End the BBC license fee

End the BBC license fee

22 posts
22 Jan 2016
photostore
Photographer
photostore
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee

If you agree with paying 3.1 million to the trust chairman Rona Fairhead is value for money
if you agree to a culture that protected a world class peadophile
if you agree that this is just another tax on the public
if you agree its wrong for the poor to pay
if you agree they should compete on the open market as any other broadcaster does
if you agree it is wrong that non payment of license fees make up 9% of all court appearences

follow this if your curious of  the bbc salaries lists
http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/






Posted 22 Jan 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Why shouldn't the poor pay?

If they can afford 60" TVs, they can bloody well afford the licence fee like the rest of us.

Posted 22 Jan 2016
paulford
Photographer
paulford
RedChecker
Why shouldn't the poor pay? If they can afford 60" TVs, they can bloody well afford the licence fee like the rest of us.
Its the benefits that tax payers have to foot that pays for them.
Posted 22 Jan 2016
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
I don't agree, there would be no radio 4 or attenburgh on a commercial channel.

Posted 22 Jan 2016
gwentman
Photographer
gwentman
I haven't had a TV for the last 19 years, the same time I gave up smoking. I found it harder to give up the TV. Then there's BBC iPlayer if you really want to watch real life as portrayed in Eastenders or Coronation Street. How's Dirty Den getting on these days? Mike.
Posted 23 Jan 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
When I got Sky it was a revelation from the standard channels, over time it waned, the number of adverts increased per ad break... then you were getting ads straight after a show's intro, on top of banners at the bottom, channel logo's top left, what on next, check this shit out on the other side, breaking news, lottery blah blah blah - all too much for me. I ditched tv in 2006. Didn't stop them continually harassing me to buy a license though. According to the last letter I have 10 days to buy one... or else. I rang em up to invite em round, none of this 10 days crap, where anyone with a brain will remove gear till they have been... as per the appointment they set for themselves regardless of your input. #Nothingtohide - got someone in the area ? send em now... i'll put the kettle on. They declined. I say scrap it. More trouble than it's worth, it's only a subscription payment for the BEEB anyway once you take away their responsibilities under the communications act. They do like being really heavy handed though, and remain a threatening and faceless entity... with tactics not unlike a loan-shark, saying you owe them when you do't, or they 'send the boys' round. They put me through to customer service, I told CS I was at the wrong dept, i'm not a customer... that went down well Have you got a manager ? no, a supervisor... no, a name ? no... handy that...
Posted 23 Jan 2016
Edited by AndyGStudios 23 Jan 2016
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
I think its a bit like democracy. Works terribly but in the end the least worse option available. Yes there is pap I would rather do without like Eastenders but there are also far more programs I find to enjoy in comparison to any other channel. Plus what is my Pap is something that gives others enjoyment and visa versa.

It does need a damn good shake up though in terms of a mass cull of middle management meddlers who add nothing of worth.
Posted 23 Jan 2016
Edited by redbaron 23 Jan 2016
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
RedChecker

Why shouldn't the poor pay? If they can afford 60" TVs, they can bloody well afford the licence fee like the rest of us.


Do the poor have 60" screens? Your evidence is.....? I only ask as I know several less well off families and not one has a screen that size. In fact I don't know anyone, rich or poor, that does.
Posted 24 Jan 2016
modjo30
Photographer
modjo30
Of course it should be scrapped, if you have Virgin/Sky/Free view/Free sat then the % of actual BBC channels is tiny, yet you still have to pay the BBC even if you only want to watch every channel except BBC, which isn't fair, people should have the choice.
If i want Sky Movies then i have to pay for it, i don't want them i don't pay for them,the BBC should be the same.

Posted 25 Jan 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
I believe a large portion of the licence fee actually goes to major sporting events (Olympics, World Cup etc. which cost hundreds of £millions for the rights to broadcast) and so scrapping the licence fee would inevitably remove these from being free to view and people will likely have to resort to buying (expensive) sports channel subscriptions.

I suspect a majority of people would not want that and as a result it makes the licence fee seem relatively good value for money.

IMO, the licence fee is worth it for advert-free TV alone. Channels like SKY's (and others on there like FOX, ABC etc.) are absolutely dreadful for endless adverts every five minutes, despite the fact you actually pay a premium for those channels.

Posted 25 Jan 2016
modjo30
Photographer
modjo30
RedChecker

I believe a large portion of the licence fee actually goes to major sporting events (Olympics, World Cup etc. which cost hundreds of £millions for the rights to broadcast) and so scrapping the licence fee would inevitably remove these from being free to view.


The fee is for the BBC only, yes if they bid for tv rights then it will go towards that but for the world cup in 2018 and 2022, the tv rights is being shared between BBC and ITV,
the fee has nothing to do with ITV and yes they have adverts but they only have adverts during half time anyway so it doesn't really make any difference, it's still free to view

Posted 25 Jan 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
I'm well aware the license doesn't cover ITV. None the less, removing BBC (as 'free' channel) will simply divert more coverage to advert-based and/or subscription services.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Wimbledon exclusively BBC?

Posted 25 Jan 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
Not good value if you don't like watching sports though. If the license fee payers fund the making of tv programmes, would it be fair to expect that back in some form when Auntie Beeb sells these shows to someone else? If you look at the structure of fee and collection (including but not limited to methods of collection via harassment) it's no different to the classic american gangster protection racket. Also, IF the assertion is correct, and you pay to NOT get adverts ? why do you get adverts ? - no no not like that, for their own programmes and products... it's still an advert between shows (a bit picky I know, but still a valid observation.) Remember the Channel 5 signal blockers?.. if you did that for the beeb, and did not receive any of their services, do you still pay? because that would be like McDonalds charging you for food you don't eat and didn't ask for in the first place. It's a general license they tell you, for any incoming live broadcast signal. So, why are the Beeb / TvLicensing / Capita allowed to collect monies on behalf of independent companies... and just... keep it? 28 Million of licence fee payers money was paid out in gagging orders over the Jimmy Saville incidents - does that constitute - fair use? Has anyone here looked into the expenses for people at the beeb? I would hope so, it's funded by the license payers... if you think the MP scandal was bad, you're in for a shock. The British Broadcasting Company was founded by John Reith to broadcast radio throughout the UK with the guiding motto “Independent British broadcaster able to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation, free from political interference and commercial pressure.” The intent behind charging for a licence was, and indeed still is, to keep broadcasting completely free from the need for advertisers and as a result, avoid bias in its programming. No bias in it's programming - OMG - really... lol wheese o' the week that one. Lastly, beware entrapment: It used to be on iPlayer that it provided preprogrammed content. In case you didn't see it they added a TV button to the menu which streams live shows as they are broadcast (their choice). If you hit up the iPlayer site now, can access it from your phone, can call it up as a website on your PC (despite a pc not being classed as broadcast receiving equipment) even if you don't use it or watch it... you are required (read: requested) by law to purchase a licence. So even if you have internet and don't watch tv, you're still ƒucked. It's like buying your food for you, and force-feeding it to you a-la foie gras, weather you want it... or not, in order to extort money from you regardless... and they say this is good value for money.
Posted 25 Jan 2016
Edited by AndyGStudios 25 Jan 2016
paule
Photographer
paule
I happily pay the fee, the radio is still excellent: 6 music & 5 Live.. I may have differing or opposing views on some of their reports & style of reporting.. though it's far better than the independents.. I think it's excellent value for the quality programs (and rubbish* like EastEnders, Don't Tell The Bride, Strictly, Bake Off ..that I don't watch, *other opinions may differ) however even though their investigative journalism may be more tabloid tattle than insightful and forensic these days it's still better than the corporate sponsored tub thumping that we have from many other media sources.. Entertainment.. they are still create quality though there is much mind numbing dross too: BBC3, EastEnders.. Sport.. almost all sold off, we just get scraps of quality: tennis in July, Olympics every 4 years as with Football Euro's & WC.. though the radio coverage is generally excellent. A publicly funded, public broadcaster should be free of ALL political interference.. it should be excellent and insightful as well as entertaining.. if we can just get the political parasites to leave well alone (obviously not in their interest to have their skeletons washed in public A publicly funded BBC is, or should be, in the publics interest and if we can get that back.. more than happy to continue paying a fee..
Posted 26 Jan 2016
JerryG
Photographer
JerryG
The BBC is pretty much the best thing about the country, and certainly the only news source that is remotely trustworthy. The website is excellent, the children's channels are superb and the radio is the best in the world. The license fee is an absolute bargain, and what I pay for Sky is a total rip-off by comparison.

Posted 26 Jan 2016
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join