emerging, who knows where it's going?

tipsyt

Whilst the BBC do provide some good programmes my arguement is that within 6 months you can view them all on UK TV Gold!!
Some days its like watching the entire BBC catalogue - for exapmle Dr Who!!

Daisy_Bell

What this really is is the BBC demanding money with menaces! If you have a TV, whether you watch BBC or not, pay up or we'll take you to court; pay the fine, or we'll throw you in prison! No other business would get away with it! They'd be prosecuted themselves for operating some sort of protection racket! When the country goes completely over to digital, people will be paying twice for their TV - the BBC licence and also for Cable, SKY or whatever! It's disgraceful and high time the BBC gots its funding another way, like every other provider! :mad:
As for saying that paying a license fee leaves the BBC unbiased - that is a load of C--p! Also, the BBC lies by omission all the time. No, they don't tell actual lies; it's what they don't tell you! And... yes, they are a load of lefties! Everything they put on contains some sort of preachy political correctness! They've even altered history to be politically correct in some of their dramas! :rotfl:

Jacster_2

BBC is hugely important.

One look at American news channels makes me shiver. Fox News is the most horrific news channel I have ever had the misfortune to watch. And it is controlled by the corporate magnates, who determine what people think about current affairs, for their own ends.

If we did not have an independently funded media, we would be in the situation where all news reporting and programming would be controlled by the propaganda merchants who wish to control the population and the political and social decisions that get made, that have influence on our lives.

I have spoken with (politically aware) Americans who deplore their own media, which is controlled by a small number of powerful people. They have told me to prize the BBC as it is the one news channel that will stand up and report as they see it. Just think of the Andrew Gilligan/Dr David Kelly/'sexed up' Iraq dossier example.

Next time there is a world-wide incident, flick between Fox News, CNN and BBC News and see for yourself. Long live BBC news reporting. It's worth every penny of my licence fee.

AndyMan

Don’t get me going on the BBC, first the BBC is biased to the South, especially London. Even the weather forecasts are all about the south. And why are all the BBC channels based in London? Why not have BBC 2 permanently in Birmingham or Manchester. If London was blown up, we wouldn’t have any BBC channels except for a few local radio stations.

The floods in Yorkshire last month left three times more people homeless and they received a fraction of the news coverage of Oxford and the like. So, why should we in the North pay for Southern television.

The so called culture, we only have heard about the Oxford, Cambridge University boat race because all the BBC senior staff went to those Universities. The BBC independence is a myth, we believe our own propaganda. George Orwell’s room101 is a semi biography of him working for the BBC giving out propaganda. He could only stand it for a year.

If people want their operas and the like, let them pay for it through pay television, like all sports fans have to pay to see their football team. One man’s culture is another man’s boredom.

One thing in the BBC’s defence is that I do like the BBC radio 4’s AM and PM programme. Which, I’m sure could be financed through advertising or sponsorship. Think again, if you think the BBC is independent from our government, it’s the government who set our licence fees. So they are always under the thumb of the government of the day.

Hope that stirs things!!!!! lol ; )