Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

Another opinion put across as a fact as you'd expect from the BBC :rolleyes:

Oh and notice he's forgoten my post where I've pointed out the BBC has pushed the internet services because they want an internet tax!

me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me is just about the BBC mentality

It's £136.60 (this year) and that's because a minority like YOU wish to force the MAJORITY into subsidising what YOU want.

Lovely to meet you Defiant. Enchant!.

I haven't put anything across 'as fact'. I invited those who might disagree with me to do so.

To use your argument about 'the majority' completely misses the point of the BBC. They are meant to provide for the minority.

Lurkio

Defiant wrote: »

[/font]

Because that too has sad liberal/lefties running it who believe they know better than the Majority. The fact that you are now trying to pass the buck just proves my point.


[/font]

You like the BBC therefore the truth and facts can't mean much too you :rolleyes:

caugh Balen Report caugh




Hey when you are forced to subsidise my cable bill by threat of fines and prison then you can give an honest opinion Mr I want your money



You class it as minor because you are happy with everyone contributing towards what YOU happen to like. YOU aren't honest enough to just admit you want this thread to disappear so people don't start asking awkward questions about your employer

oh you do make me :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Why would anyone ask questions, awkward or otherwise, about an IT company in relation to this thread?

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

Lovely to meet you Defiant. Enchant!.

I haven't put anything across 'as fact'. I invited those who might disagree with me to do so.

Then you are a liar because you said

if only for the fact it produces the finest radio in the world

Note you say "fact" however it's an opinion

magyar wrote: »

To use your argument about 'the majority' completely misses the point of the BBC. They are meant to provide for the minority.

Then the "minority" should pay for it because I don't see why we should pay £3.5 BILLION (& rising) for people like you to watch Eastenders :mad:

magyar

Well fine, Defiant. If you can't read the implications into people's words without resorting to pedantry then I have no interest in talking to you.

I come here for quality discussion with intelligent people. Since I've found neither in you, I'll leave this thread I think.

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

Well fine, Defiant. If you can't read the implications into people's words without resorting to pedantry then I have no interest in talking to you.

I come here for quality discussion with intelligent people. Since I've found neither in you, I'll leave this thread I think.

I've just proven you to be a liar and instead of apologising you've been obtuse :rolleyes:

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

Well, I'm going to increase the support for the BBC by one. I love the BBC, if only for the fact it produces the finest radio in the world - surely undeniable - and one of the best online services as well. And all without advertisements.

I think that the 50p or so a day is an absolute bargain for what you get.

What about people who don't think it is a bargain? Should they spend £136 a year (subject to arbitrary increase) on something they don't use instead of spend on things THEY think is a bargain (which you might think is a waste)?

The only argument I hear about this is that this is government spending and therefore just like other services, sometimes you pay for things you dont use.

Can you give me a reason why BBC, a broadcaster competing with other television channels, needs to be a government service paid for by taxpayers? Is BBC different to other channels? To me, they are here for entertainment - just look at the programmes. They are all to get more views depending on how a person views the quality of the programme.

An outsider would have never guessed one was funded differently.

By the same logic, since we have media and radio covered, should we have a government funded newspaper (so we cover print as well)?

exprog

magyar wrote: »

I'll leave this thread I think.

Typical attitude of the extreme left. To translate: 'How horrid, someone said something true, so I'm not going to talk about it anymore - the debate is over; I'll just keep on taking your money for my use'.

magyar

I didn't intend to mislead and would have thought the use of the word 'fact' above was clearly taken out of context. Defiant, I will happily apologise for having used a word you didn't like; it would be equally nice if you would apologise for the aggressive post you made above in Post #129.

In the interests of discussion, perhaps we could start again and let me rephrase my original post.

I consider the BBC to provide, in particular, an excellent radio service. I would be surprised if anyone disagrees that it is the best in the world, and think that the price which this costs - approx. 50p a day - is extremely good value.

To be honest, regarding people who don't want to pay for it - I don't care. My point is that I think that £136 a year is extremely good value for what the BBC provides me, and if there was ever a vote on the matter I'd vote for the status quo. I don't feel the need to defend the BBC.

magyar

Out of interest, regarding the question of "why should I pay for something I may not use", could I pose a counter-question?

The programmes that ITV produce have to be paid for by someone, i.e. the advertisers. So let's say I shop in Tesco, but don't watch ITV. Through my shopping bill I am ultimately paying for these adverts, which pay for programmes I don't watch.

It's not as if I can realistically choose to shop at places, or choose products which don't advertise, because virtually every store/product advertises.

So what's the difference?

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

I didn't intend to mislead and would have thought the use of the word 'fact' above was clearly taken out of context. Defiant, I will happily apologise for having used a word you didn't like; it would be equally nice if you would apologise for the aggressive post you made above in Post #129.

In the interests of discussion, perhaps we could start again and let me rephrase my original post.

I consider the BBC to provide, in particular, an excellent radio service. I would be surprised if anyone disagrees that it is the best in the world, and think that the price which this costs - approx. 50p a day - is extremely good value.

To be honest, regarding people who don't want to pay for it - I don't care. My point is that I think that £136 a year is extremely good value for what the BBC provides me, and if there was ever a vote on the matter I'd vote for the status quo. I don't feel the need to defend the BBC.

To me, at least I am not questioning the quality of BBC. I am questioning why people in this country have to pay for something (that to me is not a government service) they do not use.

If they want to watch ITV or any other non-BBC channel, why are they paying for the BBC?

If you ask ITV their view, do you think they would say "no, no, you have to pay BBC to watch us"?