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

Defiant_3

mymybbc, would you be happy for the BBC to go subscription so only those who want this great service (:D ) pay for it and then everyone else is free to choose what they want ?

mymatebob

ronben wrote: »

Sarcasm is not welcome on the boards, post reported. :mad:


And you say defiant is rude and yet you think you have the right to question his education

I never mentioned his education I said his reading skills were poor as he seems unable to see that I have posted I don't work for the BBC which I have typed more than once.

Is sarcasm a reportable thing? I guess so if that's what you have done.

Good for you

mymatebob

Defiant wrote: »

mymybbc, would you be happy for the BBC to go subscription so only those who want this great service (:D ) pay for it and then everyone else is free to choose what they want ?

Yes. I don't have a problem with that.

mymatebob

ronben wrote: »

Oh so the below text is only on my screen :rolleyes:



So there you go, maybe if you tore yourself away from the TV you would have a better level of concentration

Where does it mention education?

I rarely watch TV - more of a radio person

mymatebob

Indeed.

You can get news from lots of places - not just the TV

mymatebob

oops - slipped into the old paranoia again. And a bit of a rant as well.

I still don't work for the BBC.

But I am in fact listening to the news on the radio as I type this. Mind you not on the BBC.

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

And I told you I find the BBC offensive and if I wish to compare the BBC with the Nazi and the TV Licensing with the SS it is my right. I find the way you object to this just proves me right in my suspcisions that you do work at the BBC (trying to stop free speech)

Actually, this is not a 'free speech' site and you have no 'right' to say anything. Martin Lewis has to take personal responsibility for what's said on it and is likely to err on the side of caution if anything contentious is said - after all a discussion about the BBC is not related to moneysaving and therefore a low priority.

TNG

mymatebob wrote: »

oops - slipped into the old paranoia again. And a bit of a rant as well.
.

Kinda reminds me of a very disgruntled ex-BBC employee, don't you think?

ShelfStacker_3

Defiant wrote: »

18 pages in to this thread and you still pretend not to work for the BBC :rotfl:

I can't believe you're still pretending not to work for Sky!

See how silly it sounds?

ShelfStacker_3

ronben wrote: »

It is, because if you dont pay for a TVL then your saving money.

Well then realistically you have an option at present, which is don't have a TV (or at least, don't receive broadcast programmes) and use iPlayer or BitTorrent for anything you want to watch. Hey, you've saved yourself buying a TV license, because you don't have a TV!

That's under current law, of course. Oppose the TV license all you want - a vivid debate is a good thing - write to your MP, start a campaign, whatever; but right now the current thing on here of evading questions and pretending that everyone on the "other side" works for the BBC and hates your freedoms will convince no-one, least of all the people here who support the license and would probably appreciate it more if you gave some good reasons for its abolition aside from "I don't want to pay for Cash In The Attic" or "!!!!!!! lefties steal our money" (no, pedants, nobody has said exactly that.) If you hoped to convince me, for example, that the license fee is not good value for money, then considering I have been called an elitist who wants to live off other peoples' money based on absolutely nothing except, apparently, my stance on the license fee, you haven't done a very good job.

Then there's people trying to make out their personal viewpoints are facts; it is not a "fact" that the BBC is biased, it is an opinion - it is a fact that when studies have been done, left wingers have noted that they thought the BBC was biased to the right and right wingers to the left. It's not a "fact" that the TV license is not value for money, it is an opinion - it is however a fact that it is a flat rated fee and so lower-income or single person households will pay the same as millionaires and families (my opinion on THAT being that while the license should remain, single person households and the less well off should be given money off the fee - it shouldn't be free, but it should be cheaper.)

I can see where the anti-license/anti-BBC people are coming from; paying for something you do not personally use is unfair on the face of it, but then not only do viewers of the BBC benefit from the license fee but commercial TV viewers also benefit; the presence of a publicly funded broadcaster which has a commitment to quality and neutrality enshrined in its very constitution helps to moderate some of the worse excesses of ITV and others, giving them a benchmark for public service broadcasting.

While Jonathan Ross might be paid an obscene amount of money (which I do think is excessive) he is the exception, not the rule. The presence of reality TV and antiques shows on the BBC is, from my point of view anyway, regrettable, but they are required to appeal to all audiences and those typically at home during the day (housewives, the elderly) would find the BBC's offer appealing. For a world-leading news service respected around the globe for its neutrality and independence, a huge variety of radio networks to appeal to most tastes and some of the finest examples of public service television in the world, I personally consider £11 a month to be a bargain.

We all pay, however directly, for things we don't personally use. I don't claim benefits, but I pay for them; I don't serve in the military, but I still pay for it; I don't use children's play areas, but I pay for them. But there is a net benefit to society of these things, and while I don't for a second consider TV to be anywhere near as important to the UK as schools or hospitals, the BBC's benefit is that of having an impartial source of news (imagine a world where there were no BBC, only the Daily Mails and the Independents of the world) and a moderating influence upon our commercial television networks.