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

ShelfStacker_3

Also, Defiant, the picture of the Facebook page showing the BBC's political affiliation as "liberal" is not real and was mocked up by the Daily Mail (it uses the same font as their other graphics and bears no resemblance to an actual Facebook page), which in itself is a biased source. It really doesn't help your credibility to use such a thing as part of an argument.

mymatebob

J Ross and all the other big wigs, please lets not forget them, maybe if you really did know what they spent YOUR money on you wouldnt be so quick to defend it, £11 a month is good value for money if you use the service.

So are you now agreeing that it is good value if you use it - rather than saying that it is not good value at all?

Goodness we may have reached a point of agreement amongst us all

ShelfStacker_3

ronben wrote: »

Lets get one thing absolutely crystal clear, I have never said that your a leftie or work for the BBC (oh except once to which this :rolleyes: was added) so unless you dont understand how smileys are used as indications of feeling then you would of took me as being serious about you being a leftie.

No, YOU haven't. Neither, admittedly, have others called me it personally; but it's something that's been thrown around in this thread as if it were a term of abuse, and considering you seem to take offence at the concept of calling me one (which I certainly don't, I'm proud of my political position) you must think it is.

The TVL is not good value for money for me as I see no use in watching Eastenders or any other of the stuff that the BBc pump out especially when its free on Iplayer, so by the BBC's own admission they are giving TV away for free from another medium, I however dont like to pay for viewers of BBC programs, can you pay for my fuel so that I can go to work?

Your driving a car does not do anything good for anyone except you and carries no social benefit (outside, possibly, of you driving to work at a hospital or school), so no, nobody else should pay for it. However, as I outlined the BBC carries a social benefit, and the license fee is an (albeit contrived) attempt to levy to fund it.

You may not LIKE to pay for viewers of BBC programmes, fine, but like I say even viewers of commercial channels only derive a benefit from it from its setting of standards for the commercial channels to keep up to.

Just because you dont use my car I still want you to pay for me and if you dont I shall have officials come around your house and present you with a fine (sound familliar?)

Again, the use of your car provides no social benefit and you are not in any kind of position to demand payment for its use. However, it has been REPEATEDLY decided by successive governments (both Tory and Labour) that the continuing of the license fee is in the public interest and that it should, consequently, be enforced.

There's a simple way to avoid officials coming round your house, anyway; either don't have a TV (or use it for DVDs and games consoles only) or pay for your license honestly. It is the law, for god's sake. I know that the licensing authorities (technically not run by the BBC, they've outsourced that job to the private company Capita) can be pushy sometimes, but if you're not receiving broadcast TV you can tell them to get bent with impunity.

I see your opinion is being swayed somewhat, Its true what you say the fee is unfair if its unfair how can it be of any real value especially at the cost of a licence against how many hours are ctually viewed, unless ofcourse you watch every hour of the BBc thats available.

I didn't say I thought the fee was unfair, I said I could see how you thought it would be unfair, and then went on to say that it is unfair towards those less able to afford it. Not just that it's unfair to everyone, full stop. Trust me, my opinion is not being swayed, but I am still interested to hear yours.

The measuring of how many hours you use of BBC services is impossible to ascertain considering both technical difficulties and the broad variety of services they provide; at any rate, under the metric of "hours viewed" even Sky lose out if you're only an occasional TV viewer.

Ok Top Gear and QI are good but whats the other quality you talk about, if this is all that the BBC can produce I would rather pay per view, something I said earlier but has since been forgotten.

Top Gear and QI, weekly programmes, so that's 8 programmes a month for £11... £1.30 a programme roughly. Cheaper than buying from iTunes, anyway (and iTunes isn't even pay per view, it's buy once and watch any time you like). Clearly, since you enjoy these programmes, you do use the BBC's services... rather odd, considering you're railing against it.

Other quality programmes the BBC has produced recently (or at the least bankrolled), off the top of my head; Ashes to Ashes, Life On Mars, Have I Got News For You, What The Papers Say, Dr Who, Question Time, the aforementioned QI and Top Gear, and of course the BBC's excellent news coverage both on the BBC's dedicated news channels (BBC News and BBC Parliament) and their regular bulletins. That's just off the top of my head.

J Ross and all the other big wigs, please lets not forget them, maybe if you really did know what they spent YOUR money on you wouldnt be so quick to defend it, £11 a month is good value for money if you use the service.

I know what the BBC spend my money on, and I said Ross' salary is obscene. I do, however, recognise that such expenditure is very much in the minority considering the corporation's large expenditure overall. Alone, as a figure, £4million sounds like a lot; in the context of billions of pounds of expenditure, it's a trifling percentage.

Also, you DO use the service, no matter how infrequently.

You really dont understand do you, YOU say that you pay taxes for the military, or benefits or childrens play areas, let you me put you right on this yet again, YOU are being defended by the Army if we ever had a conflict here they would protect YOU, Benefits - ever been sick? ever been to hospital? ever seen a GP? - Play areas, I take it you were young once, its not a new idea its been around for years to pay for ammenities.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. You've said nothing except that society uses taxation to fund public services that I might use at some point (and indeed have used), which is fairly obvious and indeed is an argument *for* the license fee, not against it.

The BBC impartial yeah ok then for sure.

:rolleyes:

The BBC is duty bound by law (and its own editorial guidelines) to be impartial, and I quote, "will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy", and in general it succeeds; it provides a balanced view. Newspapers, on the other hand, have no such requirement, and can print anything not specifically libellous with impunity.

Anyway, could you please provide some clear, concrete examples (backed up with evidence, and not from a Daily Mail article as appears to be the fashion here as they have a clear anti-BBC bias and a less than stellar attitude to reporting facts honestly) of the BBC "promoting a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy"? Please. You must have some killer evidence to be able to back up your eye-rolling view of the BBC as biased.

This thread should of been called Is the TVL Unfair and not is The TVL worth it?

No it shouldn't, because that's a loaded question, and in itself not impartial.

That and the latter was the title of a poll on this site...

Anyway I cant post here anymore as noone is taking note of what Ive typed so whats the point, I do however believe it or not do see what the TVL fanboys are saying but its not my cup of tea to get ripped off as I see it.

Oh, I'm certainly taking note of what you're saying; the fact that you've not immediately converted me to your cause isn't proof of the opposite.

TNG

ronben wrote: »

As said on many occassions its value for money if you use it

.. and I would suggest that, with possibly one notable exception :rolleyes: , we all do use it, in some form or another

For the benefit of any pedants reading - THIS IS MY OPINION AND I AM NOT CLAIMING IT AS FACT. It's an educated guess.......

mymatebob

ronben wrote: »

As said on many occassions its value for money if you use it

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I see you have a fan in magyar :rotfl:

So there we are - it can be good value, and for others it may not be.



Do I have a fan in magyar?
I thought he/she just thanked me in a post or two, just like the person who was banned thanked you - so I guess you have a fan as well.

Only a shelf stacker would have this kind of mentality

What a daft thing to say

exprog

ronben wrote: »

edit, defiant was banned, so its no good quoting him now as he is defenseless.

So defiant has been made a non-person? It's just like Trotskyites at meetings in the 70s. Say the same boring things time after time, wait for normal people to get so bored they go home, ban the remaining opposition, and then claim to be ‘Speaking for the People’. Then all sing Koombya. Anything to avoid admitting the basic fact of using other people’s money without their consent.

magyar

exprog wrote: »

So defiant has been made a non-person? It's just like Trotskyites at meetings in the 70s. Say the same boring things time after time, wait for normal people to get so bored they go home, ban the remaining opposition, and then claim to be ‘Speaking for the People’. Then all sing Koombya. Anything to avoid admitting the basic fact of using other people’s money without their consent.

Alternatively it's an idiot getting banned because they were rude, offensive, unconstructive and generally ignored the site rules.

Take your pick. :beer:

TNG

magyar wrote: »

Alternatively it's an idiot getting banned because they were rude, offensive, unconstructive and generally ignored the site rules.

Take your pick. :beer:

beat me to it.........

:T

TNG

ronben wrote: »

Thats your view, I didnt see him as any of the above,....:

really? Did you not think he insulted anyone who didn't agree with him?

mymatebob

ronben wrote: »

As I have said but been ignored all the time




It was a joke but I forgot you dont understand how smileys work, or if you took time what the reason for edit box said, maybe you should watch less TV and read a book

Well I haven't ignored it - I have commented on it several times

How do you know I don't know how smileys work? I might I might not.

And you are right we will never know why Defiant was banned. I assume he/she is on another forum somewhere - perhaps the one run by his/her 13 year old son - still ranting away.;)