Batman Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 See an increase is about to happen Fully justified and value for money or an insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 It's a ****ing joke in this day & age. Should be a subscription service, if you want to watch it then pay for it. However, if you just want to watch sky & itv you should be able to opt out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 I agree with it, the BBC website is the best thing on the web by a mile and it's good to have a TV channel free of advertising. IMO it's vital to keep something out of the hands of advertisers, especially in this era of fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 I agree with it, the BBC website is the best thing on the web by a mile and it's good to have a TV channel free of advertising. IMO it's vital to keep something out of the hands of advertisers, especially in this era of fake news. Apart from here, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 I agree with it, the BBC website is the best thing on the web by a mile and it's good to have a TV channel free of advertising. IMO it's vital to keep something out of the hands of advertisers, especially in this era of fake news. Why should other people subsidise you watching it though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 It's a ****ing joke in this day & age. Should be a subscription service, if you want to watch it then pay for it. However, if you just want to watch sky & itv you should be able to opt out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Bless. So loyal to old Rupert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 Why should other people subsidise you watching it though? Because I think it's important to have a public broadcasting service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 Because I think it's important to have a public broadcasting service. This. And it's safe until 2027 at least so the Murdoch-ettes and Daily Mail dinlows will have to wait a little longer before one of the finest broadcasting institutions in the world is dismantled purely to make some Americans slightly richer instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoPints Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 So you don't think 'other people' subsidise you watching ITV if they choose not too then? One way or the other, 'we' pay for all the TV channels, either through advertising and/or subscription or TV licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 Because I think it's important to have a public broadcasting service. Totally and it's worth every single penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 If paying my TV license allows things like planet earth to exist then I consider it a price worth paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 Don't forget Mrs Brown's Boys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the colonel Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 I agree with it, the BBC website is the best thing on the web by a mile and it's good to have a TV channel free of advertising. IMO it's vital to keep something out of the hands of advertisers, especially in this era of fake news. Totally agree. Apart from being one of cheapest forms of entertainment available the BBC is one of the most respected media agencies in the world. Speak to anyone virtually anywhere in the world and they will have heard of the BBC. Do we really need more advert financed channels packed full of dumb-down American trash. I suspect there is hardly a person in the UK that doesn't use the BBC in some form be it TV, National Radio, Local radio, internet, drama, the arts, comedy, wildlife programmes and documentaries. Much of which are sold all over the world. ALL for less than £0.40p a day. No-Brainer - Keep the BBC Licencing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 Thing is, Batman only watches Sky Sports and BT Sports. Therefore most things are an insult to him (and his intelligence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 Thing is, Batman only watches Sky Sports and BT Sports. Therefore most things are an insult to him (and his intelligence). Don't forget Jamie and Jimmy's Friday Night Feast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 1 March, 2017 Share Posted 1 March, 2017 its great but they have too much money to burn. Top of the pops from the World Cup FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Because I think it's important to have a public broadcasting service. But why should someone have to pay for it regardless of whether they watch it, just because they own a tv. Tv viewing habits have massively changed in the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 I don't mind paying my TV licence. I quite like a lot of things on the BBC and I feel we should have a national broadcaster. Not sure they are always as impartial as they are supposed to be and the current trend for their 'journalists' to create news using freedom of information requests is beginning to annoy me. Latest one today is about bus lane fines : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38957371 It's not news and it's not worth the money they spent on it. On average it costs around £200 per FOI request which is not value for anyone's money, especially when the beeb seem to be making around 200 per day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 The main reason I like the way the BBC is funded is because it annoys those who don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 But why should someone have to pay for it regardless of whether they watch it, just because they own a tv. Tv viewing habits have massively changed in the last few years. It's a poll tax on TV owners. If it's as good as people make out, they'll pay for it via a subscription. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igsey Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 I feel the compulsory-license model is an outdated method, it's ineffectual and hard to enforce anyway, and should be an optional service. I watch BBC regularly and use iPlayer, and I have a TV license - but when I was a student two years ago, we had three TVs in the house and no license between us. We didn't have a connection to TV signal anyway so we couldn't get any channels, why should we have paid a license fee so we could watch Netflix and play Xbox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Still good, but too much commercial stuff that could be on any channel and they try to do too much. Reduce the number of stations, make it more distinctive and public interest focussed, increase overseas broadcasting from world service and fund from general taxation but with a charter and board guaranteeing full independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Still good, but too much commercial stuff that could be on any channel and they try to do too much. Reduce the number of stations, make it more distinctive and public interest focussed, increase overseas broadcasting from world service and fund from general taxation but with a charter and board guaranteeing full independence. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 I don't mind paying the licence fee. The BBC generally provides excellent quality over its TV, Radio and Web presence and it's refreshing to have content not constantly interrupted by advertising. The radio content, especially of R2, R3 & R4 is excellent and i'd hate the thought of losing that. Complete media coverage by self interested mega rich media barons would be a horrendous state of affairs. Having said that, i think they should be more accountable for their expenditure. Just a small example - the number of football pundits they must have on their books across TV and radio - seems far too great and they could cut excess wages here by being more select and getting them to do a proper days work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 As a listener to the Radio in my car pretty much all day and opting for BBC stations to avoid inane adverts and repetitive play lists, when you look at how much Sky costs per month and something like Spotify without adverts, its good value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 As a listener to the Radio in my car pretty much all day and opting for BBC stations to avoid inane adverts and repetitive play lists, when you look at how much Sky costs per month and something like Spotify without adverts, its good value for money. Whether it's good value or not is irrelevant . It's whether you should pay for it if you don't watch or listen to it. If I suggested a national newspaper that you had to pay for, even if you only wanted to read the guardian or mail , you would think I'm bonkers . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 (edited) Whether it's good value or not is irrelevant . It's whether you should pay for it if you don't watch or listen to it. If I suggested a national newspaper that you had to pay for, even if you only wanted to read the guardian or mail , you would think I'm bonkers . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I guess you'd apply a similar logic to the NHS. What's with the urge to dismantle institutions that have been painstakingly been up over decades and make a distinctive contribution to UK life/ The license fee gives the BBC the type of autonomy and security that allows it to take a long-term perspective, unlike many other channels or outlets. Carry on coughing up your license fee and deal with it snowflake. Edited 2 March, 2017 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Whether it's good value or not is irrelevant . It's whether you should pay for it if you don't watch or listen to it. If I suggested a national newspaper that you had to pay for, even if you only wanted to read the guardian or mail , you would think I'm bonkers . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Exactly. This is why well-off folk should pay less tax too. I have private medical insurance, went to a private fee-paying school, live on a private road and I don't approve of the armed forces. I should only have to pay something like 10% tax, if that - but I get stuffed with 40%!! More than some prole who relies on the state to fund everything for them. It's disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 If there was still a radio licence I'd have to pay it, and willingly too, but I haven't got a TV licence for the simple reason that I don't have a TV and indeed have never had a colour telly (back in the 80s I had a very small B&W one). The biggest problem is disposing of the threatening letters and the additional expense of beer when I pop out to watch footie down the pub or even.. gasp.. live. I'm glad the BBC is there (imagine a world of Fox News or Berlusconi's channels), but maybe a different funding arrangement is needed that doesn't rely on Capita assuming dubious powers and victimising vulnerable people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 I guess you'd apply a similar logic to the NHS. What's with the urge to dismantle institutions that have been painstakingly been up over decades and make a distinctive contribution to UK life/ The license fee gives the BBC the type of autonomy and security that allows it to take a long-term perspective, unlike many other channels or outlets. Carry on coughing up your license fee and deal with it snowflake. What a load of pony. It's blinkered 1950's thinking like that which keeps the NHS in permanent crisis. As for the BBC, it's not a patch on HBO and other commercial broadcasters because it's become fat and lazy due to public money. Contrast the awful state of local radio compared to The US and you see what guaranteed money does. No matter,the licence fee will be obsolete within a decade.We will get all our tv off the Internet, and they'll be great innovators who'll get it for us for free. Like football on sky sports now, only mugs will pay the going rate Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 (edited) What a load of pony. It's blinkered 1950's thinking like that which keeps the NHS in permanent crisis. As for the BBC, it's not a patch on HBO and other commercial broadcasters because it's become fat and lazy due to public money. Contrast the awful state of local radio compared to The US and you see what guaranteed money does. No matter,the licence fee will be obsolete within a decade.We will get all our tv off the Internet, and they'll be great innovators who'll get it for us for free. Like football on sky sports now, only mugs will pay the going rate Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk You're beyond a parody darkie. Comparing HBO to BBC is claptrap. The fees of both are similar yet HBO has a vastly narrower mandate than the BBC. It doesn't invest in global news for starters -and the market's record of producing quality news and current affairs is hardly stellar. Great innovators - don't you just mean free-riding, often illegally on others investments? Edited 2 March, 2017 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Glad to see the other day ago that the Mail have started launching an investigation into the BBC brown shirts criminalising and bullying of vulnerable people. Taking people to court and giving criminal records for not funding a state broadcaster, hard to believe in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 But why should someone have to pay for it regardless of whether they watch it, just because they own a tv. Tv viewing habits have massively changed in the last few years. Why should I pay the element of council tax which covers education? I don't have kids. And would it be reasonable to exempt those who opt for private healthcare from NI on the grounds that they don't use the NHS? How about committed anti-war groups, should they pay no tax towards defence? The BBC has its faults, but I wouldn't be without it. For all the whining about political bias and left wing agendas, it's the only news organisation with neutral reporting built into its charter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Taking people to court and giving criminal records for not funding a state broadcaster, hard to believe in this day and age. Yeah, and assorted lefties defend it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 the market's record of producing quality news and current affairs is hardly stellar. Great innovators - don't you just mean free-riding, often illegally on others investments? Have you watched Newnight lately? I presume you'll be posting your pious views on the streaming thread, or is it ok to " free ride" on Murdoch's investments. Wouldn't surprise me as consistency isn't your strong suit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Shock greedy right wingers hate contributing unless they can get something directly out of it. As Trousers said it is enough reason to keep it to wind up these people and watch them froth and regurgitate Dacre's leader articles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Shock greedy right wingers hate contributing unless they can get something directly out of it. As Trousers said it is enough reason to keep it to wind up these people and watch them froth and regurgitate Dacre's leader articles It's not the nasty greedy right wingers advocating sending out brown shirts to criminalise and harass some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society for not paying into the BBC trough though, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 It's not the nasty greedy right wingers advocating sending out brown shirts to criminalise and harass some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society for not paying into the BBC trough though, is it? Exactly. No surprise it's the usual sad and simple leftys campaigning for the poor to subsidise the tv and radio choices of the wealthy. Very confused as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Exactly. No surprise it's the usual sad and simple leftys campaigning for the poor to subsidise the tv and radio choices of the wealthy. Very confused as usual. I can imagine you are an avid ITV viewer. Them ant and dec are hilarious like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 It's not the nasty greedy right wingers advocating sending out brown shirts to criminalise and harass some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society for not paying into the BBC trough though, is it? Have you been caught avoiding your licence fee sunshine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 Have you watched Newnight lately? I presume you'll be posting your pious views on the streaming thread, or is it ok to " free ride" on Murdoch's investments. Wouldn't surprise me as consistency isn't your strong suit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I have a Sky Sports subscription, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 The democratically elected current government renewed the BBC royal charter. Democracy. The will of the people enacted. These whining, grizzling, sore loser snowflakes complaining better suck it up. They truly are the enemies of the people. Sent from my HTC Desire 510 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 March, 2017 Share Posted 2 March, 2017 The democratically elected current government renewed the BBC royal charter. Democracy. The will of the people enacted. These whining, grizzling, sore loser snowflakes complaining better suck it up. They truly are the enemies of the people. :toppa: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 I can imagine you are an avid ITV viewer. Them ant and dec are hilarious like You're wrong as usual. Unlucky lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 I can imagine you are an avid ITV viewer. Them ant and dec are hilarious like Why do you want poor people to subsidise wealthy people watching tv? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 Why do you want poor people to subsidise wealthy people watching tv? Oh it's the poor you are concerned about? Sorry I misunderstood. I would have no objection if the fee was levied according to income although I imagine to administer the change would be very costly to the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 It's not the nasty greedy right wingers advocating sending out brown shirts to criminalise and harass some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society for not paying into the BBC trough though, is it? Well, it kind of is. The BBC have been under increasing pressure to justify themselves and their expenditure, mainly by right wingers, who see themselves as disadvantaged by the purported left wing bias of the organisation. So the BBC outsource licence fee collection to one of the right wingers favourite Co's, Crapita, only for right wingers to now do an about turn and criticise Crapita because everyone who doesn't pay a licence fee is a poor, needy, vulnerable serf. Strange times indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 Anyone who has witnessed TV in countries where there is no centrally funded Public Service Broadcaster should recognise that the licence fee (not a Tax) is a small price to pay, whether you choose to use the service or not, it is very good value. If you really don't watch listen to or access the BBC services and don't like paying it you have the choice to view on-line subscription only channels. The BBC is for me an important part of our nations infrastructure, not beyond criticism or improvement, but still one of the best broadcasters in the world. As has been pointed out above the objectors tend to be right wingers, you know them, the ones that don't like paying for anything from which others might benefit, they also claim custodianship of Britisheness and think the rabid right wing press is the source of all truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 Sky charges an average of £564 pa per subscriber compared with £127pa for the BBC. I know which I'd rather have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 March, 2017 Share Posted 3 March, 2017 Sky charges an average of £564 pa per subscriber compared with £127pa for the BBC. I know which I'd rather have. Sky is much better because I can watch old episodes of Only Fools and Horses or Doctor Who or Simon Sharma History of Britain pretty much whenever I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now