Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped." I suppose it depends whether you want to watch BBC or use any of it's online services If it were to change to subscription for example then it's almost certain to be more expensive, probably considerably. I'm not a fan of the licence fee as I don't really watch TV but over the years the BBC funding has helped advance technology and keep other subscription services prices down. Nothing is for nothing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. We cannot think of any piece of technology BBC funding has gone to.in the last 30 years. Likewise, their news coverage is from the same point of view as Sky, Mirror, and Daily Mail on many issues. They had good shows until after the late 90s but anything new they do these days is socio-political propaganda or outright tosh. Let them go subscription and survive on their own merits. Oh, and Jimmy Savile...." They brought computers to schools. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. We cannot think of any piece of technology BBC funding has gone to.in the last 30 years. Likewise, their news coverage is from the same point of view as Sky, Mirror, and Daily Mail on many issues. They had good shows until after the late 90s but anything new they do these days is socio-political propaganda or outright tosh. Let them go subscription and survive on their own merits. Oh, and Jimmy Savile...." My thoughts exactly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity." And they have to do all that on a mere £5,000,000000 a year.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. And they have to do all that on a mere £5,000,000000 a year. "And...? £5bn is not actually a lot in comparison to what they are required to do. For context Netflix made $5bn in net profit in 2021. ITV revenue was £3.8bn. In the UK the BBC still dominates viewing figures by some margin. Personally I think it is great value and still makes some of the best and most diverse programming in the World without being interrupted by adverts (and before you say “streaming services” there are plenty still forcing you to consume advertising). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service." I've often wondered what sailors got up to on Doggerbank.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. And they have to do all that on a mere £5,000,000000 a year.
And...?
£5bn is not actually a lot in comparison to what they are required to do.
For context Netflix made $5bn in net profit in 2021.
ITV revenue was £3.8bn.
In the UK the BBC still dominates viewing figures by some margin.
Personally I think it is great value and still makes some of the best and most diverse programming in the World without being interrupted by adverts (and before you say “streaming services” there are plenty still forcing you to consume advertising). "I have mixed views on this, but tend towards retaining the present arrangements. They do make some of the best documentary shows in the world. Blue Planet is awesome. Their sporting coverage is superior to ITVs as the World Cup has demonstrated. Their news and reporting is poor, especially the political stuff because they are hopelessly biased. Most of their London employees live in and around Islington and North London and form part of the metropolitan elite. I have never seen so many shocked and startled faces when the Brexit vote came in. And of course, because London has had a bit of snow this week, we've all had to hear about it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity." All very good points and don’t forget the world listens to the BBC for those very reasons. It is the only world influence we have left . It does an amazing job both here and abroad. Maybe do away with the licence fee and add it to income tax spend so the amount disappears. Absolute madness to lose it. For three pound a week it’s a bargain too . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped." I would be sad to see it go as enjoy what they make, mostly. I do however understand others point of view that are not keen on the BBC but having to pay for it anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. All very good points and don’t forget the world listens to the BBC for those very reasons. It is the only world influence we have left . It does an amazing job both here and abroad. Maybe do away with the licence fee and add it to income tax spend so the amount disappears. Absolute madness to lose it. For three pound a week it’s a bargain too . " Omfg I really can't believe what you have wrote.... Without being offensive, could I suggest you get your head out of the sand? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 13/12/22 23:58:25]" Yes or it should be subscription. If I could buy a television without BBC on it, I would. However I've never paid for a tv licence. They always send letters threatening to visit, but they never do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They brought computers to schools." 41 years ago the BBC Micro was provided to schools. Nothing of any worth since. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service." You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They brought computers to schools. 41 years ago the BBC Micro was provided to schools. Nothing of any worth since." https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/learning/primary/all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't paid for years,and told them point blank that I absolutely refuse to fund an pedophile protecting, Establishment propaganda machine.." I don't believe you told them this point blank and they simply left you alone... The licence is for owning a TV or a piece of equipment that allows you to watch live tv, that includes anything that was broadcast live and is being watched on catch up. The money goes to fund the BBC, it is a huge organisation and like any organisation that employs thousands of people it will have a bad one or 2 amongst the workforce. I hope you are taking the same stance with every business or service that requires your cash, do you vet them all before parting with your hard earned? Or is this your way of justifying your non payment, a little like people who throw litter on the ground and say it keeps someone in a job. Well done an evading the tax  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. All very good points and don’t forget the world listens to the BBC for those very reasons. It is the only world influence we have left . It does an amazing job both here and abroad. Maybe do away with the licence fee and add it to income tax spend so the amount disappears. Absolute madness to lose it. For three pound a week it’s a bargain too . " If funding for the BBC was subsumed into direct taxation you would soon see that money cease being ringfenced and used for funding the BBC (much like National Insurance). Need to maintain the TV license. If people can honestly say they do not consume any output from the BBC then they need to prove it. So car and home radios will need to have BBC channels (national and local) disabled. TVs will need to only be enabled to watch BBC by entering licence number. Same for accessing any BBC website. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. All very good points and don’t forget the world listens to the BBC for those very reasons. It is the only world influence we have left . It does an amazing job both here and abroad. Maybe do away with the licence fee and add it to income tax spend so the amount disappears. Absolute madness to lose it. For three pound a week it’s a bargain too . Omfg I really can't believe what you have wrote.... Without being offensive, could I suggest you get your head out of the sand?" Good you don’t want to be offensive . Should I be pleased with that statement? Maybe you should travel a bit and see who takes notice around the world. As for all the jimmy saville stuff on here. I agree find the bastards and put them in prison for a very long time. . But if a work colleague of yours was a pervert should you lose your job? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I like the BBC it is a world beating and much admired organisation. But I would not choose to pay for them, not because of the past scandals, but because there is no longer a need for us to fund the BEEB. The BEEB have commercial companies that make massive profits on top of the license fee, BBC Amercia, Gold and other channels on Freeview. Example, Last of the Summer Wine, funded by fee payers, shown on gold and other commercial channels making the BEEB a profit. The new license fee will be like France an added fee on the council tax bill, or added to your internet bill. Go figure." That is because the cost of producing high quality content and providing services with very limited commercial application is NOT fully met by the TV Licence. They supplement licence income with commercial income. Surely that is a great model to adopt for public sector organisations? It reduces/subsidises tax payer funded activity! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we should not be forced to pay some people do not have the money ." Which public services should you not pay for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if it was a public service it would come from my income tax like all the public services." You need to read the thread. The BBC is a public service. The funding model is deliberately kept separate from general taxation. Same as Road Tax (or aren’t roads a public service?) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if it was a public service it would come from my income tax like all the public services." do you pay your council tax, that pays for a number of public services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ho if you do have a car the still have pay road tax ." If you don’t have a motor vehicle you don’t have to pay road tax. If you do not consume BBC material then you do not have to pay for a TV licence. However, proving that is more difficult (read the thread). People who can prove they only consume other streaming services (ie no TV aerial and via the internet) do not have to pay for a licence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"o k we have different opinions wishing you happy Christmas ." Just stating facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"me to you are good at arguments but not as good has me "I have zero idea what you just said? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV "What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence "Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you need a TV Licence to watch Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime, Now TV & other streaming services? If you watch or record TV on any channel via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, Freeview, Freesat), you need to be covered by a TV Licence. If you watch live on streaming services (e.g. ITVX, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now, Sky Go), or use BBC iPlayer*, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence if you never watch live on any channel, TV service or streaming service, or use BBC iPlayer*. On any device. *A licence is not needed to watch S4C programmes on demand." You have only quoted the part on LIVE TV... “You don’t need a TV Licence to watch on demand programmes on Netflix.” “If you’re watching TV showing live on Amazon Prime, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence if you’re only watching on demand programmes on Amazon Prime.” ETC | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You have only quoted the part on LIVE TV... “You don’t need a TV Licence to watch on demand programmes on Netflix.” “If you’re watching TV showing live on Amazon Prime, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence if you’re only watching on demand programmes on Amazon Prime.” ETC" Yep | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?"4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all."Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?"The TV was given to my brother from oure nan for his bedroom, then when he got a coloured one it came to me. I was probably about 12 when I got it. I got use to monochrome and still like it. Don't realy watch much TV more a radio person. So have kept it. Not had to have it repaired for about 20 years.. I probably Watch about 4 hours a month at most. And as its in the man cave/studio its classed as a separate building so needs it own licence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?"So how come you have monochrome photos when most are colour.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?
So how come you have monochrome photos when most are colour. "Lol. Arty innit! Tell you what, that TV was well made and if it was a present from Nan then hope it keeps going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?
So how come you have monochrome photos when most are colour.
Lol. Arty innit! Tell you what, that TV was well made and if it was a present from Nan then hope it keeps going."Yer it's just a difernt look on contrast rather then colour bit like a pen drawing or pencil sketch makes you realy look. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?
So how come you have monochrome photos when most are colour.
Lol. Arty innit! Tell you what, that TV was well made and if it was a present from Nan then hope it keeps going."to be honest my parents have a b w TV as a spare dad puts it on every so often to check I'm 52 and can remember watching it at my nans | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service. The funding model is deliberately kept separate from general taxation. Same as Road Tax (or aren’t roads a public service?)" Bad example I'm afraid. Road Tax was abolished in 1937. Since then we've been paying a vehicle tax, and the funds are not ring-fenced for road building, they go straight into the general coffers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Spain we don't have a TV license. However in Germany it is completely different. Not only do you need a TV license but they still have a radio licence. And that means for your car radio as well. One license does not cover all. Our business has 7 cars on the road and we pay for every one, but many firms remove or disable the radios so they don't have to pay." The German Rundfunkbeitrag (Broadcasting Tax) is payable by each household if you have a TV, a radio, or an internet connection. It's currently €18.36 per month, and that covers a household, including any cars they may have. Companies have to pay per installation, so each vehicle will be taxed separately. Just like the TV licence, all of the rundfunkbeitrag funds go to pay for national TV and radio broadcasters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?"Not really bizarre. I'm 10 years (ish) older than 54 and I remember B/W very well. As a child I can even remember when we had a TV that you could switch from 405 to 625 lines, a Phillips if I remember correctly. Bet not many remember that. Anyway back to the point. I remember we first got colour in 1970/71 but I had a B/W portable in my bedroom well into the late 70's. So they would have been still around for someone 10 years younger than me to remember. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour." I'm nearly 54, but I very much remember watching B&W TV. We didn't get a colour telly till I was in my teens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV
What on my black and white set I have kept it as it's a cheaper licence
Of course you have. In 2022? When was the last B&W TV even made? How many channels can you access on that TV?
4 and it has push buttons but the bottom on has no lable
Jooking had to get a box for it to carry on working. So get them all.
Bizarre! You are 54. There is no way you can remember TV broadcast in B&W so you have only known colour. You will remember there being only three channels and the launch of C4. If you bought a box to keep it working why not just buy a new TV?
So how come you have monochrome photos when most are colour.
Lol. Arty innit! Tell you what, that TV was well made and if it was a present from Nan then hope it keeps going.to be honest my parents have a b w TV as a spare dad puts it on every so often to check I'm 52 and can remember watching it at my nans "B&W with a digital tuner  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service. The funding model is deliberately kept separate from general taxation. Same as Road Tax (or aren’t roads a public service?) Bad example I'm afraid. Road Tax was abolished in 1937. Since then we've been paying a vehicle tax, and the funds are not ring-fenced for road building, they go straight into the general coffers." Pedant! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service. The funding model is deliberately kept separate from general taxation. Same as Road Tax (or aren’t roads a public service?)" "Bad example I'm afraid. Road Tax was abolished in 1937. Since then we've been paying a vehicle tax, and the funds are not ring-fenced for road building, they go straight into the general coffers." "Pedant! " Who told you my middle name? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service. The funding model is deliberately kept separate from general taxation. Same as Road Tax (or aren’t roads a public service?) Bad example I'm afraid. Road Tax was abolished in 1937. Since then we've been paying a vehicle tax, and the funds are not ring-fenced for road building, they go straight into the general coffers. Pedant! Who told you my middle name? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't paid for years,and told them point blank that I absolutely refuse to fund an pedophile protecting, Establishment propaganda machine.. I don't believe you told them this point blank and they simply left you alone... The licence is for owning a TV or a piece of equipment that allows you to watch live tv, that includes anything that was broadcast live and is being watched on catch up. The money goes to fund the BBC, it is a huge organisation and like any organisation that employs thousands of people it will have a bad one or 2 amongst the workforce. I hope you are taking the same stance with every business or service that requires your cash, do you vet them all before parting with your hard earned? Or is this your way of justifying your non payment, a little like people who throw litter on the ground and say it keeps someone in a job. Well done an evading the tax "You should make sure your facts are correct before you make pathetic assumptions, especially with calling people tax evaders.. You DO NOT need a licence to own a TV or piece of equipment capable of transmitting programs.. You need a licence if you watch or record LIVE TV or watch or download any BBC programs on iplayer.. As I don't do any of the above I DON'T need one.. Pmsl | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. All very good points and don’t forget the world listens to the BBC for those very reasons. It is the only world influence we have left . It does an amazing job both here and abroad. Maybe do away with the licence fee and add it to income tax spend so the amount disappears. Absolute madness to lose it. For three pound a week it’s a bargain too . Omfg I really can't believe what you have wrote.... Without being offensive, could I suggest you get your head out of the sand? Good you don’t want to be offensive . Should I be pleased with that statement? Maybe you should travel a bit and see who takes notice around the world. As for all the jimmy saville stuff on here. I agree find the bastards and put them in prison for a very long time. . But if a work colleague of yours was a pervert should you lose your job? " Perhaps you should travel a bit and speak to the right people to get their views of the BBC ,try the people of Iraq,Syria,Libya, Afghanistan etc etc etc.. Look up ex British diplomat Craig Murray and read his blog where he tells it how it is..God there's some boot lickers on here..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped." . The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . " Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people?" How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma?" Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people?" Oh it was definitely an opinion,all be it fake that was forced on people via broardcast.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped." Yes. It's ludicrous in this day and age having a state sponsored tv channel. Where are we,the old soviet block? Make em commercial. If they fail wgaf??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people? Oh it was definitely an opinion,all be it fake that was forced on people via broardcast.." So you're saying this misreporting is an opinion forced down on people? That doesn't really seem to be an opinion, or forced. Surely everywhere misreports the news on occasion. I'm interested in what actual opinions have been forced on people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people? Oh it was definitely an opinion,all be it fake that was forced on people via broardcast.. So you're saying this misreporting is an opinion forced down on people? That doesn't really seem to be an opinion, or forced. Surely everywhere misreports the news on occasion. I'm interested in what actual opinions have been forced on people." The BBC is and always has been the mouth piece of the UK Government. What is the general consensus (opinion) of the British Goverment regarding Assad and Syria? A nasty vile regime right? For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack and then broadcast this to the masses, do you not think this is forcing an official opinion/concensus on people? because I do ! Only this time they had to admit it was false.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people? Oh it was definitely an opinion,all be it fake that was forced on people via broardcast.. So you're saying this misreporting is an opinion forced down on people? That doesn't really seem to be an opinion, or forced. Surely everywhere misreports the news on occasion. I'm interested in what actual opinions have been forced on people. The BBC is and always has been the mouth piece of the UK Government. What is the general consensus (opinion) of the British Goverment regarding Assad and Syria? A nasty vile regime right? For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack and then broadcast this to the masses, do you not think this is forcing an official opinion/concensus on people? because I do ! Only this time they had to admit it was false.." Erm..... "For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack"...... Just strayed firmly into conspiracy theory nonsense right here. Aside from that, you appear to be saying that they reported a story, that turned out not to be true, and they then corrected the mistake. I don't see this as forcing an opinion on anyone. You could argue a lot of things about the BBC. But I'm interested in what opinions are being forced on people, as was specifically mentioned by the other guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people? Oh it was definitely an opinion,all be it fake that was forced on people via broardcast.. So you're saying this misreporting is an opinion forced down on people? That doesn't really seem to be an opinion, or forced. Surely everywhere misreports the news on occasion. I'm interested in what actual opinions have been forced on people. The BBC is and always has been the mouth piece of the UK Government. What is the general consensus (opinion) of the British Goverment regarding Assad and Syria? A nasty vile regime right? For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack and then broadcast this to the masses, do you not think this is forcing an official opinion/concensus on people? because I do ! Only this time they had to admit it was false.. Erm..... "For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack"...... Just strayed firmly into conspiracy theory nonsense right here. Aside from that, you appear to be saying that they reported a story, that turned out not to be true, and they then corrected the mistake. I don't see this as forcing an opinion on anyone. You could argue a lot of things about the BBC. But I'm interested in what opinions are being forced on people, as was specifically mentioned by the other guy. " Wow ' conspiracy theory nonsense right here'? Perhaps before you make such a dismissive statement you should have check it out..The BBC officially apologised for it you clown.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should the BBC Licence be scrapped.. The sooner the better. It is totally unacceptable that the BBC should force their opinions on othe people. With advances in technology only those with a licence should be allowed to watch it . Anyone else can subscribe to one of the pay services should they wish . It will be great news for some when the BBC is either abolished or licences are no longer compulsory . I have to buy six licences a year including one abroad . It is simply a waste of money . There are many channels which are far more deserving . Do you have an example of an opinion the BBC has forced on people? How about when they tried to spread a manufactured narrative against the Syrian Government when they staged a fake chemical attack in Douma? Is this an opinion, and was it forced on people? Oh it was definitely an opinion,all be it fake that was forced on people via broardcast.. So you're saying this misreporting is an opinion forced down on people? That doesn't really seem to be an opinion, or forced. Surely everywhere misreports the news on occasion. I'm interested in what actual opinions have been forced on people. The BBC is and always has been the mouth piece of the UK Government. What is the general consensus (opinion) of the British Goverment regarding Assad and Syria? A nasty vile regime right? For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack and then broadcast this to the masses, do you not think this is forcing an official opinion/concensus on people? because I do ! Only this time they had to admit it was false.. Erm..... "For the BBC to stage a fake chemical attack"...... Just strayed firmly into conspiracy theory nonsense right here. Aside from that, you appear to be saying that they reported a story, that turned out not to be true, and they then corrected the mistake. I don't see this as forcing an opinion on anyone. You could argue a lot of things about the BBC. But I'm interested in what opinions are being forced on people, as was specifically mentioned by the other guy. Wow ' conspiracy theory nonsense right here'? Perhaps before you make such a dismissive statement you should have check it out..The BBC officially apologised for it you clown.." The BBC apologised for staging a chemical attack in Syria? Do you have a link. No need to get personal about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ho if you do have a car the still have pay road tax . If you don’t have a motor vehicle you don’t have to pay road tax. If you do not consume BBC material then you do not have to pay for a TV licence. However, proving that is more difficult (read the thread). People who can prove they only consume other streaming services (ie no TV aerial and via the internet) do not have to pay for a licence." You do not have to prove you don't need a TV Licence. Not having a licence when you need one is a criminal offence, it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have broken the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. All very good points and don’t forget the world listens to the BBC for those very reasons. It is the only world influence we have left . It does an amazing job both here and abroad. Maybe do away with the licence fee and add it to income tax spend so the amount disappears. Absolute madness to lose it. For three pound a week it’s a bargain too . Omfg I really can't believe what you have wrote.... Without being offensive, could I suggest you get your head out of the sand? Good you don’t want to be offensive . Should I be pleased with that statement? Maybe you should travel a bit and see who takes notice around the world. As for all the jimmy saville stuff on here. I agree find the bastards and put them in prison for a very long time. . But if a work colleague of yours was a pervert should you lose your job? Perhaps you should travel a bit and speak to the right people to get their views of the BBC ,try the people of Iraq,Syria,Libya, Afghanistan etc etc etc.. Look up ex British diplomat Craig Murray and read his blog where he tells it how it is..God there's some boot lickers on here.. "Now I’m a boot licker hmm you’re so full of yourself and rude. I can list loads of faults with the BBC and also with hundreds of other large organisations but that doesn’t mean it should be abolished. If you want it to dumb down to the likes of Netflix or prime then that’s your choice . Fortunately so far there have been enough people who can think a little deeper for the overall benefit. A bit like Brexit being great if you want a blue passport so you’ll be happy . The economy being unnecessarily damaged is much worse if you can bring yourself to see the bigger more complicated picture. Oh and I do travel a lot and so have seen for myself it’s good and bad points. Like the NHS the people at the top need to be more accountable. Otherwise both those at the top of the BBC and the NHS will continue to pour money down the drain but mostly downs it on themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't paid for years,and told them point blank that I absolutely refuse to fund an pedophile protecting, Establishment propaganda machine.. I don't believe you told them this point blank and they simply left you alone... The licence is for owning a TV or a piece of equipment that allows you to watch live tv, that includes anything that was broadcast live and is being watched on catch up. The money goes to fund the BBC, it is a huge organisation and like any organisation that employs thousands of people it will have a bad one or 2 amongst the workforce. I hope you are taking the same stance with every business or service that requires your cash, do you vet them all before parting with your hard earned? Or is this your way of justifying your non payment, a little like people who throw litter on the ground and say it keeps someone in a job. Well done an evading the tax
You should make sure your facts are correct before you make pathetic assumptions, especially with calling people tax evaders..
You DO NOT need a licence to own a TV or piece of equipment capable of transmitting programs..
You need a licence if you watch or record LIVE TV or watch or download any BBC programs on iplayer..
As I don't do any of the above I DON'T need one.. Pmsl"Top of the class stuff | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't paid for years,and told them point blank that I absolutely refuse to fund an pedophile protecting, Establishment propaganda machine.. I don't believe you told them this point blank and they simply left you alone... The licence is for owning a TV or a piece of equipment that allows you to watch live tv, that includes anything that was broadcast live and is being watched on catch up. The money goes to fund the BBC, it is a huge organisation and like any organisation that employs thousands of people it will have a bad one or 2 amongst the workforce. I hope you are taking the same stance with every business or service that requires your cash, do you vet them all before parting with your hard earned? Or is this your way of justifying your non payment, a little like people who throw litter on the ground and say it keeps someone in a job. Well done an evading the tax
You should make sure your facts are correct before you make pathetic assumptions, especially with calling people tax evaders..
You DO NOT need a licence to own a TV or piece of equipment capable of transmitting programs..
You need a licence if you watch or record LIVE TV or watch or download any BBC programs on iplayer..
As I don't do any of the above I DON'T need one.. Pmsl
Top of the class stuff "Quick question. Has anybody had the boys from Netflix round threatening legal action if you don't subscribe to their service? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it is time for the BBC to change its model, I am thinking subscription like BBC America, the Iplayer is also a subscription model abroad, and it is highly thought of and valued abroad. But that firstly came out of public funds, plus product placement, is also a subject for debate, and an argument for ending the license fee. But what I am reading is the fee will be put on our internet bill as in other countries." I sincerely hope not. I didn't get the internet in order to watch television, nor do I want to watch television, full stop. If this were to be implemented I would demand blocking of BBC sites in return for not being charged speculatively. The only fair way to pay for it would be by metering. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes scrap it add averts so I can have a pee during a film. The only good thing's are shipping and World service. You know there us technology now that lets you pause live TV "Is there. Fuck me, Paul's been wearing BBC incontinence knickers for years everytime we watch a documentary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I never watch bbc so why should I be hounded with letters to pay for it. " I put them back in the post, marked "Unsolicited Nuisance Mail - Return to DL98 8AT" Must have been hundreds over the years but they still don't get the message where I am concerned. I don't doubt that they believe that statistically most unlicensed premises are evaders but they can never know. What pisses me off is is that their hollow threat to visit doesn't materialise. If it did I would bend their ear at length on the doorstep about all the ins and outs and whys and wherefores of so called licensing without telling the main reason why I don't need a licence! Ironically I hold three different Wireless Telegraphy (the 'Act' they like to ride on) Licenses for my address and beyond including at sea, none of which cost me anything to renew any more. Furthermore I know what Wireless Telegraphy means and actually use it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The licence fee needs to be modified a one standard fee is unfair if you do not use the iPlayer services which is funded by the licence fee and surely does increase the fee above a standard licence to watch live tv. " If it is going to be chargeable the only fair way is on usage. Per person viewing. Not by set. Not by household. Like the poll tax should have done! 'Getting my flak jacket) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The licence fee needs to be modified a one standard fee is unfair if you do not use the iPlayer services which is funded by the licence fee and surely does increase the fee above a standard licence to watch live tv. If it is going to be chargeable the only fair way is on usage. Per person viewing. Not by set. Not by household. Like the poll tax should have done! 'Getting my flak jacket)" There used to be a black and white licence and colour licence something like that could work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There used to be a black and white licence and colour licence something like that could work." That was just a concession to allow the really genuinely poor to avoid prosecution if the investigators happened to be in a good mood! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There used to be a black and white licence and colour licence something like that could work. That was just a concession to allow the really genuinely poor to avoid prosecution if the investigators happened to be in a good mood!" But still, they the poor were paying something in the form of a licence fee and infringements were for the wrong licence and not for non payment of the fee which the thousands of infringements this year were for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it is time for the BBC to change its model, I am thinking subscription like BBC America, the Iplayer is also a subscription model abroad, and it is highly thought of and valued abroad. But that firstly came out of public funds, plus product placement, is also a subject for debate, and an argument for ending the license fee. But what I am reading is the fee will be put on our internet bill as in other countries. I sincerely hope not. I didn't get the internet in order to watch television, nor do I want to watch television, full stop. If this were to be implemented I would demand blocking of BBC sites in return for not being charged speculatively. The only fair way to pay for it would be by metering." Thats is one of the suggestions as Spain and Germany use that model, but personally I think the beeb should go subscription, but that would make them independent. A couple of years ago I was watching the golden globes awards live from the USA and a programme called killing eve was winning most of the awards, Sandra Oh won best actress and thanked all the English viewers who had voted for the show. At the time I thought killing eve was American programming, I was shocked to learn it was the beeb made with our cash, shown behind a paywall in America one year before it was shown here, and the English viewers who had voted saw it on a device called a koi box, yeh the license model needs to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only fair way to pay for it would be by metering." I disagree. The model used in Germany (Der Runkfunkbeitrag), of a monthly fee on internet connections is the only fair way. The BBC should be funded by all of us, so that it can produce all of the minority stuff that is so important. Like Welsh language programs, and local radio, and national arts and culture radio, and the world service. Those things are important ways to include everyone and make us all feel part of one nation. They should be scrapping all the popular stuff, like almost everything on BBC1, which would be better done by commercial stations. They should drop radio 1 and 2 for the same reasons. The BBC is like libraries, even if you don't use them, they're important and should be paid for by all of us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only fair way to pay for it would be by metering. I disagree. The model used in Germany (Der Runkfunkbeitrag), of a monthly fee on internet connections is the only fair way. The BBC should be funded by all of us, so that it can produce all of the minority stuff that is so important. Like Welsh language programs, and local radio, and national arts and culture radio, and the world service. Those things are important ways to include everyone and make us all feel part of one nation. They should be scrapping all the popular stuff, like almost everything on BBC1, which would be better done by commercial stations. They should drop radio 1 and 2 for the same reasons. The BBC is like libraries, even if you don't use them, they're important and should be paid for by all of us." I did mention a levy on the internet as in other countries, I also read that one country puts the fee on the electric bill ha. not sure how it would work for those who do not watch the beeb. And yes the beeb is important and to my surprise the beeb is loved and seen as a great broadcaster all over the world, and yes they pay more for the beeb than us. But they choose to, I also heard if the beeb went subscription they could be referred to the monopolies commission, as they are a threat to net flicks and the like. so the answer won't be easy. I think if I wasn't forced or have the feeling of, then id gladly pay as it has so much content. , much more than the others | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it is time for the BBC to change its model, I am thinking subscription like BBC America, the Iplayer is also a subscription model abroad, and it is highly thought of and valued abroad. But that firstly came out of public funds, plus product placement, is also a subject for debate, and an argument for ending the license fee. But what I am reading is the fee will be put on our internet bill as in other countries. I sincerely hope not. I didn't get the internet in order to watch television, nor do I want to watch television, full stop. If this were to be implemented I would demand blocking of BBC sites in return for not being charged speculatively. The only fair way to pay for it would be by metering. Thats is one of the suggestions as Spain and Germany use that model, but personally I think the beeb should go subscription, but that would make them independent. A couple of years ago I was watching the golden globes awards live from the USA and a programme called killing eve was winning most of the awards, Sandra Oh won best actress and thanked all the English viewers who had voted for the show. At the time I thought killing eve was American programming, I was shocked to learn it was the beeb made with our cash, shown behind a paywall in America one year before it was shown here, and the English viewers who had voted saw it on a device called a koi box, yeh the license model needs to change." That pay wall subsidises the costs of the BBC so reducing what would be a more expensive licence fee. The fact that other countries are willing to pay to see bbc content shows how bad their own stuff must be. The world sales of BBC output is a positive thing financially for licence payers in this country. We don’t want an independent BBC because that leaves it open to be bought by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and then he will be able to tell you what he wants you to know not the true picture. A powerful media independent of government or financial institutions is by far the best outcome. It’s not perfect I agree but it’s miles better than most country’s state TV. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair we should get a refund for December as programming was diabolical " I couldn't possibly comment on the quality of their programming as I don't have a TV licence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has TV licencing people ever turned up at anyones door ?" In the past 15 years I've had 2 visits from TV enforcement officers (Door to door salesmen). Once they told me where they were from it was a quick "No thank you" from me then close the door. So no drama needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has TV licencing people ever turned up at anyones door ? In the past 15 years I've had 2 visits from TV enforcement officers (Door to door salesmen). Once they told me where they were from it was a quick "No thank you" from me then close the door. So no drama needed. " They keep sending me letters but haven't turned up yet. I will refuse them entry. However I've heard they can turn up with police. So I've seen on YouTube. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has TV licencing people ever turned up at anyones door ? In the past 15 years I've had 2 visits from TV enforcement officers (Door to door salesmen). Once they told me where they were from it was a quick "No thank you" from me then close the door. So no drama needed. They keep sending me letters but haven't turned up yet. I will refuse them entry. However I've heard they can turn up with police. So I've seen on YouTube." The only way they can turn up with the police is if the have got a searcher warrant from a Justice of the peace and you do have to let them in. They will have needed to show the JP evidence that a device is likeably being used illegally. How would they get that evidence. (1) TV detector vans? (no evidence has ever been used in court from these vans) (2) Tripping yourself up by saying something to an Licencing office on a previous visit. (3) Lying to a Licencing officer like telling him you don't have any devices capable of watching or recording live or iplayer programming. (you do own a smart phone don't you).
So if you don't talk to them, or let them in that's the end of their investigation. Now I do certain things to my TVs to guard against a visit with a warrant for extra protection. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. And they have to do all that on a mere £5,000,000000 a year.
And...?
£5bn is not actually a lot in comparison to what they are required to do.
For context Netflix made $5bn in net profit in 2021.
ITV revenue was £3.8bn.
In the UK the BBC still dominates viewing figures by some margin.
Personally I think it is great value and still makes some of the best and most diverse programming in the World without being interrupted by adverts (and before you say “streaming services” there are plenty still forcing you to consume advertising). "................................ Totally agree
The alternative to the BBC are organisations driven purely by commercial interests and programming designed to attract the most numbers of viewers (from the advertisers perspective).
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody actually addresses the specific remit of the BBC when they raise the license fee. The BBC do not only have a few TV channels carrying entertainment YOU may choose not to watch. - They are required to have a Parliament channel - They are required to have local radio stations in all counties - They are required to provide a worldservice (TV and radio) - They are required to provide Welsh language programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to invest in regional programming on TV and radio (with limited audiences and therefore little commercial value) - They are required to provide educational material (TV, radio, websites) to support schools and universities - Etc All of this has to be funded on top of the entertainment programming that they are able to sell around the World. All of it with no advertising revenue. Remove the licence and say bye to all of that as they focus on being a commercial entity. And they have to do all that on a mere £5,000,000000 a year.
And...?
£5bn is not actually a lot in comparison to what they are required to do.
For context Netflix made $5bn in net profit in 2021.
ITV revenue was £3.8bn.
In the UK the BBC still dominates viewing figures by some margin.
Personally I think it is great value and still makes some of the best and most diverse programming in the World without being interrupted by adverts (and before you say “streaming services” there are plenty still forcing you to consume advertising).
................................
Totally agree
The alternative to the BBC are organisations driven purely by commercial interests and programming designed to attract the most numbers of viewers (from the advertisers perspective).
"The BBC are allowed to advertise and get revenue, but they call it product placement not advertising. Plus channels like TV Gold believe it or not is a BBC owned channel and I think they have one more channel plus these channels are behind a paywall both have adverts. Like you I like the BBC, but knowing how they make other revenue streams and still want the license fee I think is greedy and unfair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has TV licencing people ever turned up at anyones door ? In the past 15 years I've had 2 visits from TV enforcement officers (Door to door salesmen). Once they told me where they were from it was a quick "No thank you" from me then close the door. So no drama needed. They keep sending me letters but haven't turned up yet. I will refuse them entry. However I've heard they can turn up with police. So I've seen on YouTube. The only way they can turn up with the police is if the have got a searcher warrant from a Justice of the peace and you do have to let them in. They will have needed to show the JP evidence that a device is likeably being used illegally. How would they get that evidence. (1) TV detector vans? (no evidence has ever been used in court from these vans) (2) Tripping yourself up by saying something to an Licencing office on a previous visit. (3) Lying to a Licencing officer like telling him you don't have any devices capable of watching or recording live or iplayer programming. (you do own a smart phone don't you).
So if you don't talk to them, or let them in that's the end of their investigation. Now I do certain things to my TVs to guard against a visit with a warrant for extra protection."They simply request your internet acces history from your ISP to check if you're watching online as most people do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... They simply request your internet acces history from your ISP to check if you're watching online as most people do" Well, they won't find it on mine. I haven't watched TV since well before I've had internet access. I'm sometimes a guest in other homes where it might be on but I'm unlikely to be giving it much attention. Also, in my experience of other people's taste, it is unlikely to be BBC content anyway. Should we eventually have to pay for the BBC through an internet levy, I probably could not expect to be exempted on the grounds of being an odd bod and would probably have to accept it as democracy in action. However, even a pay per view system would be less fair to single viewers than to couples and families watching the same content until such time as individual smartphone and tablet usage makes wide screen sets extinct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They simply request your internet acces history from your ISP to check if you're watching online as most people do" No they don't. For an ISP to supply such information would be very illegal under the GDPR rules. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has TV licencing people ever turned up at anyones door ? In the past 15 years I've had 2 visits from TV enforcement officers (Door to door salesmen). Once they told me where they were from it was a quick "No thank you" from me then close the door. So no drama needed. They keep sending me letters but haven't turned up yet. I will refuse them entry. However I've heard they can turn up with police. So I've seen on YouTube. The only way they can turn up with the police is if the have got a searcher warrant from a Justice of the peace and you do have to let them in. They will have needed to show the JP evidence that a device is likeably being used illegally. How would they get that evidence. (1) TV detector vans? (no evidence has ever been used in court from these vans) (2) Tripping yourself up by saying something to an Licencing office on a previous visit. (3) Lying to a Licencing officer like telling him you don't have any devices capable of watching or recording live or iplayer programming. (you do own a smart phone don't you).
So if you don't talk to them, or let them in that's the end of their investigation. Now I do certain things to my TVs to guard against a visit with a warrant for extra protection.
They simply request your internet acces history from your ISP to check if you're watching online as most people do"I wouldn't dream of connecting to the BBC iplayer and if I did I would sure use my VPN, so in either case it would be "Nothing to see here" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has TV licencing people ever turned up at anyones door ? In the past 15 years I've had 2 visits from TV enforcement officers (Door to door salesmen). Once they told me where they were from it was a quick "No thank you" from me then close the door. So no drama needed. They keep sending me letters but haven't turned up yet. I will refuse them entry. However I've heard they can turn up with police. So I've seen on YouTube. The only way they can turn up with the police is if the have got a searcher warrant from a Justice of the peace and you do have to let them in. They will have needed to show the JP evidence that a device is likeably being used illegally. How would they get that evidence. (1) TV detector vans? (no evidence has ever been used in court from these vans) (2) Tripping yourself up by saying something to an Licencing office on a previous visit. (3) Lying to a Licencing officer like telling him you don't have any devices capable of watching or recording live or iplayer programming. (you do own a smart phone don't you).
So if you don't talk to them, or let them in that's the end of their investigation. Now I do certain things to my TVs to guard against a visit with a warrant for extra protection.
They simply request your internet acces history from your ISP to check if you're watching online as most people do
I wouldn't dream of connecting to the BBC iplayer and if I did I would sure use my VPN, so in either case it would be "Nothing to see here""Also TV licence inspectors work for a private company called Capita, who are contracted by TV Licensing (a BBC brand name), to basically go door knocking and check unlicensed properties. Despite their use of the name ‘inspectors’ or ‘officers’, they have no legal standing at all: they have as much power as a double glazing salesman. They do not have powers of entry and it is strongly advised that you do not let them in or even talk to them as there are known instances where they have ‘fitted up’ householders and faked ‘evidence’. They carry with them a form called a TVL178, which they may fill in and ask you to sign. It is basically a self incriminating ‘confession’ form - so, never sign anything even if they say ‘it’s just to confirm we called’. Consider that these inspectors are, in fact, just salesmen who get paid £20 commission for each licence they sell at the door and for any prosecutions they obtain from a householder’s confession. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is much like the NHS in certain ways. In each case, we fund it. In each case, the organisation has problems. In each case, the Tories want to destroy/defund/sell it off. But in each case, we'll miss it when it's gone..." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s interesting seeing what the various points of view are on here and I think they seem to be A: it’s an unfair tax B: I don’t use it so why should I pay for it? C: it’s biased and woke and full of champagne socialists D: if it can sell its products to the world why should we subsidise it? There are lots of questions that are fair amongst that lot but ultimately they seem to be all about getting rid of something because you can rather than considering what good it does. The bbc is, much like the NHS, a bit lost at the moment especially after 12 years of Tory government which have neutered it’s news and comment to the point that it’s best journalists are all leaving to be replaced by government favoured ones (bbc head of news is ex GBNews for example) This attack on the independence of the BBC is extremely worrying and those who talk about its left wing bias really need to pull their heads out of the Australian sand that you have buried them in and stop lapping up Murdochs bullshit because you are one step away from endorsing the kind of news that Fox spews out and sowing the seeds of hatred and division to an even greater extent in this country" I think I am in the D section, and I wish the BBC to stay not go, but you have me thinking about what it would look like if it has independence, certainly wouldn't want fox style news, do we think that the beeb could be independent and still have to keep to the charter? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. " Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying." Two years ago Radio 1 Xtra had an audience of over 2 million now they are down to 760,000. Now you'll see most of the 15s to 25 year olds are on TikTok Not listening to Radio One. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying." If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? " It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. " It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine." So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation!" No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks." Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc" 3.5 billion from the license fee, which covers the services you mentioned. 1.75 billion from the commercial arm of the bbc. itv made 1.75 billion sky around the same amount. I can watch the bbc any channel bbc channel on my laptop now, the bbc has the best streaming service and catch up tv than any other provider. I think the bbc could generate a lot more cash than it presently does and the fee keeps them from evolving more, also if fox style news was to be the bbc blueprint people would vote by switching it off. I know we will be still forced to pay for it and that's my point I am forced to pay including the over 75's, whilst they make profit which is against their charter. but all to their own, I have my view and you have yours, life still continues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc 3.5 billion from the license fee, which covers the services you mentioned. 1.75 billion from the commercial arm of the bbc. itv made 1.75 billion sky around the same amount. I can watch the bbc any channel bbc channel on my laptop now, the bbc has the best streaming service and catch up tv than any other provider. I think the bbc could generate a lot more cash than it presently does and the fee keeps them from evolving more, also if fox style news was to be the bbc blueprint people would vote by switching it off. I know we will be still forced to pay for it and that's my point I am forced to pay including the over 75's, whilst they make profit which is against their charter. but all to their own, I have my view and you have yours, life still continues." Of course your view us your view, I just think you are wrong
There are no shareholders so all profits are ploughed back into the BBC to allow them to innovate and produce programming/content for the widest possible audience. Personally I think it is great value. That’s my opinion obviously | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc 3.5 billion from the license fee, which covers the services you mentioned. 1.75 billion from the commercial arm of the bbc. itv made 1.75 billion sky around the same amount. I can watch the bbc any channel bbc channel on my laptop now, the bbc has the best streaming service and catch up tv than any other provider. I think the bbc could generate a lot more cash than it presently does and the fee keeps them from evolving more, also if fox style news was to be the bbc blueprint people would vote by switching it off. I know we will be still forced to pay for it and that's my point I am forced to pay including the over 75's, whilst they make profit which is against their charter. but all to their own, I have my view and you have yours, life still continues. Of course your view us your view, I just think you are wrong
There are no shareholders so all profits are ploughed back into the BBC to allow them to innovate and produce programming/content for the widest possible audience. Personally I think it is great value. That’s my opinion obviously " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc 3.5 billion from the license fee, which covers the services you mentioned. 1.75 billion from the commercial arm of the bbc. itv made 1.75 billion sky around the same amount. I can watch the bbc any channel bbc channel on my laptop now, the bbc has the best streaming service and catch up tv than any other provider. I think the bbc could generate a lot more cash than it presently does and the fee keeps them from evolving more, also if fox style news was to be the bbc blueprint people would vote by switching it off. I know we will be still forced to pay for it and that's my point I am forced to pay including the over 75's, whilst they make profit which is against their charter. but all to their own, I have my view and you have yours, life still continues. Of course your view us your view, I just think you are wrong
There are no shareholders so all profits are ploughed back into the BBC to allow them to innovate and produce programming/content for the widest possible audience. Personally I think it is great value. That’s my opinion obviously "(Thread closed got to long) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc 3.5 billion from the license fee, which covers the services you mentioned. 1.75 billion from the commercial arm of the bbc. itv made 1.75 billion sky around the same amount. I can watch the bbc any channel bbc channel on my laptop now, the bbc has the best streaming service and catch up tv than any other provider. I think the bbc could generate a lot more cash than it presently does and the fee keeps them from evolving more, also if fox style news was to be the bbc blueprint people would vote by switching it off. I know we will be still forced to pay for it and that's my point I am forced to pay including the over 75's, whilst they make profit which is against their charter. but all to their own, I have my view and you have yours, life still continues. Of course your view us your view, I just think you are wrong
There are no shareholders so all profits are ploughed back into the BBC to allow them to innovate and produce programming/content for the widest possible audience. Personally I think it is great value. That’s my opinion obviously
(Thread closed got to long)
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Public service broadcasting free from interference or intimidation is essential for content designed to inform, educate, entertain and challenge with no mind to seeking favour or approval other than that of its charter. It caters for minority majority audiences often without rival. Radio 1 Xtra. The only platform that gave an outlet and foundation spawning an ecosystem for an urban niche. This reaches a previously disparate audience with no town square to share and grow the genre. This is a uniquely British genre judged now by the success of Stormzy and a crossover into the mainstream that would be hard to plot without BBC evolving to ensure it services the public not popular enough for commercial media. Again I am with you and yes there is a but. My cousin is an actor who was on a BBC contract many years ago when he left drama school, he and four other chaps went to the Hollywood for pilot season and two of them got roles in "the wire". Irdis Elba got famous through this series the bbc hired him on this popularity and made Luther which they put on bbc America for profit. This is what I am against, yes its good business but not with my cash is what I am saying. If the BBC didn't make money from selling their shows globally, would the license fee be higher or the same? It makes no difference due to the way the different companies the bbc have set up. The fee we pay is to the BBC, BBC USA and their books, Franchise items like Dr who toys books DVDs etc are linked to a different arm of the BBC, uk gold Dave both have adverts. We all know the BBC is rich and make a lot of money that money is held in other departments they argue this has nothing to do with the license fee. It's got everything to do with the licence fee as it was licence payers money that paid for the programs to be made in the first place. It's a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. So are you arguing against public sector organisations being entrepreneurial and commercially minded? Surely that is a good thing and a model more of our public services should explore as ways to generate additional revenue to either support the treasury or reduce the cost to the taxpayer of funding their operation! No I am pointing out that the BBC make enough money to do without a license fee, but as I have read from other posters what would that mean or look like? I would rather pay a subscription, like disney+ or net flicks. Except they don’t. They make enough money to top up the revenue from the licence fee. People often cite streaming services and subscriptions but ignore the public service remit the BBC are required to provide. There are no profits to be made from niche programming but the BBC still has to provide it, including local radio, radio 3 and 4, educational resources, Welsh language, etc 3.5 billion from the license fee, which covers the services you mentioned. 1.75 billion from the commercial arm of the bbc. itv made 1.75 billion sky around the same amount. I can watch the bbc any channel bbc channel on my laptop now, the bbc has the best streaming service and catch up tv than any other provider. I think the bbc could generate a lot more cash than it presently does and the fee keeps them from evolving more, also if fox style news was to be the bbc blueprint people would vote by switching it off. I know we will be still forced to pay for it and that's my point I am forced to pay including the over 75's, whilst they make profit which is against their charter. but all to their own, I have my view and you have yours, life still continues. Of course your view us your view, I just think you are wrong
There are no shareholders so all profits are ploughed back into the BBC to allow them to innovate and produce programming/content for the widest possible audience. Personally I think it is great value. That’s my opinion obviously
(Thread closed got to long)
"...got TOO long | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hold the licence for playing that trick!" Ha ha ha Every day’s a new day on Fab | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It'll definitiely become a thing of the past within 10 years. I would keep the BBC as a publicly-funded institution but the licence fee has to go. Lost income should just come from general taxation, it's something Norway has done recently. But the idea it should be privatised is barmy. " Now there's a thought, how much money has Elon Musk got left? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
