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 |
"Considering how many channels we can now pick from is it time to say good bye to the TV license Vote yes or no. After all it is a tax under a old name." . With so much choice available the TV licence should be abolished . I have no objection to paying to watch TV , however I do not want any of my cash going to the BBC. Staff at the BBC should be made to live in the real world . If is disgusting that a repulsive individual such as Gary Lineker is paid £1.5 million of tax payers cash. Some people have no sense of shame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering how many channels we can now pick from is it time to say good bye to the TV license Vote yes or no. After all it is a tax under a old name.. With so much choice available the TV licence should be abolished . I have no objection to paying to watch TV , however I do not want any of my cash going to the BBC. Staff at the BBC should be made to live in the real world . If is disgusting that a repulsive individual such as Gary Lineker is paid £1.5 million of tax payers cash. Some people have no sense of shame. " Yes exactly, Lineker doesn't even hate foreigners and immigrants. What a repulsive individual.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering how many channels we can now pick from is it time to say good bye to the TV license Vote yes or no. After all it is a tax under a old name.. With so much choice available the TV licence should be abolished . I have no objection to paying to watch TV , however I do not want any of my cash going to the BBC. Staff at the BBC should be made to live in the real world . If is disgusting that a repulsive individual such as Gary Lineker is paid £1.5 million of tax payers cash. Some people have no sense of shame. " What's repulsive about Gary Linekar? Mrs x | |||
| 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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The BBC estimates that the evasion rate rose from 9.38% in 2021/22 to 10.31% in 2022/23. The highest figure recorded in 2022/23 has been attributed to a number of factors. These include a change in viewing habits, slowing of household growth and cost of living pressures. House commons library briefing 8 Mar 2024" Not having a TV licence isn't "evasion" it's "choice" (And I choose to have one) | |||
| 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 |
| |||
| 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 |
| |||
| 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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering how many channels we can now pick from is it time to say good bye to the TV license Vote yes or no. After all it is a tax under a old name.. With so much choice available the TV licence should be abolished . I have no objection to paying to watch TV , however I do not want any of my cash going to the BBC. Staff at the BBC should be made to live in the real world . If is disgusting that a repulsive individual such as Gary Lineker is paid £1.5 million of tax payers cash. Some people have no sense of shame. " It’s supply & demand. If he didn’t pull in the viewers he’d be on less. But he does, so he isn’t. You must loath the fact that his Goalhanger Productions is a VERRRY successful production co. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering how many channels we can now pick from is it time to say good bye to the TV license Vote yes or no. After all it is a tax under a old name.. With so much choice available the TV licence should be abolished . I have no objection to paying to watch TV , however I do not want any of my cash going to the BBC. Staff at the BBC should be made to live in the real world . If is disgusting that a repulsive individual such as Gary Lineker is paid £1.5 million of tax payers cash. Some people have no sense of shame. " Why do you dislike people who are successful? While he is very rich he earned his wealth through his own skill and hard work. He still lives in the UK and pays taxes. His production company creates employment. Surely he is the epitome of what I see you laud in others? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It's purpose is to inform the population and in time of crisis carry Government information and instructions to the masses. You cannot rely on commercial chanels to do this because they can be owned and controled by foreign powers or unhelpful billionaires. It's like the Army, why pay for them? We are not at war. Because one day we will need them." So I pay £150 a year waiting for the BBC to tell me 'Wait Britain, we have a Problem!' hahaha. And yet when they tested the public emergency system, the government used the MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Emergency Broadcast System. Well there's that excuse for the BBC licence shot down! I'm asking for my refund right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It's purpose is to inform the population and in time of crisis carry Government information and instructions to the masses. You cannot rely on commercial chanels to do this because they can be owned and controled by foreign powers or unhelpful billionaires. It's like the Army, why pay for them? We are not at war. Because one day we will need them. So I pay £150 a year waiting for the BBC to tell me 'Wait Britain, we have a Problem!' hahaha. And yet when they tested the public emergency system, the government used the MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Emergency Broadcast System. Well there's that excuse for the BBC licence shot down! I'm asking for my refund right now. " There are two questions here. Should the BBC exist as a Public Broadcaster? and Should we pay for it by a licence fee. The answer to question 1 I believe is yes. Not everyone has a mobile and there are mobile dead spots. We also use to convey information which would flood the text system. We use it to broadcast overseas to other countries and our citizens in those countries where a "Get out of Zambia there is going to be a revolution" mobile alert would not go out on their public network. The method of funding is out dated and should be replaced by income tax revenue. It is a public service after all. Then hopefully people will stop bleating about £150 and get on with their life. Good luck with your refund. ("hahaha" -  ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It's purpose is to inform the population and in time of crisis carry Government information and instructions to the masses. You cannot rely on commercial chanels to do this because they can be owned and controled by foreign powers or unhelpful billionaires. It's like the Army, why pay for them? We are not at war. Because one day we will need them. So I pay £150 a year waiting for the BBC to tell me 'Wait Britain, we have a Problem!' hahaha. And yet when they tested the public emergency system, the government used the MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Emergency Broadcast System. Well there's that excuse for the BBC licence shot down! I'm asking for my refund right now. There are two questions here. Should the BBC exist as a Public Broadcaster? and Should we pay for it by a licence fee. The answer to question 1 I believe is yes. Not everyone has a mobile and there are mobile dead spots. We also use to convey information which would flood the text system. We use it to broadcast overseas to other countries and our citizens in those countries where a "Get out of Zambia there is going to be a revolution" mobile alert would not go out on their public network. The method of funding is out dated and should be replaced by income tax revenue. It is a public service after all. Then hopefully people will stop bleating about £150 and get on with their life. Good luck with your refund. ("hahaha" - )"The BBC has already proved it can stand on it's on two fee - even without advertising - it made 2.6Billion in sales revenue last year. The licence fee made it up to £5.73 billion. If you added advertising it would be billions more. For example ITV made 3.2 billion. With regard to Mobile Phone service and text flooding: 'In 2022, the volume of sent SMS and MMS messages in the United Kingdom (UK) amounted to over 35 billion messages' So the text bandwidth is very well able to cope. 8 Trillion texts a year were sent in 2017 - so global reach wouldn't be affected either. There are DEAD spots for carrying a TV or a Radio around too lol - the fact that we don't. There is a model for the BBC - stop getting FREE money from the public, pull up your pants and do the job like all the others do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It's purpose is to inform the population and in time of crisis carry Government information and instructions to the masses. You cannot rely on commercial chanels to do this because they can be owned and controled by foreign powers or unhelpful billionaires. It's like the Army, why pay for them? We are not at war. Because one day we will need them. So I pay £150 a year waiting for the BBC to tell me 'Wait Britain, we have a Problem!' hahaha. And yet when they tested the public emergency system, the government used the MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Emergency Broadcast System. Well there's that excuse for the BBC licence shot down! I'm asking for my refund right now. There are two questions here. Should the BBC exist as a Public Broadcaster? and Should we pay for it by a licence fee. The answer to question 1 I believe is yes. Not everyone has a mobile and there are mobile dead spots. We also use to convey information which would flood the text system. We use it to broadcast overseas to other countries and our citizens in those countries where a "Get out of Zambia there is going to be a revolution" mobile alert would not go out on their public network. The method of funding is out dated and should be replaced by income tax revenue. It is a public service after all. Then hopefully people will stop bleating about £150 and get on with their life. Good luck with your refund. ("hahaha" - )
The BBC has already proved it can stand on it's on two fee - even without advertising - it made 2.6Billion in sales revenue last year. The licence fee made it up to £5.73 billion. If you added advertising it would be billions more. For example ITV made 3.2 billion.
With regard to Mobile Phone service and text flooding:
'In 2022, the volume of sent SMS and MMS messages in the United Kingdom (UK) amounted to over 35 billion messages'
So the text bandwidth is very well able to cope.
8 Trillion texts a year were sent in 2017 - so global reach wouldn't be affected either.
There are DEAD spots for carrying a TV or a Radio around too lol - the fact that we don't.
There is a model for the BBC - stop getting FREE money from the public, pull up your pants and do the job like all the others do.
"The mobile system is capable of taking the text load for simple messages but a text message is not necessarily the universal answer to informing people. Some information requires pictures and videos to be properly understood. Humans need to talk about the subject and interact with the viewers. If the government does not fund the BBC it will not be able to get it to do what is necessary in emergencies. The owners of the broadcast company will put out the message they want to put out. Consider Fox News in the USA. They put out stories that Hydroxychloroquine would cure covid. They later said the 2020 election was unsafe because corrupt Dominion voting machines miscounted in Biden's favour. Much later they were sued for doing this and paid $787.5 million for their lies; but there are still many who believe that story to this day. | |||
| 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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave the BBC alone. It’s great. It has a huge public service remit that would not be commercially viable. If you can’t afford the TV Licence then you have far bigger problems to worry about." It's got nothing to do with affordability, I could very easily afford to pay but choose not too. Never had a license and never ever will, I get threatograms o them ever week that go straight in the bin . I'd really love the private bully's they employ to knock my door so I can give them a big Fuckoff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave the BBC alone. It’s great. It has a huge public service remit that would not be commercially viable. If you can’t afford the TV Licence then you have far bigger problems to worry about. It's got nothing to do with affordability, I could very easily afford to pay but choose not too. Never had a license and never ever will, I get threatograms o them ever week that go straight in the bin . I'd really love the private bully's they employ to knock my door so I can give them a big Fuckoff. " In 2022, there were 44,245 prosecutions and 40,654 convictions for TV Licence evasion. Of the 40,654 convicted, 30,193 were women (74%) Do you choose to drive your car uninsured? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave the BBC alone. It’s great. It has a huge public service remit that would not be commercially viable. If you can’t afford the TV Licence then you have far bigger problems to worry about." I can more than afford it, but I choose not to pay it. I don’t believe in it, plus’s I’m not supporting a corrupt organization that’s full of peado’s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave the BBC alone. It’s great. It has a huge public service remit that would not be commercially viable. If you can’t afford the TV Licence then you have far bigger problems to worry about. I can more than afford it, but I choose not to pay it. I don’t believe in it, plus’s I’m not supporting a corrupt organization that’s full of peado’s. "Corrupt? How so? Evidence? Full of peado’s? Care to elaborate? Some awful 70s entertainers for sure but “full of”! Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 2022, there were 44,245 prosecutions and 40,654 convictions for TV Licence evasion. Of the 40,654 convicted, 30,193 were women (74%) Do you choose to drive your car uninsured? Having insurance is a legal requirement to drive on public roads . As far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement to have to pay the BBC a single penny, unless watching live tv . You may choose to pay ,I don't and never will . The people prosecuted obviously admitted to watching live tv without a licence, they probably didn't know there is absolutely no obligation to open the door or speak to an inspector, the wise remove their implied rights of access thus stopping them from setting foot on their property. " Do you watch, listen, or read anything provided by the BBC ever? Just curious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Leave the BBC alone. It’s great. It has a huge public service remit that would not be commercially viable. If you can’t afford the TV Licence then you have far bigger problems to worry about. It's got nothing to do with affordability, I could very easily afford to pay but choose not too. Never had a license and never ever will, I get threatograms o them ever week that go straight in the bin . I'd really love the private bully's they employ to knock my door so I can give them a big Fuckoff. In 2022, there were 44,245 prosecutions and 40,654 convictions for TV Licence evasion. Of the 40,654 convicted, 30,193 were women (74%) Do you choose to drive your car uninsured? " Its not law to have a tv license | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course I don't, I don't have a licence. "
Never been on any BBC website. Not checked the weather? Never had a BBC radio station on in the car? Never? Only warch streaming services not broadcast TV. If that is the case then fair enough. | |||
| 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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do not need a TV license to access or read a BBC website. Nor do you need one to access sports clips on a BBC website. "I didn’t say you did but how do you think the BBC fund radio and online content | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How it's funded doesn't really matter to anyone who doesn't want to pay the licence fee. As long as they observe the other rules I don't think they would/should give it another thought. " But they happily consume the other services? If you never use any BBC service of any kind then yeah I totally get it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In 2022, there were 44,245 prosecutions and 40,654 convictions for TV Licence evasion. Of the 40,654 convicted, 30,193 were women (74%) Do you choose to drive your car uninsured? Having insurance is a legal requirement to drive on public roads . As far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement to have to pay the BBC a single penny, unless watching live tv . You may choose to pay ,I don't and never will . The people prosecuted obviously admitted to watching live tv without a licence, they probably didn't know there is absolutely no obligation to open the door or speak to an inspector, the wise remove their implied rights of access thus stopping them from setting foot on their property. " The requirement to hold a TV Licence and to pay a fee for it is mandated by law under the Communications Act 2003 and the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended). Similar to car insurance. The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to: watch or record TV on any channel - via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat) watch TV live on any streaming service (e.g. ITVX, Channel 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go) watch BBC iPlayer. On ANY device. (e.g. mobile phone) The current max fine is £1,000 plus court costs unless they have to send a Bailiff to collect it. So say £1,250. A TV licence costs £169.50. So you will have to avoid being detected for over 7 years to break even. Good Luck with that!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How it's funded doesn't really matter to anyone who doesn't want to pay the licence fee. As long as they observe the other rules I don't think they would/should give it another thought. But they happily consume the other services? If you never use any BBC service of any kind then yeah I totally get it." I pay for Streaming Netflix. Disney. Prime etc. Occasionally I watch Rakuten which is FREE with ads. I don't care one jot about how Rakuten is funded, but I'm happy to let the ads role. Oh. I wonder if the BBC could do that too . . ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How it's funded doesn't really matter to anyone who doesn't want to pay the licence fee. As long as they observe the other rules I don't think they would/should give it another thought. But they happily consume the other services? If you never use any BBC service of any kind then yeah I totally get it. I pay for Streaming Netflix. Disney. Prime etc. Occasionally I watch Rakuten which is FREE with ads. I don't care one jot about how Rakuten is funded, but I'm happy to let the ads role. Oh. I wonder if the BBC could do that too . . ? " Lovely for you. I prefer no ads. But I think you are missing the point: 1. BBC provides a LOT more than a few TV channels. The licence funds majority of that along with sales of content abroad. 2. If you consume their content (not TV) that is provided advert free, then that has been funded by people who do pay the licence. 3. If you never ever consume any content produced by the BBC in any channel/media then fair enough. But if you do then you are benefitting from others paying. 4. If BBC went down the advertising route then they would have to focus on content that advertisers want to be associated with and guarantee viewing figures (reach). So bye bye niche content. Bye bye majority of public service content. Bye bye “free” educational resources used by schools and parents/kids. Etc et But yeah, all about the licence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the very last thing I will say (repeat) on this. My opinion is: The BBC should be ad supported. and The BBC has already proved it can stand on it's on two feet - even without advertising - it made 2.6Billion in sales revenue last year. The licence fee made that up to £5.73 billion. If you added advertising it would be billions more. For example ITV made 3.2 billion. "And I disagree so there we are
And you again ignored the key points around advertising sales driven content creation. | |||
| 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 |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! ". It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence . I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us. "You're not required to buy a licence. Solved that confusion for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us. "Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
(you can research that yourselves.)
Now. I'll shhh again.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!". Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels. Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account ."What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him. Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content? BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears”  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know I said I wouldn't but . . . sometimes you just have to lol . . . Up to one third of BBC programmes are on constant repeat. At Christmas and Easter, this rises to 50%. Not peculiar to the BBC as most terrestrial channels do the same. Just sayin'.
(you can research that yourselves.)
Now. I'll shhh again. "You said “Not peculiar to the BBC” so that added what to the convo exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know I said I wouldn't but . . . sometimes you just have to lol . . . Up to one third of BBC programmes are on constant repeat. At Christmas and Easter, this rises to 50%. Not peculiar to the BBC as most terrestrial channels do the same. Just sayin'.
(you can research that yourselves.)
Now. I'll shhh again.
You said “Not peculiar to the BBC” so that added what to the convo exactly? "The BBC License pays for terrestrial channels too. Obviously | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know I said I wouldn't but . . . sometimes you just have to lol . . . Up to one third of BBC programmes are on constant repeat. At Christmas and Easter, this rises to 50%. Not peculiar to the BBC as most terrestrial channels do the same. Just sayin'.
(you can research that yourselves.)
Now. I'll shhh again.
You said “Not peculiar to the BBC” so that added what to the convo exactly?
The BBC License pays for terrestrial channels too. Obviously "Still missing your point. All terrestrial channels show repeats so what is the point you are making? That the BBC shouldn’t because of the licence fee? It isn’t clear? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmm. Really? Paying a licence fee for endless repeats isn't value for money is it? If they repeat a third of their programmes constantly that actually means you are paying a third more too. Simples. " That assumes you spend all your time watching TV. I pay for Netflix but do not watch it everyday. I watch the programmes I fancy. Same with the BBC. Sorry that is a nonsense argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion "Of course! Opinions are like assholes. We all have one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion
Of course! Opinions are like assholes. We all have one. "lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In your opinion
Of course! Opinions are like assholes. We all have one. "Classy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account .
What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him.
Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content?
BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears” ". The BBC have guaranteed revenue so there is no need to to be efficient or competitive. If it were abolished to morrow no one would miss it. The public should have free of choice to decide which TV companies that they wish to subscribe to. No private or efficient company would pay Gsry Linneker £1.5 million . To many people he is worth nothing . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account .
What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him.
Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content?
BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears” . The BBC have guaranteed revenue so there is no need to to be efficient or competitive. If it were abolished to morrow no one would miss it. The public should have free of choice to decide which TV companies that they wish to subscribe to. No private or efficient company would pay Gsry Linneker £1.5 million . To many people he is worth nothing . "Is that because you disagree with his football analysis, or because him not being a xenophobe irks you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account .
What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him.
Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content?
BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears” . The BBC have guaranteed revenue so there is no need to to be efficient or competitive. If it were abolished to morrow no one would miss it. The public should have free of choice to decide which TV companies that they wish to subscribe to. No private or efficient company would pay Gsry Linneker £1.5 million . To many people he is worth nothing . "I would miss it so bang goes your “nobody would miss it” unquantifiable statement. The BBC funding model has resulted in some of the best programming in the World and is recognised the World over as a benchmark for quality based on the number of international awards secured and level of sales. As for your point on inefficiency - prove it please? Otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated statement. In fact the BBC could be argued to be a model of public sector success that generates substantial revenues from overseas to create added value for taxpayers. As for Linekar’s salary… I am confused because on other threads you laud successful people. So why not him? He has used his hard work, skills, and top level experience to earn a decent living. Why are you actually singling him out Pat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account .
What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him.
Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content?
BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears” . The BBC have guaranteed revenue so there is no need to to be efficient or competitive. If it were abolished to morrow no one would miss it. The public should have free of choice to decide which TV companies that they wish to subscribe to. No private or efficient company would pay Gsry Linneker £1.5 million . To many people he is worth nothing .
I would miss it so bang goes your “nobody would miss it” unquantifiable statement.
The BBC funding model has resulted in some of the best programming in the World and is recognised the World over as a benchmark for quality based on the number of international awards secured and level of sales.
As for your point on inefficiency - prove it please? Otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated statement. In fact the BBC could be argued to be a model of public sector success that generates substantial revenues from overseas to create added value for taxpayers.
As for Linekar’s salary… I am confused because on other threads you laud successful people. So why not him? He has used his hard work, skills, and top level experience to earn a decent living. Why are you actually singling him out Pat?"If the BBC is so good let it compete on the open market instead of being a monopoly. Gary Lineker is receiving public money from people who are compelled to buy a licence. He is simply an overpaid ex footballer. Let's see how successfull the BBC would be if privatised . The staff would be horrified at having to compete on a level playing field against rivals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account .
What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him.
Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content?
BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears” . The BBC have guaranteed revenue so there is no need to to be efficient or competitive. If it were abolished to morrow no one would miss it. The public should have free of choice to decide which TV companies that they wish to subscribe to. No private or efficient company would pay Gsry Linneker £1.5 million . To many people he is worth nothing .
I would miss it so bang goes your “nobody would miss it” unquantifiable statement.
The BBC funding model has resulted in some of the best programming in the World and is recognised the World over as a benchmark for quality based on the number of international awards secured and level of sales.
As for your point on inefficiency - prove it please? Otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated statement. In fact the BBC could be argued to be a model of public sector success that generates substantial revenues from overseas to create added value for taxpayers.
As for Linekar’s salary… I am confused because on other threads you laud successful people. So why not him? He has used his hard work, skills, and top level experience to earn a decent living. Why are you actually singling him out Pat? If the BBC is so good let it compete on the open market instead of being a monopoly. Gary Lineker is receiving public money from people who are compelled to buy a licence. He is simply an overpaid ex footballer. Let's see how successfull the BBC would be if privatised . The staff would be horrified at having to compete on a level playing field against rivals. "The competition and privatisation isn't necessarily the best option for everything and the public suffers when it's imposed unnecessarily, as we've had to endure with water and train services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just doing a rewatch of Peaky Blinders right now. Funded by the BBC. Say no more! . It is an insult to democracy requiring people to buy a licence. All other news channels have to be financially independent of the taxpayer and do not require a licence .
I would much rather pay to channels that believe in democracy as opposed to forcing a licence on us.
Oh go on then Pat please explain why paying for a service you use is an insult to democracy. We are all ears!. Life has moved on. The BBC should be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.
Paying Gary Linneaker £1.5 million is an insult to hard working people. I guess he does not care as long as the money is in his account .
What a bizarre reason. Are you one of those people who think people who are paid by the public sector should not be remunerated according to their skills, experience, and talent? So you don’t agree with paying for quality then? He clearly pulls in the viewing figures or they would drop him.
Also WHY should the BBC “be forced to adopt a commercial strategy and compete on a level playing field with other channels.”? Says who? Why? Did you completely ignore their public service remit and required provision of highly niche (non-commercial) content?
BTW was that a clever pun naming Lineker when I said “we are all ears” . The BBC have guaranteed revenue so there is no need to to be efficient or competitive. If it were abolished to morrow no one would miss it. The public should have free of choice to decide which TV companies that they wish to subscribe to. No private or efficient company would pay Gsry Linneker £1.5 million . To many people he is worth nothing .
I would miss it so bang goes your “nobody would miss it” unquantifiable statement.
The BBC funding model has resulted in some of the best programming in the World and is recognised the World over as a benchmark for quality based on the number of international awards secured and level of sales.
As for your point on inefficiency - prove it please? Otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated statement. In fact the BBC could be argued to be a model of public sector success that generates substantial revenues from overseas to create added value for taxpayers.
As for Linekar’s salary… I am confused because on other threads you laud successful people. So why not him? He has used his hard work, skills, and top level experience to earn a decent living. Why are you actually singling him out Pat? If the BBC is so good let it compete on the open market instead of being a monopoly. Gary Lineker is receiving public money from people who are compelled to buy a licence. He is simply an overpaid ex footballer. Let's see how successfull the BBC would be if privatised . The staff would be horrified at having to compete on a level playing field against rivals. "More hyperbolic rhetoric Pat. I think you better check your definition of a Monopoly too. Again, do you think people paid by the public sector should not be remunerated based on their skills and experience and the value they bring? Sounds rather like communist thinking to me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Paying for a "nice to have" which is not a necessity when alternative services can be chosen, should not be forced upon the public. It should be a choice. " You can chose to not watch broadcast terrestrial TV and not buy a licence. And what’s a “nice to have” in this instance? Personally I enjoy no adverts and appreciate some of the more obscure and niche programming that would never have happened in a fully commercial environment. I have loved and been educated by groundbreaking nature programmes over decades. Some of the very best drama and comedy programmes too. As a parent I really appreciated CBeebies and CBBC and the educational content. BBC weather is also my go to. Etc However, if it was me I’d just remove the licence and add it to general taxation (ringfenced) then people can really moan about services they pay for but don’t use. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Paying for a "nice to have" which is not a necessity when alternative services can be chosen, should not be forced upon the public. It should be a choice. You can chose to not watch broadcast terrestrial TV and not buy a licence. And what’s a “nice to have” in this instance? Personally I enjoy no adverts and appreciate some of the more obscure and niche programming that would never have happened in a fully commercial environment. I have loved and been educated by groundbreaking nature programmes over decades. Some of the very best drama and comedy programmes too. As a parent I really appreciated CBeebies and CBBC and the educational content. BBC weather is also my go to. Etc However, if it was me I’d just remove the licence and add it to general taxation (ringfenced) then people can really moan about services they pay for but don’t use." The BBC is a nice to have in terms of broadcast services, many exist now that are equal and better in parts than the BBC. It is nice to turn on to the odd thing now and then, but the youth of today have a much wider opinion on these services than you and I, who only had 4- 5 channels in our informative years. However nostalgic views are costing people a lot of money for something they can simply do without | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Paying for a "nice to have" which is not a necessity when alternative services can be chosen, should not be forced upon the public. It should be a choice. You can chose to not watch broadcast terrestrial TV and not buy a licence. And what’s a “nice to have” in this instance? Personally I enjoy no adverts and appreciate some of the more obscure and niche programming that would never have happened in a fully commercial environment. I have loved and been educated by groundbreaking nature programmes over decades. Some of the very best drama and comedy programmes too. As a parent I really appreciated CBeebies and CBBC and the educational content. BBC weather is also my go to. Etc However, if it was me I’d just remove the licence and add it to general taxation (ringfenced) then people can really moan about services they pay for but don’t use. The BBC is a nice to have in terms of broadcast services, many exist now that are equal and better in parts than the BBC. It is nice to turn on to the odd thing now and then, but the youth of today have a much wider opinion on these services than you and I, who only had 4- 5 channels in our informative years. However nostalgic views are costing people a lot of money for something they can simply do without" The youth of today don't even live stream unless it's on Instagram or they're watching live sport (something we pay very fucking handsomely for). Disney+ and Netflix are what they watch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Paying for a "nice to have" which is not a necessity when alternative services can be chosen, should not be forced upon the public. It should be a choice. You can chose to not watch broadcast terrestrial TV and not buy a licence. And what’s a “nice to have” in this instance? Personally I enjoy no adverts and appreciate some of the more obscure and niche programming that would never have happened in a fully commercial environment. I have loved and been educated by groundbreaking nature programmes over decades. Some of the very best drama and comedy programmes too. As a parent I really appreciated CBeebies and CBBC and the educational content. BBC weather is also my go to. Etc However, if it was me I’d just remove the licence and add it to general taxation (ringfenced) then people can really moan about services they pay for but don’t use. The BBC is a nice to have in terms of broadcast services, many exist now that are equal and better in parts than the BBC. It is nice to turn on to the odd thing now and then, but the youth of today have a much wider opinion on these services than you and I, who only had 4- 5 channels in our informative years. However nostalgic views are costing people a lot of money for something they can simply do without The youth of today don't even live stream unless it's on Instagram or they're watching live sport (something we pay very fucking handsomely for). Disney+ and Netflix are what they watch. " doesnt that mean they can sack of paying the license ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Paying for a "nice to have" which is not a necessity when alternative services can be chosen, should not be forced upon the public. It should be a choice. You can chose to not watch broadcast terrestrial TV and not buy a licence. And what’s a “nice to have” in this instance? Personally I enjoy no adverts and appreciate some of the more obscure and niche programming that would never have happened in a fully commercial environment. I have loved and been educated by groundbreaking nature programmes over decades. Some of the very best drama and comedy programmes too. As a parent I really appreciated CBeebies and CBBC and the educational content. BBC weather is also my go to. Etc However, if it was me I’d just remove the licence and add it to general taxation (ringfenced) then people can really moan about services they pay for but don’t use. The BBC is a nice to have in terms of broadcast services, many exist now that are equal and better in parts than the BBC. It is nice to turn on to the odd thing now and then, but the youth of today have a much wider opinion on these services than you and I, who only had 4- 5 channels in our informative years. However nostalgic views are costing people a lot of money for something they can simply do without The youth of today don't even live stream unless it's on Instagram or they're watching live sport (something we pay very fucking handsomely for). Disney+ and Netflix are what they watch. doesnt that mean they can sack of paying the license ? " Not if they watch live sports. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC operate as several different companies all split from the other. If I take dr who as an example the USA and other countries people pay to watch dr who as a subscription, so the beeb are making money, these include books etc, if I ask is Dr Who a franchise then you will realise how much cash the beeb make from that one show. That money goes to BBC worldwide and BBc America. TV channels like gold show bbc programmes like last of the summer wine top gear which have advertising all this cash goes to the beeb, Iplayer is not free in other countries so that cash goes to the beeb. so is it fair that we pay a tax for an organisation which makes a lot of money on programmes we pay for that are then sold to other countries, that they then pay for. Saying this I like the beeb I am looking forward to season 2 of the responder which I will box set binge on the iplayer and not watch weekly. What I do not like is the covert way the beeb is broken up to hide their profits to continue the tax us, the beeb can stand on its own, so maybe its political." Maybe the beeb wants to stand on its own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media "That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content. Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC operate as several different companies all split from the other. If I take dr who as an example the USA and other countries people pay to watch dr who as a subscription, so the beeb are making money, these include books etc, if I ask is Dr Who a franchise then you will realise how much cash the beeb make from that one show. That money goes to BBC worldwide and BBc America. TV channels like gold show bbc programmes like last of the summer wine top gear which have advertising all this cash goes to the beeb, Iplayer is not free in other countries so that cash goes to the beeb. so is it fair that we pay a tax for an organisation which makes a lot of money on programmes we pay for that are then sold to other countries, that they then pay for. Saying this I like the beeb I am looking forward to season 2 of the responder which I will box set binge on the iplayer and not watch weekly. What I do not like is the covert way the beeb is broken up to hide their profits to continue the tax us, the beeb can stand on its own, so maybe its political." I would argue the opposite. Imagine a public sector organisation that actually generates a profit for the taxpayer by making people/organisations in other countries pay for their products/services and uses that revenue to plough back into the range of services they provide in the UK, subsidising those niche services that cannot ever be delivered profitably! I mean imagine if the NHS could run at a profit by charging foreigners or providing services overseas as well. Would we complain if that revenue got ploughed back into the NHS so Brits got better service? The absolute hypocrisy displayed in here by some is quite something. Complain about an inefficient public sector but when one organisation is successfully generating huge revenues from overseas sales, criticise them! Make your mind up folks! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared."Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I mean imagine if the NHS could run at a profit by charging foreigners or providing services overseas as well. Would we complain if that revenue got ploughed back into the NHS so Brits got better service? " ****If you're not ordinarily resident in the UK and you need to pay for NHS hospital treatment, you'll be charged at 150% of the national NHS rate.**** Not a good example lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content."'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay?? We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I mean imagine if the NHS could run at a profit by charging foreigners or providing services overseas as well. Would we complain if that revenue got ploughed back into the NHS so Brits got better service? ****If you're not ordinarily resident in the UK and you need to pay for NHS hospital treatment, you'll be charged at 150% of the national NHS rate.**** Not a good example lol. " Fair play. But what if the NHS was able to sell products and services abroad and turn a profit? Any other public sector org? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'. "Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!"Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I mean imagine if the NHS could run at a profit by charging foreigners or providing services overseas as well. Would we complain if that revenue got ploughed back into the NHS so Brits got better service? ****If you're not ordinarily resident in the UK and you need to pay for NHS hospital treatment, you'll be charged at 150% of the national NHS rate.**** Not a good example lol. Fair play. But what if the NHS was able to sell products and services abroad and turn a profit? Any other public sector org?" I seem to recall that millions of pounds are lost to the NHS because people had been treated and the NHS failed to have those bills paid. Credit control is pretty well *F* !! However under freedom of information . . . access Lewisham Hospital showed over 500 women in Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust in 2018 alone, were asked to pay up to £9,000 for having a baby. (from foreign visitors). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.". How can anyone claim that the BBC is free at point of use ? Anyone watching TV is required to purchase a licence. If you have no TV licence you can potentially end up in prison. The service is a complete waste of money. I would much prefer my licence money went to other channels. The BBC would be last on the list of channels that I would be prepared to pay for. The BBC monopoly is very unfair on competing commercial channels | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I mean imagine if the NHS could run at a profit by charging foreigners or providing services overseas as well. Would we complain if that revenue got ploughed back into the NHS so Brits got better service? ****If you're not ordinarily resident in the UK and you need to pay for NHS hospital treatment, you'll be charged at 150% of the national NHS rate.**** Not a good example lol. Fair play. But what if the NHS was able to sell products and services abroad and turn a profit? Any other public sector org? I seem to recall that millions of pounds are lost to the NHS because people had been treated and the NHS failed to have those bills paid. Credit control is pretty well *F* !! However under freedom of information . . . access Lewisham Hospital showed over 500 women in Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust in 2018 alone, were asked to pay up to £9,000 for having a baby. (from foreign visitors). " Which underlines my point. If the NHS was run the way the BBC is it would turn a profit for taxpayers to benefit from (yes I know they aren’t the same but the point is why can’t we have a public sector org that is commercially successful? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.. How can anyone claim that the BBC is free at point of use ? Anyone watching TV is required to purchase a licence. If you have no TV licence you can potentially end up in prison. The service is a complete waste of money. I would much prefer my licence money went to other channels. The BBC would be last on the list of channels that I would be prepared to pay for. The BBC monopoly is very unfair on competing commercial channels "I’ll check when I can be bothered but I suspect viewing figures will show you remain in a minority there Pat. Just pay your licence and stop moaning. Again, check your understanding of “monopoly”, last I looked we had countless channels. If BBC viewing figures fell through the floor then the argument could be easier to make, but it still regularly outperforms other channels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years. "Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?"Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them. "Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures. I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC? Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it."I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'. I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for. Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to have Sky but stopped watching it and after the usual struggles with the Sky customer service gestapo, I finished the contract. Then I decided to monitor how much live TV I was watching. After 2 months, it amounted to 12.25 hours. That's an hour and a quarter per week and only because I may be a bit lazy in looking for something to stream. I still pay my licence fee but am seriously considering giving it the boot. Sadly, unless the BBC and the Government consider an alternative to the current funding model, in my opinion the BBC will not survive. While I am not a huge fan of traditional TV output as we remember it from a bygone era, I recognise the positives of a public service broadcaster but I also hate the idea of paying for something that I do not use. I am hoping that the current and subsequent management of the BBC will recognise their responsibility to the taxpayer who supports them financially as it is likely that they will only continue if the taxpayer continues to fund the organisation. (ie. The government collects licence fees and uses that to partly fund the organisation)." So I guess you don't listen to BBC radio either? But I'm with you most scrap the fee and bring b In advertising | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt "The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt
The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?". Surely it would be far simpler just to make any servive provided by the BBC pay to view. No one is going to miss the BBC and there are many superior services. It would be welcome to the real world for BBC staff when forced to compete on a level playing field and other channels . The licence fee is a complete waste of public money. It costs me in excess of £800 and I receive nothing of value in return . There are many other channels to which I would willingly subscribe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt
The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?. Surely it would be far simpler just to make any servive provided by the BBC pay to view. No one is going to miss the BBC and there are many superior services. It would be welcome to the real world for BBC staff when forced to compete on a level playing field and other channels .
The licence fee is a complete waste of public money. It costs me in excess of £800 and I receive nothing of value in return . There are many other channels to which I would willingly subscribe "Stop moaning Pat. If you can afford more than one property (ergo more than one TV Licence) then you can afford the TV Licence! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stop moaning Pat. If you can afford more than one property (ergo more than one TV Licence) then you can afford the TV Licence!" And there is me thinking that this discussion had NOTHING to do with affordability! The ONLY person to mention affordability in the whole thread is YOU.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stop moaning Pat. If you can afford more than one property (ergo more than one TV Licence) then you can afford the TV Licence! And there is me thinking that this discussion had NOTHING to do with affordability! The ONLY person to mention affordability in the whole thread is YOU. "Pat and I have banter going back a few years. That comment would mean something to him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you write on a public forum - your comments mean something to the discussion and to everyone else, however. "Nah I can use the forum however I want as long as I don’t break the rules set by Fab | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And makes discussion worthless." In your opinion | |||
| 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 |
" So you do believe that anything you say on a public forum doesn't mean anything to anyone and nothing to the discussion then? Gotcha' It's always good to know which way a person is coming from when they postulate a response. Makes it simple to out the noise " You seem to have a bee in your bonnet. We don’t agree on the BBC. So what? Is the World still spinning? Will either of our opinions affect the future of the BBC? Yet you seem to want to “win” but I am not clear what it is you are winning? Then you decide to pick on a post that that was a reply from me to someone else and take issue with it! Why? I can and will post whatever I want. It is really easy to ignore posts. Even more so when they are replies to someone that isn’t you. Me and Pat have history going back many years. He certainly doesn’t need you jumping in. He is quite capable of talking for himself. All getting very boring now. We will never agree and…so what | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt
The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?. Surely it would be far simpler just to make any servive provided by the BBC pay to view. No one is going to miss the BBC and there are many superior services. It would be welcome to the real world for BBC staff when forced to compete on a level playing field and other channels .
The licence fee is a complete waste of public money. It costs me in excess of £800 and I receive nothing of value in return . There are many other channels to which I would willingly subscribe "The last 3 public polls had the public overwhelmingly in favour of the BBC going to a ad' supported model. How anyone can't see the sense in that simple fact bearing in mind the rest of the UK's media output ad' supported model, just really isn't reading or thinking about it. The playing field should be a level one. Not a here's billions in free £'s and we can sit back while everyone else fights for every penny of advertising revenue. It will come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt
The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?. Surely it would be far simpler just to make any servive provided by the BBC pay to view. No one is going to miss the BBC and there are many superior services. It would be welcome to the real world for BBC staff when forced to compete on a level playing field and other channels .
The licence fee is a complete waste of public money. It costs me in excess of £800 and I receive nothing of value in return . There are many other channels to which I would willingly subscribe
The last 3 public polls had the public overwhelmingly in favour of the BBC going to a ad' supported model.
How anyone can't see the sense in that simple fact bearing in mind the rest of the UK's media output ad' supported model, just really isn't reading or thinking about it.
The playing field should be a level one. Not a here's billions in free £'s and we can sit back while everyone else fights for every penny of advertising revenue.
It will come.
". Well said . The sooner it happens the better. The BBC is a relic from a by gone era . I am happy to pay for any service which I use. The BBC is not too high on my list of priorities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt
The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?. Surely it would be far simpler just to make any servive provided by the BBC pay to view. No one is going to miss the BBC and there are many superior services. It would be welcome to the real world for BBC staff when forced to compete on a level playing field and other channels .
The licence fee is a complete waste of public money. It costs me in excess of £800 and I receive nothing of value in return . There are many other channels to which I would willingly subscribe
The last 3 public polls had the public overwhelmingly in favour of the BBC going to a ad' supported model.
How anyone can't see the sense in that simple fact bearing in mind the rest of the UK's media output ad' supported model, just really isn't reading or thinking about it.
The playing field should be a level one. Not a here's billions in free £'s and we can sit back while everyone else fights for every penny of advertising revenue.
It will come.
"That’s great I look forward to seeing the new funding proposals and then a date for the change
I still don’t agree but there you go! I won’t hold my breath!
BTW do you have links to these opinion polls. Interested to see who is behind them. I am aware of The Express running one. Not exactly unbiased in their views on the BBC! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_bbcpoll_20220124.html" Thanks Pat. Very interesting. I have some issue with the questions asked as they do not explain the consequences of removing the licence fee. It is a blunt set of questions with the theme of “do you want to pay a licence fee” rather than “are you happy to no longer get xyz content if you stopped the licence”. Like any poll, the results you get depend on the nature of the questions asked. It’s a bit like asking “do you want to pay less tax?” because who genuinely wants to not pay less tax! But you then ask “would you want pay less tax if it meant cutting xyz public services?” and it would generate a different outcome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the solution a subscription service for the BBC? It's hard to accept the principle of paying a fee for the privilege of owning a TV to watch a single channel. Understandable in 1954, but in 2024? Really? It's like having to pay a fee for your cooker if you want to roast a chicken." Despite what some on this thread might believe, I do get the frustration and sentiment around the TV Licence, I simply disagree with some of the arguments that have been put forward. However, you are not paying for a single channel. The licence (which shouldn’t really be called a “TV Licence”) is used to fund all of the following: - Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services - BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, movies), box sets and exclusive content - BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts - Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local - BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three - BBC World Service - TV, radio and online - BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices. Most of that would not be commercially viable and the BBC would have to stop it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the solution a subscription service for the BBC? It's hard to accept the principle of paying a fee for the privilege of owning a TV to watch a single channel. Understandable in 1954, but in 2024? Really? It's like having to pay a fee for your cooker if you want to roast a chicken. Despite what some on this thread might believe, I do get the frustration and sentiment around the TV Licence, I simply disagree with some of the arguments that have been put forward. However, you are not paying for a single channel. The licence (which shouldn’t really be called a “TV Licence”) is used to fund all of the following: - Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services - BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, movies), box sets and exclusive content - BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts - Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local - BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three - BBC World Service - TV, radio and online - BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices. Most of that would not be commercially viable and the BBC would have to stop it. " Yup, I see the pros of a public service broadcaster with some minority interest content (the Open University too). I guess things like iPlayer could be funded like Netflix or Now? The cons of the licence fee I think are twofold : a mandatory fee and perceived biased content. People resent that in 2024. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the solution a subscription service for the BBC? It's hard to accept the principle of paying a fee for the privilege of owning a TV to watch a single channel. Understandable in 1954, but in 2024? Really? It's like having to pay a fee for your cooker if you want to roast a chicken. Despite what some on this thread might believe, I do get the frustration and sentiment around the TV Licence, I simply disagree with some of the arguments that have been put forward. However, you are not paying for a single channel. The licence (which shouldn’t really be called a “TV Licence”) is used to fund all of the following: - Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services - BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, movies), box sets and exclusive content - BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts - Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local - BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three - BBC World Service - TV, radio and online - BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices. Most of that would not be commercially viable and the BBC would have to stop it. Yup, I see the pros of a public service broadcaster with some minority interest content (the Open University too). I guess things like iPlayer could be funded like Netflix or Now? The cons of the licence fee I think are twofold : a mandatory fee and perceived biased content. People resent that in 2024." I think *some* people perceive biased content. Generally the BBC is seen as left leaning so it provokes right leaning folks to call foul. Personally (as a centrist in most things) I believe they are quite well balanced most of the time. The BBC is pretty successful internationally where it does charge overseas users to access content and/carries advertising (websites). This income subsidises the licence fee income. I’d say that is a good model for a public sector organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think *some* people perceive biased content. Generally the BBC is seen as left leaning so it provokes right leaning folks to call foul. Personally (as a centrist in most things) I believe they are quite well balanced most of the time. The BBC is pretty successful internationally where it does charge overseas users to access content and/carries advertising (websites). This income subsidises the licence fee income. I’d say that is a good model for a public sector organisation." BBC is biased. Not as bad as a daily mail or guardian. But they are biased. Any institution like that will develop power structures and these power structures have humans at top who will inflict their biases. From what I know, most people in India hate BBC because they have noticed their bias when it comes to reporting on India and its issues with Pakistan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the solution a subscription service for the BBC? It's hard to accept the principle of paying a fee for the privilege of owning a TV to watch a single channel. Understandable in 1954, but in 2024? Really? It's like having to pay a fee for your cooker if you want to roast a chicken. Despite what some on this thread might believe, I do get the frustration and sentiment around the TV Licence, I simply disagree with some of the arguments that have been put forward. However, you are not paying for a single channel. The licence (which shouldn’t really be called a “TV Licence”) is used to fund all of the following: - Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services - BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, movies), box sets and exclusive content - BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts - Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local - BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three - BBC World Service - TV, radio and online - BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices. Most of that would not be commercially viable and the BBC would have to stop it. Yup, I see the pros of a public service broadcaster with some minority interest content (the Open University too). I guess things like iPlayer could be funded like Netflix or Now? The cons of the licence fee I think are twofold : a mandatory fee and perceived biased content. People resent that in 2024. I think *some* people perceive biased content. Generally the BBC is seen as left leaning so it provokes right leaning folks to call foul. Personally (as a centrist in most things) I believe they are quite well balanced most of the time. The BBC is pretty successful internationally where it does charge overseas users to access content and/carries advertising (websites). This income subsidises the licence fee income. I’d say that is a good model for a public sector organisation." The BBC always leans to support whatever government is in power. Their total lack of holding this government to account, for example. Stacking question time with the like of Farage and other right wing goons. | |||
| 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 |
"Isn't the solution a subscription service for the BBC? It's hard to accept the principle of paying a fee for the privilege of owning a TV to watch a single channel. Understandable in 1954, but in 2024? Really? It's like having to pay a fee for your cooker if you want to roast a chicken. Despite what some on this thread might believe, I do get the frustration and sentiment around the TV Licence, I simply disagree with some of the arguments that have been put forward. However, you are not paying for a single channel. The licence (which shouldn’t really be called a “TV Licence”) is used to fund all of the following: - Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services - BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, movies), box sets and exclusive content - BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts - Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local - BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three - BBC World Service - TV, radio and online - BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices. Most of that would not be commercially viable and the BBC would have to stop it. Yup, I see the pros of a public service broadcaster with some minority interest content (the Open University too). I guess things like iPlayer could be funded like Netflix or Now? The cons of the licence fee I think are twofold : a mandatory fee and perceived biased content. People resent that in 2024. I think *some* people perceive biased content. Generally the BBC is seen as left leaning so it provokes right leaning folks to call foul. Personally (as a centrist in most things) I believe they are quite well balanced most of the time. The BBC is pretty successful internationally where it does charge overseas users to access content and/carries advertising (websites). This income subsidises the licence fee income. I’d say that is a good model for a public sector organisation. The BBC always leans to support whatever government is in power. Their total lack of holding this government to account, for example. Stacking question time with the like of Farage and other right wing goons. " its alrite they will be stuffing the audience with left wing goons by the end of the year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't the solution a subscription service for the BBC? It's hard to accept the principle of paying a fee for the privilege of owning a TV to watch a single channel. Understandable in 1954, but in 2024? Really? It's like having to pay a fee for your cooker if you want to roast a chicken. Despite what some on this thread might believe, I do get the frustration and sentiment around the TV Licence, I simply disagree with some of the arguments that have been put forward. However, you are not paying for a single channel. The licence (which shouldn’t really be called a “TV Licence”) is used to fund all of the following: - Eight national TV channels plus regional TV services - BBC iPlayer - 1000s of live and on demand programmes (including news, sport, dramas, comedy, documentaries, entertainment, movies), box sets and exclusive content - BBC Sounds - a huge range of musical genres, radio stations and podcasts - Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local - BBC website - including News, Sport, Weather, CBBC, Food, Bitesize, Arts, BBC Three - BBC World Service - TV, radio and online - BBC apps - like Bitesize, CBeebies, Food, News, Sport and Weather The licence fee also ensures that all radio, TV and online services are free from commercial advertising and free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices. Most of that would not be commercially viable and the BBC would have to stop it. Yup, I see the pros of a public service broadcaster with some minority interest content (the Open University too). I guess things like iPlayer could be funded like Netflix or Now? The cons of the licence fee I think are twofold : a mandatory fee and perceived biased content. People resent that in 2024. I think *some* people perceive biased content. Generally the BBC is seen as left leaning so it provokes right leaning folks to call foul. Personally (as a centrist in most things) I believe they are quite well balanced most of the time. The BBC is pretty successful internationally where it does charge overseas users to access content and/carries advertising (websites). This income subsidises the licence fee income. I’d say that is a good model for a public sector organisation. The BBC always leans to support whatever government is in power. Their total lack of holding this government to account, for example. Stacking question time with the like of Farage and other right wing goons. its alrite they will be stuffing the audience with left wing goons by the end of the year "
I'm skeptical to be honest.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Clearly I disagree but at the end of the day it is all academic ‘cos nothing is going to change for the forseeable so suck it up and pay your licence or stop consuming BBC content via any channel or media
That's why people have an issue. It isn't just BBC content we are paying for. It is ANY live content.
Why should the BBC get the money, if we really must pay then it should be shared.
Nah all those other channels receive advertising revenue and subscriptions. Keep the BBC free at point of use (regardless of which of their plethora of services and products you are consuming), advert free, providing niche content.
'Free at point of use' apart from the yearly subscription we pay??
We have to pay it even if we don't consume 'their plethora of services'.
Ah but I bet you do. Maybe not daily but I bet you have consumed BBC product!
Live? I probably have at some point but I can confidently say not for at least 5, probably 10 years.
Watching live TV is definitely in the decline. Do you never use iPlayer?
Can't say I do. I do watch live TV but only sport, something which I pay for separately. That's where the BBC gets me, that's why I don't like the licence fee because what I do watch has fuck all to do with them.
Ok I can understand the frustration but based on OFCOM figures you remain in a minority. At some point that may change but BBC still outperforms everyone else in terms of viewing figures.
I find it hard to accept you never consume any BBC product. Not websites, radio stations. Not programming of any kind. I think your kid(s) are off to uni soon right? So when they were toddlers they never watched CBeebies or CBBC? When older they never used any learning resources provided by the BBC?
Maybe just think of it like a tax. Your kids no longer need to use the education budget but your taxes will continue to support it.
I don't find the fact that I'm in a minority a good enough reason to say 'oh well, everyone else uses it so I'll pay for them'.
I didn't say I hadn't consumed BBC products, I said I don't consume their live products, nor iPlayer, which is what the licence fee is for.
Why should I think of it like a tax? I already pay plenty of tax, on almost everything I earn, plus almost everything I spend, not the licence fee mind, that's exempt
The licence fee pays for all the services they provide. It says so on the website and I posted that above some time back. So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?"The lifenfe fee is only applicable if I watch live TV (any channel) or use iPlayer. Its not for all those other services. If I had the choice I wouldn't pay for it, nor use those services. However, as it stands, why shouldn't I use those services, I'm paying for them anyway. As far as 'So if you are using some of their services then how can you complain?'. Does that mean if you use any governement service then you cannot complain about governement how much tax you pay? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a lot of incorrect information in the above. Before chosing to not buy a TV licence please visit https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one You don’t need a TV Licence if: you don't watch on any TV channel, like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Dave and international channels AND you don't watch TV on a pay TV service, like Sky, Virgin Media and BT AND you don't watch live TV on streaming services, like YouTube and Amazon Prime Video AND you don't use BBC iPlayer. This includes recording and downloading. On any device. You also don’t need a TV Licence if your home is empty and no one is living there." or just get a firestick and watch what you want | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a lot of incorrect information in the above. Before chosing to not buy a TV licence please visit https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one You don’t need a TV Licence if: you don't watch on any TV channel, like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Dave and international channels AND you don't watch TV on a pay TV service, like Sky, Virgin Media and BT AND you don't watch live TV on streaming services, like YouTube and Amazon Prime Video AND you don't use BBC iPlayer. This includes recording and downloading. On any device. You also don’t need a TV Licence if your home is empty and no one is living there. or just get a firestick and watch what you want" For the avoidance of doubt ... "You will need to pay for a TV Licence in order to watch any live TV service or streaming service, this includes apps on a Firestick such as ITVX, Channel 4, Amazon Prime Video, Now or Sky Go." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1881343/TV-licence-warning-to-anyone-using-Amazon-Fire-TV-Sticks-to-watch-shows/amp | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a lot of incorrect information in the above. Before chosing to not buy a TV licence please visit https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one You don’t need a TV Licence if: you don't watch on any TV channel, like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Dave and international channels AND you don't watch TV on a pay TV service, like Sky, Virgin Media and BT AND you don't watch live TV on streaming services, like YouTube and Amazon Prime Video AND you don't use BBC iPlayer. This includes recording and downloading. On any device. You also don’t need a TV Licence if your home is empty and no one is living there. or just get a firestick and watch what you want For the avoidance of doubt ... "You will need to pay for a TV Licence in order to watch any live TV service or streaming service, this includes apps on a Firestick such as ITVX, Channel 4, Amazon Prime Video, Now or Sky Go." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1881343/TV-licence-warning-to-anyone-using-Amazon-Fire-TV-Sticks-to-watch-shows/amp" More bollox | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a lot of incorrect information in the above. Before chosing to not buy a TV licence please visit https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one You don’t need a TV Licence if: you don't watch on any TV channel, like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Dave and international channels AND you don't watch TV on a pay TV service, like Sky, Virgin Media and BT AND you don't watch live TV on streaming services, like YouTube and Amazon Prime Video AND you don't use BBC iPlayer. This includes recording and downloading. On any device. You also don’t need a TV Licence if your home is empty and no one is living there. or just get a firestick and watch what you want For the avoidance of doubt ... "You will need to pay for a TV Licence in order to watch any live TV service or streaming service, this includes apps on a Firestick such as ITVX, Channel 4, Amazon Prime Video, Now or Sky Go." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1881343/TV-licence-warning-to-anyone-using-Amazon-Fire-TV-Sticks-to-watch-shows/amp" The poster I think is referring to Kodi which can be downloaded to a fire stick or other devices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a lot of incorrect information in the above. Before chosing to not buy a TV licence please visit https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one You don’t need a TV Licence if: you don't watch on any TV channel, like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Dave and international channels AND you don't watch TV on a pay TV service, like Sky, Virgin Media and BT AND you don't watch live TV on streaming services, like YouTube and Amazon Prime Video AND you don't use BBC iPlayer. This includes recording and downloading. On any device. You also don’t need a TV Licence if your home is empty and no one is living there. or just get a firestick and watch what you want For the avoidance of doubt ... "You will need to pay for a TV Licence in order to watch any live TV service or streaming service, this includes apps on a Firestick such as ITVX, Channel 4, Amazon Prime Video, Now or Sky Go." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1881343/TV-licence-warning-to-anyone-using-Amazon-Fire-TV-Sticks-to-watch-shows/amp More bollox "Simply, because you do not agree with the Law, it does not mean that it does not exist or will have no impact on you. Should you, or any who take your word for this, find yourself in court I would recommend you offer as a plea in mitigation the statement "More Bollox". This would be done on the understanding that Contempt of Court, which carries a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment or very large fines, by the same measure, does not exist either. Good luck with that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should you, or any who take your word for this, find yourself in court I would recommend you offer as a plea in mitigation the statement "More Bollox". This would be done on the understanding that Contempt of Court, which carries a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment or very large fines, by the same measure, does not exist either. Good luck with that. Or you could simply not answer the door ! It's that easy , then you don't get to incriminate yourself. 30 yr license free and counting. " Exactly and they are just trying to sell something you do not want anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should you, or any who take your word for this, find yourself in court I would recommend you offer as a plea in mitigation the statement "More Bollox". This would be done on the understanding that Contempt of Court, which carries a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment or very large fines, by the same measure, does not exist either. Good luck with that. Or you could simply not answer the door ! It's that easy , then you don't get to incriminate yourself. 30 yr license free and counting. Exactly and they are just trying to sell something you do not want anyway." As we have all agreed the TV Licence is just a tax by another name, that means you are a tax evader. Well done you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should you, or any who take your word for this, find yourself in court I would recommend you offer as a plea in mitigation the statement "More Bollox". This would be done on the understanding that Contempt of Court, which carries a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment or very large fines, by the same measure, does not exist either. Good luck with that. Or you could simply not answer the door ! It's that easy , then you don't get to incriminate yourself. 30 yr license free and counting. " There is lots of info on YouTube, but the best advice I have seen is slamming the door in their face. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We haven't had a TV licence for about 10 years, in that time we have never watched live TV and when BBC iPlayer became part of the the TV licence we stopped using that too, there is nothing on the BBC I would pay the fee to watch anymore. In that time I have had one incredibly rude "inspector" lie through his teeth and insist he had the legal right to enter my property and inspect my devices he even tried to barge his way in but changed his mind when I didn't move. Since then they have changed there approach a bit, I get a yearly email and I tell them I declare I don't need a TV licence and they haven't bothered me since" I use the new system and they will still send emails chancing their arm on top. I got one along the lines of we can see you logged into your bbc account so you need a tv license. I went back with if you can see me logged in then you can see the login being used for bbc sounds which doesn’t require a license  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A tax evader lol, get a grip of yourself. I pay tax on my generous earnings, tax for my food , tax to use my car various other forms of tax ,so I pay my fair share of tax . But would never give the BBc a single penny and there's absolutely nothing you or they can do about it . " Rein your neck in fella | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
