Yes but The BBC
was more protected
under New Labour
thats a fact

I haven't seen any difference at all between both parties when in govt; to be honest,as to the Licence fee.

Really,:joker:

See,I don't mind the Lords as such,I would like to see a better balanced lords but I do feel as for both Parties when in govt; the House of Lords has delayed the progress of contentious bills and even forced govts; to think again.

I am definitely not in favour of a second elected chamber with the likely higher salaries they would need to be on and then too seeing perhaps govts; paralysed bya second chamber elected at a different time to the original general election.

bye licence fee (yas :love:)

Sounds like another nail in its coffin thank goodness.

Did you read the article, though? It basically says it'll be an end to the "licence" fee... and instead, everyone will have to pay, regardless of whether they have a TV / watch TV or not. Doesn't sound like a "win" to me, sounds like a "**** you, now you have no choice and can't dodge it".

I agree.
However once things are put on the table and all bets off as to the licence fee then lots of things can happen.

Once this dinosaur of a charge in its current form is gone,I would hope for more confusion as to the best vehicle to put in its place, that gets so involved that a very simple new fee for those who want the BBC may have to be brought in to sign up to.

It would surprise me if any govt; set out to actually end up charging every household for any kind of media fee.
This is the first time the BBC has, to my knowledge, acknowledged change is likely coming.
Now all that needs to be done is tell the BBC what the new proposals are, hear their objections and amend if possible but not to be dictated to by the BBC.

They have had it way too good for far too long now in my view and it is time they were dragged into the 21st century at last.

Yes Everything Must Change



Feel The Force

So the licence fee in its present form will finally go as, to be honest since the law changed recently it is not a criminal offence not to have one merely a civil offence. So not having one would not now leave people facing possible prison sentences as before.

This is why the licence is being scrapped as it is unenforcable in its present form. So what to do......I know put a tariff on everyone so everyone pays a small amount to keep the BBC afloat regardless if they have a TV or even watch TV.

How can this be a fairer system ? Everyone pays for a service not everyone uses.

Its taken out of the house tax
much better way.
Its the German way.


Fecking get rid of my Direct Debit
of the Mother Fecking Bloated BBC

It's also a bit confusing when it says "every household" - what does that mean? What about owned houses that are unoccupied? How will it be gathered? Part of council tax? But that goes straight to local council. A completely separate bill? Seems cumbersome. It's also no more fair than the TV license ever was... Single people with one TV pay the same as a family of 5 with three teenagers, 4 televisions, and probably at least one on 24/7.

I personally think a fully subscription based service is the way to go. No free to air TV at all - if you want BBC channels, you pay a BBC subscription to unlock them. Don't want to pay, or just don't want the channels, then you don't get the channels. Simple, elegant, and absolutely NO reason that it can't be implemented now that the digital switch is complete.

I would also note that the above, a subscription service, would force them to keep the quality of their programmes high because they would actually have a reason to try to encourage people to sign up / to keep their subscription. As it stands they have no such motivating factor: you just have to pay. And whilst some BBC shows are excellent - others are utter dross, especially on the digital channels. Considering the sheer amount of money they get, it amazes me that they've never come CLOSE to achieving the quality that Channel 4 did "at its peak". Sadly went downhill, but still.

How is it a better way? Instead of you complaining about paying for an optional service you'll be complaining about being forced to make a payment? :conf:

I agree T.S this would be the fairest way to go.

No I will not
it just goes out of the Council Tax
No Direct Debit


Its better

Collect it with the Council Tax, that's a great idea. The money's already divvied up between County/City Council and District Council, some for road repairs, the Police get their little bit, the Fire service the same etc. etc... It'd be an ideal time to collect it from people who don't pay and therefore make me feel like I'm paying their share.

Yes that way everyone pays it
Except Homeless
who need to be shipped to another nation

If they haven't got a home I thinking they probably don't own a telly.

Well the Gypsys
will have to be sorted
the Councils will have to deal with that

Or collect a SMALL amount via council tax for upkeep of broadcasting equipment, and change the BBC to a service that you can pay for if you want to and ditch if you think it's rubbish and not worth paying for...

Or, do nothing at all via council tax, and collect the money for broadcasting upkeep from the various providers, and allow them to increase their fees accordingly.

Otherwise we're just flipping the deal in the other direction. I'd still be watching all of my shows via broadband (which I already pay for) and not via your precious oldy - fashionedy over the air broadcasting towers, so... I would be paying through my council tax for you to watch BBC. That doesn't seem fair at all, Livia. I don't care if you get to watch BBC even a tiny little bit!im just heartless like that.

(tbf I'd probably end up paying a BBC sub for Eastenders because I'm just that sort of chav).

TS... you know that the licence isn't just to watch the BBC... and I'd hardly call the BBC oldy-fashionedy... and not because you've just made those words up, you sod.

If all you want to watch on the BBC is Eastenders, you should probably have your telly taken away tbh... a punishment for, well... for watching Eastenders.

TS you can not Pick and Choose


No its a flat rate whatever is per day
then by a year

The BBC Tax must keep
going down each year , though

The CEO Hall
excepts BBC shows sold worldwide
can bring money back.

BBCAmerica
is commericial

But , for example ,
the drama Wolf Hall
goes to other nations not just USA.


And the BBC has a massive Vault
also for people outside the UK
iplayer international will charge
just get a Fecking Move On Tony Hall
he is 63

http://i2.cdnds.net/12/47/618x433/media_tony_hall_2.jpg
getting his CBE

Lord Hall made the speech to staff at BBC Broadcasting House,
just a week after a report by the MPs on the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee
said the £145.50-a-year TV licence fee system was outdated and should be replaced

The BBC isn't but over the air broadcasting definitely is! I mean, who has an actual "aerial" these days? Pfft! Anyway, that's why I think each channel / set of channels should be on a "pay for the ones you want" basis and any hardware upkeep is then covered by the broadcasters themselves based on viewership numbers, who could then factor that into their fees.

So sky pays for their satellite upkeep via sky subs, BBC and the other council telly channels pay for the upkeep of over the air broadcasting via their sub fees, Virgin for cable, etc.

Sky and Virgin would presumably introduce an optional "BBC package" and pass part of the package fee on to the beeb.

It just seems the fairest way. Watch no telly, pay nothing. Watch a little telly, pay a little. Watch all of the telly going, pay a fair bit more...


Also no punishment is needed for watching Eastenders. It is a punishment in itself. Can you name any other show that has storylines that run for several years only to end in ways that make absolutely no sense? No! It is refined telly masochism.

Can so :hmph: