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

munro's_girl

Originally Posted by rikreschem: “The only purpose of the commercial channels and Sky are to keep the great unwashed of the streets. Give them cheap booze and mindnumbing TV and they are controlled.”

Firstly, isn’t it rather patronising to imply that only those who drink wine and have a degree can appreciate what a superior product we have in the BBC? And this - from the person who later went on to say:

“Originally Posted by rikreschem: Think of life without the BBC. No Monty Python. No Goon Show. No Steptoe. No Dads Army. No Attenborough. No Paxman. No Hancock. No Clarkson. The world would be a much poorer place”

??? Y’think??? I actually live very happily without them. Monty Python, Goon Show, Steptoe – banal rubbish (IMHO) made YEARS ago! And why should I still be paying for repeat after repeat after repeat of something I abhorred 30 years ago? Paxman rude and patronising, Clarkson and his mates chuntering on about the merits of cars I will never be able to afford, or which drive at speeds I think are totally irresponsible – uh uh. And those endless hours of sport, soaps and of course that cliched and facile reality rubbish? This is BBC at its best? OMG! (I thought I’d just check out next week’s BBC viewing just to see what superior programming they are putting out this week. EVERYTHING I checked had the Post Script: ‘Very Strong Language’… Enough said.)

Originally posted by Bogart: “A global tax (like the TV licence) funds services that overall make this a better country to live in than it might be if they didn't exist.”

No, the TV License ISN’T a ‘tax’. Perhaps it is classed as that (the Government trying to hoodwink us into believing this is something absolutely necessary for the good of our country??) and many folks consider it so, but it’s NOT. It’s a License - a permit giving you the right to LEGALLY receive TV signals. Its money the Government takes off you and promptly gives to the BBC to make television programmes many people don’t even watch.

I’m at a loss to understand how making ‘Monty Python’ or ‘Love Soup’ makes Britain a better place to live! Huh??? I too have lived in or visited MANY countries in the world which don’t utilise public funding to prop up their television programming. The fact that they don’t levy License fees DOESN’T make them poorer places to live! (CBC Television programming doesn’t seem to put off huge numbers of Brits emigrating to Canada!) If paying a TV License for BBC programming is what puts the Great in Britain, well, “Heaven help us!" if the world is judging us based on the likes of ‘Monty Python’ or ‘Steptoe and Son’! I’ve been to the US many, MANY times and watched their various programme formats (cable, satellite, etc.). Okay, perhaps it isn’t everyone’s idea of perfect programming but – they ONLY PAY for their preferred format. The key word here is democratic freedom of choice!

Originally posted by Bogart: “In that way the BBC provides a global service that you can choose not to watch if you want (that is your right as a taxpayer) but that the majority of people use and enjoy.”

It is also our right as a taxpayer to get services in return. I don’t. The fact that the BBC provides ‘a global service’ doesn’t mean that the world owes the BBC. The Post Office provides a ‘global service’ but we don’t have to buy stamps if we don’t use their service! (I almost always use email now). Would you say the government should levy a ‘postage’ tax to prop up the great British (ailing) Post Office for the benefit of those that have no computer access? No, no - it’s the same thing.

Originally posted by Bogart: “Not using a public service is not an excuse for refusing to contribute to the provision of that service to others.”

Soooo…I can expect you to contribute to the paying of my Sky package then? No, I thought not. If we are to take your reasoning to its natural conclusion, Sky is providing a service to its customers, therefore, you should be helping us to enjoy what WE want to see. Ahhhh… the BBC is a ‘public’ service? Who says so?? I don’t believe it’s given me much ‘public service’… I NEVER watch it, I never listen to BBC radio and I don’t watch their news channels. I get my news through reading the national papers online, I actually like my local (commercial but still HIGH QUALITY) radio stations with news and ads that pertain to my area (yes, I really like to know where in my area I can get a plasterer or washing machine repairman or whatever), and while I LOVE Sci fi, I DO NOT love ‘Dr. Who’… Yes, not using a service IS an excuse for refusing to contribute to the provision of that service to others. This isn’t a socialist state. We should not be obliged to spend our very hard earned money paying for someone else’s entertainment. I’m going to the cinema tomorrow. I’d really appreciate your dipping your hand into your pocket and helping me out…

Originally posted by Bogart
“…Society is founded on exactly that sort of shared contribution model.”

Yes indeed. And though it’s a bit silly to suggest that the answer to the question ‘whether or not we should have to pay for a TV License’ can be based on the ideology that Society is founded on a shared contribution model, I’ll run with it. I support that model wholeheartedly when it is a question of helping provide lower income families access to services/benefits they might not otherwise be able to afford or enjoy (I pay National Insurance like everyone else and have standing orders for various charities).That 'implied contract’ is also based on the premise I too will benefit from those services should I want them. However, this is a TV service we’re talking about. Hardly the same thing and hardly a ‘shared’ contribution when YOU are the only one getting something from it while I (and many others) must contribute to it! (I can see why you refer to this ‘model’) That seems rather a one sided kind of deal! If you get something from the BBC, that’s fine. I have no trouble with that at all. But *I* don’t get anything from it. And I see no reason I should pay for the BBC service you get if you will not help me pay for my Sky package that *I* get. Fair's fair.

Originally posted by DdraigGoch: “I agree with Bogart. It is a tax on everyone who has a television because we have a publicly funded television network.”

But it is NOT a ‘tax’, it’s simply a permit we have to buy which allows us to lawfully pick up TV signals. It isn’t a ‘BBC tax’, therefore, why aren’t commercial channels given some of that money?? Again - fair’s fair!

Originally posted by Bob Vant: “One thing which gets missed in the debate about the BBC Fee is how much we pay in our shopping bills for the ads on ITV, surely? The Fee is more obvious, of course, but I watch comparatively little on ITV but don't get an opt-out at the check-out, do I?”

Well, actually yes you do! You can opt-out of buying that particular brand of product. If you're thinking Twiggy and her model cronies from ‘that department store’ ad, don't shop there. David Beckham and his body sprays? You can choose not to buy them and no one can twist your arm to do so. I can’t choose not to pay for BBC services - I'll go to jail if I don't. You get an ‘opt out’ – why shouldn’t I? Come on - fair's fair.

Originally posted by Bears1404: “4. The Office, Extras, Palin's travels, Attenborough's wildlife..........do you think any of these would have been produced by any commercial station? No, and nor would much of the other unique high quality stuff the Beeb produces. Yes, they are just as capable of producing dross, but there are always a few gems that no-one else ANYWHERE in the world would produce.”

Again, it’s all subjective. To someone they are ‘high quality gems'. I wouldn’t even turn my TV on for ‘The Office’ or ‘Extras’. To me it's just plain boring tripe. You see what I mean? (Indeed I’d like to think that no one else ANYWHERE in the world would produce these banal offerings). Having said that, once in awhile the BBC produces something worth watching (can’t think of anything offhand but I’m sure I remember watching something on BBC once. Could have been a ‘Horizon’ thing…). Okay, why not apply ‘pay per view’?? Then those who want BBC offerings can sign up for it, while those that don’t want it wouldn’t feel they were being robbed. Everybody would be happy…

Personally I REALLY don’t like a great deal of what the BBC produces and I grudge every penny I have to pay to subsidise their rubbish. But more, I get so angry when those who choose to watch the BBC see it as their RIGHT to have their entertainment paid for them! So much for ‘democracy at work’…

(Not meaning to make this a personal attack on anyone. Simply trying to address comments made...)

paulderedon

I am not disputing the quallity of the BBC. I just can't see why I should have to pay £135 just to watch a few travel and documentary channels (all on SKY) and if I don't I get sent to jail. I only watch about 2 hours a week of TV.

In Australia and also In NZ people just stopped paying and the governments had to abolish it. We should do that and those that want to, should pay by subscription to the BBC.

bunking_off

paulderedon wrote: »

I am not disputing the quallity of the BBC. I just can't see why I should have to pay £135 just to watch a few travel and documentary channels (all on SKY) and if I don't I get sent to jail. I only watch about 2 hours a week of TV.

I don't have any kids but I still need to pay taxes to fund education (and a lot more than £135/yr). I've got a job, have never been unemployed but still have to fund the benefits system. I've got a company pension but my taxes fund the pensions of those who didn't.

I wash my clothes in Aerial and via the advertising that P&G/Unilever place on ITV, I fund those channels whether I'm watching the dross on them or not.

Sometimes in life we have to accept that collective funding means you're paying for something you don't personally take advantage of.

My only gripe with the license fee is that the inefficient means of collecting the tax must be adding to the level of it.

PLB20

No, I dont think that we should all have to pay the £135.50 as most homes pay for cable tv on top of this. But saying that my mother in law lives with us and from next year, when she reaches 75, we will no longer need to pay!!

[Deleted User]

mute_posting wrote: »

Closer to £12 a month now.

If the gov really want's to protect low income households they sould do away with TVL and levy it via pay-tv providers (Sky, virgin etc) because then richer people in society (i.e. those that can afford to spend £40 a month on pay-tv wound still only be paying £52 a month, including the £12ish that they currently pay seperately to TVL) and the lower income families wouldn't be hit with the tax.

<runs for cover>

I'm going to be picky and argue £11 per month (11 x 12 = £132)

Well I can afford Sky, virgin, etc. but choose not to because I actually want to do something different with my evenings than watch dross. But you may have a point .... Those who can afford Pay TV can afford the TVL; those who don't want pay tv (like me) can just buy the TVL, and maybe those on very low incomes could get a free TVL?

Something to think about ....

[Deleted User]

bunking_off wrote: »

I don't have any kids but I still need to pay taxes to fund education (and a lot more than £135/yr). I've got a job, have never been unemployed but still have to fund the benefits system. I've got a company pension but my taxes fund the pensions of those who didn't.

I wash my clothes in Aerial and via the advertising that P&G/Unilever place on ITV, I fund those channels whether I'm watching the dross on them or not.

Sometimes in life we have to accept that collective funding means you're paying for something you don't personally take advantage of.

Well said!

Freddie_Snowbits

The problem with the Televisions Tax, is that it is a regressive tax, and bears no resemblance to yor income, as does the Council Tax. BBC now shows discrete advertising, such as the London Sports Writers dinner is now supported( SPONSORED!) by a fruit juice as Sports Personality of the the Year.

One shall remember at the newsagent tomorrow, when taking the Guardian I do not need to pay for the Sun, nor if I take the Express, do I pay for the Mail

mute_posting

Corona wrote: »

I'm going to be picky and argue £11 per month (11 x 12 = £132)
....

TVL is just shy of £140 / year now so comes out at £11.63 / month (or equivilent of £12.04 /month if you pay quarterly)

ian9outof10

I have to say, I'm amazed by some people. To the person who claimed he could live with Dave, where exactly is it that you think Dave gets all of its programmes from? And UK TV. If it wasn't for the BBC, these channels everyone falls over themselves to pay Murdoch for twice (ads and subscriptions) wouldn't have anything to show.

Sure, the BBC has its flaws, and there are many people that don't make as much use of it as they could do but it's still a great british institution that, like so many of the other ones, we fail to appreciate. Until it's been destroyed and we're left with a commercialised shell.

The BBC provides so much, and most of it is actually quite high value. And I am certain, that without it, broadcasting in this country would go down the toilet, not long after we hand Murdoch the keys to the whole industry. Funding through tax is not an option, because it would ruin the impartiality of the organisation too.

I'll gladly pay £139 a year for TV news that has nothing to do with Murdoch. Take a look at his US news TV operation, FOX News. A station that laughably describes itself as "Fair and Balanced" which it fails to be on a daily basis. Opinion and news on the Fox News channel are impossible to diferentiate from one another.

It's also worth pointing out to you licence fee haters that the UK is not the only country that has a licence fee, and most of Europe has a similar system in place. In Germany its €204 a year for TV and radio, in Austria it's a little more between €200 and €300. Sweden has a fee of €200 in Switzerland you have to pay €300. In some of these countries, there are also adverts (Iceland has a fee of €346 and still shows ads.)

If we god rid of the licence fee tomorrow, I'm sure everyone would be stroking their wallets with joy. And then, a few years later lamenting the loss of all TV choice in the UK. For a start, Channel 4 would no longer see the need (or be able to fund) it's excellent documentaries. C4 is already having terrible cash problems, because it quite simply can't make money on it's public service content. If the BBC goes, no broadcaster is going to waste time and money on documentaries. They'll just buy them in cheap from the US and re-dub them.

You might not view the BBC as worthwhile, but I promise you, if it went away, you'd miss it and complain about how "we used to have stuff to watch that wasn't made in America and we could believe the news was impartial"

mute_posting

mute_posting wrote: »

But where does it say that - I can't find any mention anywhere

I can understand Car tax only running for whole months because it makes evaders easier to spot because all the current months discs are one colour.

Also if it is the case I'm surprised Martin advised to buy before the price went up if basically you are saving £4 but forfeiting £11.50 becasue you loose the month's benefit as somebody said earlier.

I have my answer from the thieving stewards of the bar...

Thank you for contacting us.

Television licences are issued subject to terms and conditions laid down by the Licensing Authority. New licences are always dated to expire twelve months from the first day of the month in which they were bought. When renewed, the original expiry date is retained. This can mean that the first licence may run for less than twelve months.

This system of dating is used so that licences expire on one of twelve monthly dates rather than on any day of the year. To operate a system of 365 possible expiry dates would be very costly in terms of administration and enforcement. By keeping the system as simple as possible, administration costs are kept to a minimum and have little effect on the level of the licence fee.

I can understand your disappointment but I must confirm that there are no plans to change this system.

Yours sincerely

Karen Mcallister
TV Licensing

and my response

Then why on earth isn't this made clear on the website when it is
clear that a customer is buying a NEW licence?

Me thinks that they like to keep that little nugget of information well hidden :mad:

And what a load of tosh about "To operate a system of 365 possible expiry dates would be very costly in terms of administration and enforcement" all it means is that the distribution of the enforcement letters is spread throughout the month