Labour will vote against scrapping TV licence fees

[Brillopad]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/14/labour_will_vote_against_bbc_tv_licence_changes/

Is this a sign of Labour giving with one hand and taking with another. Just the start no doubt.

[Marsh.]

Is another sign of people wanting something for nothing.

[Tom4784]

I'd say it's more just a sign of people looking for any reason to have a pop at him, tbh.

[smudgie]

I have no problem with paying a licence fee....better than all those pesky adverts.:joker:

[MTVN]

Scrapping the license fee is a purely DUP proposal not a Conservative one. There is zero chance of it being part of any agreement or getting the support of a majority of the Commons imo

[the truth]

I'd say it's more just a sign of people looking for any reason to have a pop at him, tbh.

self pity will get them nowhere

[Cherie]

I have no problem with paying a licence fee....better than all those pesky adverts.:joker:

Same

[joeysteele]

I hate this pathetic fee and would always support getting rid of it.
However I realise no main Party is likely for the foreseeable future, to ever vote for it to be scrapped.

[Brillopad]

I think it's more about it being the start of giving and then taking elsewhere for me and their hypocrisy over helping the less well off. I have seen quite a bit of criticism on here about the BBC and the licence fee.

[bots]

If the tories started championing the end of the license fee and labour voted against it, it would just confirm the inherent left wing bias of the modern day bbc.

[Kazanne]

I don't want to pay it,we hardly watch BBC,anyone who would scrap it is ok by me.

[Withano]

Well, its not like they have a magic money tree. Tories arent taxing the wealthy corporations, the little budget is better elsewhere.

[joeysteele]

I don't want to pay it,we hardly watch BBC,anyone who would scrap it is ok by me.

I agree absolutely, sadly Kazanne I think you have a long long wait to get rid of it.

I doubt either main Party ever will really.

[Mystic Mock]

People can't moan about there being too many adverts, and then moan that the BBC are giving them a service without adverts that needs a fee to carry on running itself.

It's like all other forms of Tax's, you don't like them, but it's necessary if you want certain things.

[DemolitionRed]

People can't moan about there being too many adverts, and then moan that the BBC are giving them a service without adverts that needs a fee to carry on running itself.

It's like all other forms of Tax's, you don't like them, but it's necessary if you want certain things.

Good points.

The only reason we don't have five minutes of viewing and ten minutes of adverts repeatedly on every other channel is because all those channels are restrained by the BBC. If the BBC ever has to resort to advertising, our TV is going to become the same as American TV and having spent a lot of time in the U.S and knowing how un-watchable TV over there is because the adverts make it impossible; I would vote to keep the TV licence.

[user104658]

Good points.

The only reason we don't have five minutes of viewing and ten minutes of adverts repeatedly on every other channel is because all those channels are restrained by the BBC. If the BBC ever has to resort to advertising, our TV is going to become the same as American TV and having spent a lot of time in the U.S and knowing how un-watchable TV over there is because the adverts make it impossible; I would vote to keep the TV licence.

I have to assume that's either an exaggeration or only applies to things like reality TV, though? I haven't watched TV in the states but I do ... erm ... "procure" a LOT of (ad-less) US TV, and shows that have an hour long slot when aired have run times of around 43 minutes without ads... so that's 17 minutes of ads per hour of viewing, and that includes the ad slot at the end of the show. I don't know if there are maybe more, shorter slots in the US that break it up more? But hour-long televised UK shows typically have the same viewing time per aired hour (about 45 mins).

Having seen some US ads though, I feel like they tend to be a lot more "IN YOUR FACE!!" which probably makes it seem like even more.

Personally I can't stand ads during a scripted show at all. Breaks immersion, breaks the narrative, urgh. Netflix-style subscription services all the way! Even if they managed to completely eliminate downloads for shows that aren't available legitimately, I'd go back to what I used to do in ye olde days - just wait it out and buy the box-sets.

[Vicky.]

I hate the TV license fee tbh. I don't watch BBC so don't avoid adverts otherwise I would not mind the price :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Is another sign of people wanting something for nothing.

like students?

[MTVN]

It's not just about the BBC television channels, it's also about all their online news and sport coverage and their radio stations. The license fee means that they are able to cover stories and events that wouldn't get any coverage otherwise because they're not commercially attractive

[y.winter]

I would have been glad paying the TV license fee if I were British. You do get a decent value for your money.

[DemolitionRed]

I have to assume that's either an exaggeration or only applies to things like reality TV, though? I haven't watched TV in the states but I do ... erm ... "procure" a LOT of (ad-less) US TV, and shows that have an hour long slot when aired have run times of around 43 minutes without ads... so that's 17 minutes of ads per hour of viewing, and that includes the ad slot at the end of the show. I don't know if there are maybe more, shorter slots in the US that break it up more? But hour-long televised UK shows typically have the same viewing time per aired hour (about 45 mins).

Having seen some US ads though, I feel like they tend to be a lot more "IN YOUR FACE!!" which probably makes it seem like even more.

Personally I can't stand ads during a scripted show at all. Breaks immersion, breaks the narrative, urgh. Netflix-style subscription services all the way! Even if they managed to completely eliminate downloads for shows that aren't available legitimately, I'd go back to what I used to do in ye olde days - just wait it out and buy the box-sets.


All I know TS is, watching popular tv channels in the U.S feels like watching a programme in between the adverts. I find it unwatchable, especially at the start of a film when they give you two minutes or just enough to entice you and then go to a long stream of ads.

[bots]

The BBC is a good resource, but for me there is no place for Dr Who, Eastenders, The one show, Come Dancing etc etc etc. Its a public broadcast service, there is no need for it to provide all that crap which is a throwback to when it was the only channel broadcasting.

It still has a valuable service that it can provide, but it needs to be much more focussed in its content which should allow it to be much cheaper too.

[user104658]

The BBC is a good resource, but for me there is no place for Dr Who, Eastenders, The one show, Come Dancing etc etc etc. Its a public broadcast service, there is no need for it to provide all that crap which is a throwback to when it was the only channel broadcasting.

It still has a valuable service that it can provide, but it needs to be much more focussed in its content which should allow it to be much cheaper too.

:nono: Doctor Who is not crap, it's the only good thing the BBC has ever done. That said, the IP would be snapped up by Netflix so whatevz.

[Vicky.]

It's not just about the BBC television channels, it's also about all their online news and sport coverage and their radio stations. The license fee means that they are able to cover stories and events that wouldn't get any coverage otherwise because they're not commercially attractive

Why aren't they commercially attractive? And why should people who don't watch/listen to any of their content be forced to pay?

Labour can piss off opposing this tbh. Been wanting this scrapped for ****in g ages and I am glad its being spoken about finally. If so many people enjoy BBC content/having no ads then it can be an optional service for those people.

[user104658]

I say scrap the fee and make the BBC an optional subscription service. There's literally no decent reasoning that everyone should have to pay the fee because "some people think it's a great service". Just none. I mean I know there's an argument that it pays for all broadcasting equipment upkeep but... Shrug? I wouldn't care if they have no free to air TV at all to be honest. The modern world doesn't particularly need it. You could even have a mandatory maximum price on "basic" packages that's the same as the license fee, for those who don't want to pay more.

[Withano]

like students?

Most people want students to have free education tbf

[Tom4784]

I say scrap the fee and make the BBC an optional subscription service. There's literally no decent reasoning that everyone should have to pay the fee because "some people think it's a great service". Just none. I mean I know there's an argument that it pays for all broadcasting equipment upkeep but... Shrug? I wouldn't care if they have no free to air TV at all to be honest. The modern world doesn't particularly need it. You could even have a mandatory maximum price on "basic" packages that's the same as the license fee, for those who don't want to pay more.

This is a pretty good idea, it's the best of both worlds.

[UserSince2005]

Of course labour want to fund the BBC, its their propaganda machine.

[Vicky.]

Most people want students to have free education tbf

The only people who seem to be very against students having free education, are the generation who benefited from free education themselves :D

Personally though I guess I don't really see the need in scrapping fees. Given they only have to be paid back once you are earning a certain amount and even then the amounts taken are pennies. My brother is due to finish his uni course and he says even if hes earning a grand a week they only take like 30 quid.

[Vicky.]

I say scrap the fee and make the BBC an optional subscription service. There's literally no decent reasoning that everyone should have to pay the fee because "some people think it's a great service". Just none. I mean I know there's an argument that it pays for all broadcasting equipment upkeep but... Shrug? I wouldn't care if they have no free to air TV at all to be honest. The modern world doesn't particularly need it. You could even have a mandatory maximum price on "basic" packages that's the same as the license fee, for those who don't want to pay more.

Indeed. Those who watch BBC only think the fee is a good idea as it makes everyone else pay for it which in turn makes their fee lower. I would bet the license fee would rise to double at least once people who wanted to opt out did so.

[bots]

Indeed. Those who watch BBC only think the fee is a good idea as it makes everyone else pay for it which in turn makes their fee lower. I would bet the license fee would rise to double at least once people who wanted to opt out did so.

Its a lot more than about watching. Its about the website, its about the radio, both of which I think are more important than the TV now.

[Vicky.]

Its a lot more than about watching. Its about the website, its about the radio, both of which I think are more important than the TV now.

OK those who user BBC content then.

I literally watch nothing at all on the BBC and never use their website. I read their news stories only when someone posts them here and I could easily do without that for the sake of saving over a hundred quid per year :laugh:

[Marsh.]

like students?

EXACTLY. That's completely the same thing.

:clap1:

[bots]

Most people want students to have free education tbf

hmm, i don't think they do actually. Free schooling yes, after that its optional they can fund that themselves. At a push there may be a majority for paying the fees portion.

[Northern Monkey]

I say scrap the fee and make the BBC an optional subscription service. There's literally no decent reasoning that everyone should have to pay the fee because "some people think it's a great service". Just none. I mean I know there's an argument that it pays for all broadcasting equipment upkeep but... Shrug? I wouldn't care if they have no free to air TV at all to be honest. The modern world doesn't particularly need it. You could even have a mandatory maximum price on "basic" packages that's the same as the license fee, for those who don't want to pay more.

Yeah exactly.
It should be optional not forced on us.Pay to play.

And the disgraceful harassment they put on people is disgusting.They hire a private company to try and intimidate people into letting them into their homes after they've opted out.
People need to remember that you don't have to let them in and they've got no right to enter your home unauthorised.
No corporation should be allowed to harrass people like that.
TV makers need to start making BBCless tellys.

[bots]

Yeah exactly.
It should be optional not forced on us.Pay to play.

And the disgraceful harassment they put on people is disgusting.They hire a private company to try and intimidate people into letting them into their homes after they've opted out.
People need to remember that you don't have to let them in and they've got no right to enter your home unauthorised.
No corporation should be allowed to harrass people like that.
TV makers need to start making BBCless tellys.

I've seen them in action, they dress in a way to make them look like they are the police, to intimidate people, its very wrong I think.