TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you have any research that supports this statement? I would say that it clearly isn't true in the way you've stated it. At the very least it is so susceptible to personal shopping choices as to be meaningless in terms of "having" to pay anything.

Some of the money I pay for a product which is advertised on TV inevitably goes to funding the station on which that advertisement appears, whether or not I have ever received that station. That is indisputable logical fact and requires no research.

As regards "personal shopping choices", clearly if I have not watched a particular station then I won't know whether or not an ad for the product appeared on it. Any such "choice", therefore, is of necessity extremely limited and far from the transparency with which the BBC is funded.

zagubov

Perhaps we should adopt the Israeli system of sticking the TV license onto car tax. easier to collect. The historical basis of that was that they also had radio licenses which were paid via road tax anyway. Of course this might incentivise public transport, but so it goes.

cw18

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Try thinking of it as a supermarket insisting you pay them (even though you never shop with them), before you are allowed to shop with one of their rivals.

Or, if you prefer, it's like having to buy a copy of one newspaper (even though you never read it), before you are allowed to buy any other newspapers.

Zapito wrote: »

It is nothing like either of those fanciful ideas.

It's exactly like the newspaper example. I have to pay the BBC in order to be allowed to watch ITV, which is no different to having to pay The Daily Mail in order to read The Daily Mirror.

Zapito

cw18 wrote: »

It's exactly like the newspaper example. I have to pay the BBC in order to be allowed to watch ITV, which is no different to having to pay The Daily Mail in order to read The Daily Mirror.

The reality is completely different from this ridiculous scenario that has been dreamed up. The Daily Mail is a private enterprise, the BBC is a public body. The Daily Mail exists for profit, the BBC exists for social good. The Daily Mail exists for the benefit of its owners, the BBC exists for the benefit of the nation. The Daily Mail is free to publish whatever it likes or whatever its owner dictates, the BBC is required to strive for impartiality and fairness.

This whole newspaper scenario is irrelevant, crass idiocy.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

As you say. they have been submitted to a government review, so the response you need is from the government. If you are not happy with that response, take it up with them.

Well, as I'm sure you know, the devil is in the detail on this, and the detail belongs to the BBC. The legislation does not specify that there should be Licence enforcement by the BBC at all, never mind how it should be done. (AFAICT, but IANAL). If it helps at all, I have previously made my feelings about this clear to the responsible (Tory) Minister and his response was so nonsensical that I asked my MP to double-check it. So, yes, I blame Government too.

there's no need to launch a wholesale attack on the BBC just because you think some of the licence collection procedures are not to your liking.

I'm flattered that you think it would be feasible for me to mount a "wholesale attack on the BBC". In reality that's not what I am about at all and I'm afraid your suggestion is both factually wrong and wholly unrealistic.

I am happy for the BBC to continue, as long as the enforcement of the Licence Fee (or whatever replaces it) is fair, proportionate and legally-compliant. I'd also hope that someone would see sense and rein-in some of the other issues with the BBC like its generally poor level of Governance and accountability, but I'm not holding my breath...

Cornucopia

zagubov wrote: »

Perhaps we should adopt the Israeli system of sticking the TV license onto car tax. easier to collect. The historical basis of that was that they also had radio licenses which were paid via road tax anyway. Of course this might incentivise public transport, but so it goes.

I'm not sure there's any issue with the difficulty of collecting the Licence Fee per se. The issues are rather broader than that.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Some of the money I pay for a product which is advertised on TV inevitably goes to funding the station on which that advertisement appears, whether or not I have ever received that station. That is indisputable logical fact and requires no research.

As I say, I think that whilst that's a common misconception (or perhaps it is more of a jaundiced perception). It doesn't really work when you get into the mechanics of it.

There's a very simple question that demonstrates that it is not as simple as you imply, which is: how much do think you pay? If you're getting upset about, say, 40 pence per day (measured by a model that probably isn't accurate)... well we know how that goes.

As regards "personal shopping choices", clearly if I have not watched a particular station then I won't know whether or not an ad for the product appeared on it. Any such "choice", therefore, is of necessity extremely limited and far from the transparency with which the BBC is funded.

If you can't even be bothered to do a periodic survey of commercial media to see what's currently being advertised, then it strikes me that you aren't very committed to your "cause".

I would say it's relatively easy to ignore advertising, and not to buy the products. They can (and do) fire ads for mascara at me hundreds of times a day, and I still won't begin to wonder how it would look on me.

In fact, advertised products that I do buy are a tiny fraction of the total. So how much am I paying? 10 pence per day I can live with for all the commercial media it supports.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Actually not so. At least some of the licence fee goes to Channel 4 TV...,

Another popular misconception, AFAIK.

I agree it is my opinion, but not that it is just my opinion. I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever is asserting that "the BBC is undoubtedly the best broadcasting service in the world".

Ultimately, though, however you put it, that would be a subjective statement - or opinion. There are plentiful facts about the BBC, like this one: "the BBC has the largest budget of any public service broadcaster in the World, and is the largest PSB in the World by various other criteria, too".

Given that the UK is not the largest country in the World, perhaps we are correct to question that?

Ireland was mentioned earlier, and that makes for quite an interesting comparison. The Irish Licence Fee is 160 Euros per household per year, and raises 220m Euros per year in total, with a 16% evasion rate. Ireland is a fair bit smaller than the UK. The Irish channels carry advertising, and the Licence fee provides around half of their funding. But they have a functional TV service, at a cost which if transferred to the UK would equate to a TV Licence of c. £6.29 per year. So there is a debate on the size, scope, function and cost of the BBC to be had.

Your two ideas, regarding the supermarket and regarding the newspaper, were both your own ideas and have no basis to or connection with any arrangements which actually exist and, therefore, they indisputably are fanciful.

I think they are more fantasy arguments, than fanciful - that sounds a bit dismissive, and obviously we need to be careful about being dismissive of other people's posts.

Fantasy arguments are a key part of debate. There will always be a place for clever and apposite straw-men that point up a particular issue, or perhaps ridicule a false presumption.

Thus: can anyone explain to me why I need a Licence for my TV, when I'm allowed to own and operate Gas Appliances, Chainsaws and all manner of other potentially dangerous DIY, Gardening and Kitchen implements without one.

People pay towards loads of stuff they don't directly consume, or in some cases actually object to. We all pay toward the education system, even when not currently being educated or having kids being educated. The defence forces. Royalty. Opera. Nuclear power subsidies. Wind farm subsidies. The roads. rail, power, green energy... the list goes on and on. Why pick on the BBC, with its pittance of 40p per day? It's plain daft, and loss of the BBC because of some ill-conceived point of principle would be true folly.

This is a key point of contention... firstly no one is "picking on the BBC" as such. This thread is about the TV Licence, so it will be confined largely to that issue.

But you're right, people are exercising a judgement about the funding of all sorts of public services. Personally, I'm not interested in Opera, and don't see any pressing social need for it to be subsidised. The BBC is a little more complex, being so diverse in what it produces. I'm happy for there to be a subsidy for News, but not Eastenders. That's obviously going to be subjective, and everyone will have their own personal view.

Beyond that subjectivity, though, I think it's clear that the argument for public funding for TV entertainment (indeed, entertainment generally) is weak, for the following reasons...

- Because it is "mere" entertainment.
- Because it's patronising to try to lure viewers in with entertainment in the expectation of them staying tuned for something more worthy.
- Because TV entertainment (and indeed, PSB-type content) is widely available free-to-air from a variety of commercial sources and also from Channel 4, which is a public service broadcaster funded entirely by advertising.

[Deleted User]

Zapito wrote: »

and The World Service (radio)

Isn't World Service radio part of the BBC?

But that is what the licence fee was set up for.

That made sense, when there were only a few channels, but now there are hundreds of channels, the overwhelming majority of which, are not BBC channels.

That is the deal in this country, and always has been.

Just because it always has been that way, doesn't mean it always has to be that way.

If you don't like it, and prefer to have a shoddier service as in most other countries

Again, it's only your opinion, that we would have a shoddier service.

then you are of course perfectly free to conduct a political campaign for it.

So, if we don't like something the government does, we shouldn't discuss and debate, but should instead conduct a political campaign to get it changed?

That's going to knock down he level of posting on here rather a lot, don't you think?

I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever is asserting that "the BBC is undoubtedly the best broadcasting service in the world".

You can assert whatever you like, but it doesn't make it a fact. It remains merely an opinion.

with its pittance of 40p per day?

It's only a pittance if you can comfortably afford it.

For a single person on JSA, £12-12 per month is a lot of money.

Indeed, the LF is approximately two whole weeks of JSA.

As for the other examples you quote, payment toward those is based on your financial situation.

A single person on JSA, pays little of nothing toward them, whereas they pay exactly the same for the TV Licence, as does a millionaire.

The LF is regressive, in that it makes absolutely no allowance for your financial situation.

It's plain daft, and loss of the BBC because of some ill-conceived point of principle would be true folly.

And again, your opinion.

So with the BBC, which is a precious jewel not only in the eyes of the UK but all over the world.

Yet again, your opinion.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

For me, though, it's more of a political statement than a financial issue. In a democracy sometimes people vote not just with the ballot box, but also with their wallets.

Cornucopia wrote: »

10 pence per day I can live with for all the commercial media it supports.

So suddenly it is no longer a matter of political principle but one of financial negotiation. Whether 10p per day or 40p per day, It's still chicken-feed,