[Kate!]

What are your opinions on the good old BBC? Happy with them? Or do you, like me, think they should be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age? Given a metaphorical boot up the backside?

Major crime number 1: The TV Licence. It's outdated and ridiculous, should have been abolished long since, only they seem to think they are too highbrow for adverts, which would bring in so much more revenue as well. I refuse to pay it, never have, and never will if I have my way.

Another massive faux pas they have made recently is The Voice. I was excited for this, but they've made a complete bollocks of the whole thing. The voting system is a shambles, and thus there is no excitement, no vibe for the results at all, as by the time they are broadcast we've already known the results for almost 24 hours. SMH. Plus by only opening votelines for less than an hour they are missing the chance of making loads of revenue. Fools.

Thoughts?

[joeysteele]

I am not happy with the BBC, they are nowhere near the leaders in programming they were decades ago.

I would scrap the TV Licence tomorrow and I think it's ridiculous anyone has to pay this dinosaur tax now in the 21st century.
It is one of the most unfair payments anywhere too, someone on jobseekers allowance or someone between 65 and 74 who likely only have at best £100 to £140 coming in every week have to pay this accursed £145,I think it is now every year,by the same token, a multi millionaire with a mansion with a TV possibly in every room also just has to pay the same £145 yearly.

The BBC should be put where all the other channels are and have to compete now,they are as a company a minority now rather than the majority they were as to transmission of programmes, people who have sky etc, have to pay a monthly subscription to that company and in addition to that still have to pay this ridiculous Licence fee to watch a TV they have had to buy,they cannot get one without BBC on it and they have to pay for the power to watch it as to electricity too.
Decades ago when there was only BBC and ITV in the main it may have been in some way justifiable but not now and for me, this daft tax on people should be abolished completely.

As for TV licensing, I and a group of other students have done some research as to people dealing with them, people who have any difficulty paying for this licence get all sorts of intimidating and unsavoury threatening letters from this Comapny too.TV Licensing is empowered by the BBC to get the fee in so the blame for that lies with the BBC too.

If I read that the Licence was going to be abolished tomorrow,I would really celebrate that and if I learned TV Licensing,the company was also to be abolished tomorrow,I would celbrate that too and not lose a single second of sleep for the staff losing their jobs there.

If,when I finish Uni, I do go into active Politics, one my main aims and campaigns will be to do all I can to get this pathetic and, in my view, totally wrong tax,that is the Licence fee,removed from peoples lives for good.

No, it is time the BBC was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age and forced to be where all other TV companies are,competing in the real world and not handed funding on a plate.

[Pyramid*]

I might not agree with the TV licence but I pay it.

same way I don't agree with what I have to fork out for council tax given that I live alone and use very little of the services in comparison to those who live with 5 or so (all working) adults a few doors along from me; they pay an extra £30 a month more than I do.... that isn't fair but I still pay it. Further more: people like me who do pay: have to end up paying more, because of people who DON'T pay.

People who don't pay such things, simply increase the yearly cost of such bills: and it's up to people like me - who are subsidising people like you - who won't pay £12 a month for a service that not only do you receive, but actually use.

The BBC do a fantastic job. Their documentaries are renowned across the world, and foreign countries respect the BBC news/World service far more than they trust their own news.

We should be extremely proud.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

The BBC do a fantastic job. Their documentaries are renowned across the world, and foreign countries respect the BBC news/World service far more than they trust their own news.

We should be extremely proud.

Very good points there.

They do the most fab documentaries and as you rightly say: they are highly trusted the world over.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Very good points there.

They do the most fab documentaries and as you rightly say: they are highly trusted the world over.

Yes Live in Kenya
but they played recorded film more than Live
Costing to much,
wasting my Tax Fee.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I might not agree with the TV licence but I pay it.

same way I don't agree with what I have to fork out for council tax given that I live alone and use very little of the services in comparison to those who live with 5 or so (all working) adults a few doors along from me; they pay an extra £30 a month more than I do.... that isn't fair but I still pay it. Further more: people like me who do pay: have to end up paying more, because of people who DON'T pay.

People who don't pay such things, simply increase the yearly cost of such bills: and it's up to people like me - who are subsidising people like you - who won't pay £12 a month for a service that not only do you receive, but actually use.

People don't get to choose whether they do or don't pay these things. It's a legal requirement. I also live alone, but it's in a desirable post code. I pay extra for that privilege. If I want to save myself £30/month on council tax, then I'd move.

We are masters of our own choices to an extent. I live in a flat, so on top of a swollen council tax bill, I also have to pay management company fees, that over the year would buy a very nice small car for a newly passed driver. All they do for that money is cut the grass. Now that is a rip off. But again, I choose to live there, and I signed up knowing what it would cost me to live there.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

People don't get to choose whether they do or don't pay these things. It's a legal requirement. I also live alone, but it's in a desirable post code. I pay extra for that privilege. If I want to save myself £30/month on council tax, then I'd move.

We are masters of our own choices to an extent. I live in a flat, so on top of a swollen council tax bill, I also have to pay management company fees, that over the year would buy a very nice small car for a newly passed driver. All they do for that money is cut the grass. Now that is a rip off. But again, I choose to live there, and I signed up knowing what it would cost me to live there.

I happen to like where I live very much and accept that I need to tow the line - so like you: I accept that it is what is is.

Not paying the TV Licence - can be a choice. Don't have a tv or pc that can receive BBC channels or that they are blocked.



http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...enalties-top5/

It’s against the law to watch or record TV programmes as they're being shown on TV without a valid licence. This includes the use of devices such as a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

Watching TV without a valid licence is a criminal offence. This can lead to prosecution, a court appearance and a fine of up to £1,000 (not including legal costs). The exceptions are in Guernsey where the maximum fine is £2,000 and Jersey it is £500.

It costs £145.50 for a colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence

.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I am not happy with the BBC, they are nowhere near the leaders in programming they were decades ago.

I would scrap the TV Licence tomorrow and I think it's ridiculous anyone has to pay this dinosaur tax now in the 21st century.
It is one of the most unfair payments anywhere too, someone on jobseekers allowance or someone between 65 and 74 who likely only have at best £100 to £140 coming in every week have to pay this accursed £145,I think it is now every year,by the same token, a multi millionaire with a mansion with a TV possibly in every room also just has to pay the same £145 yearly.

The BBC should be put where all the other channels are and have to compete now,they are as a company a minority now rather than the majority they were as to transmission of programmes, people who have sky etc, have to pay a monthly subscription to that company and in addition to that still have to pay this ridiculous Licence fee to watch a TV they have had to buy,they cannot get one without BBC on it and they have to pay for the power to watch it as to electricity too.
Decades ago when there was only BBC and ITV in the main it may have been in some way justifiable but not now and for me, this daft tax on people should be abolished completely.

As for TV licensing, I and a group of other students have done some research as to people dealing with them, people who have any difficulty paying for this licence get all sorts of intimidating and unsavoury threatening letters from this Comapny too.TV Licensing is empowered by the BBC to get the fee in so the blame for that lies with the BBC too.

If I read that the Licence was going to be abolished tomorrow,I would really celebrate that and if I learned TV Licensing,the company was also to be abolished tomorrow,I would celbrate that too and not lose a single second of sleep for the staff losing their jobs there.

If,when I finish Uni, I do go into active Politics, one my main aims and campaigns will be to do all I can to get this pathetic and, in my view, totally wrong tax,that is the Licence fee,removed from peoples lives for good.

No, it is time the BBC was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age and forced to be where all other TV companies are,competing in the real world and not handed funding on a plate.

Bang On Right

[joeysteele]

Sometimes though people have to wake politicians up, the Licence fee,even more so at these difficult times is a big burden as well as being ridiculous.

On the estimated figures I put above in my post, someone on jobseekers allowance or a pensioner with only the guaranteed £ 130-140 a week coming in have to hand over yearly a full weeks income or more just to pay this thing. That is wrong in my book.

My Dad has always said, had people not protested and just paid the poll tax that was introduced by Margaret Thatcher then it would never have been abolished in its form.
He said people were not paying it, because they couldn't and some wouldn't but it did get rid of it

TV should be a right for people in this day and age,Politicians would be lost for instance trying to get their messages across without people having TVs.
It should be completely wrong in this present age to be forced to pay a fee for one company's channels only, on a TV you have had to purchase as yours anyway and for a channel you cannot even say you don;t wnat to get on that TV.
also looking at the BBC it's a channel where at least a third of it's programmes and transmissions are repeats anyway.

The BBC is not as great as it was and also not as relevant as it was either,in the interests of fairness it should be made to get its business like all other companies and not be taking a full weeks income every year from some people who likely only have one TV while someone who has literally thousands coming in weekly with multiple TV sets in their homes pays as much as them.
I am not getting at those people though for that,I just believe 'no one' should have to pay this ancient tax anymore,I really detest this Licence fee and the fact it even still exists in the UK.
Just what would they do if everyone actually stopped paying,like many people did with that poll tax.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Sometimes though people have to wake politicians up, the Licence fee,even more so at these difficult times is a big burden as well as being ridiculous.

On the estimated figures I put above in my post, someone on jobseekers allowance or a pensioner with only the guaranteed £ 130-140 a week coming in have to hand over yearly a full weeks income or more just to pay this thing. That is wrong in my book.

My Dad has always said, had people not protested and just paid the poll tax that was introduced by Margaret Thatcher then it would never have been abolished in its form.
He said people were now paying it, becasue they couldn't and some wouldn't but it did get rid of it

TV should be a right for people in this day and age,Politicians woulds be lost for instance trying to get their messages across without people having TVs.
It should be completely wrong in this present age to be forced to pay a fee for one company's channels only, on a TV you have had to purchase as yours anyway and also looking at the BBC a channel where at least a third of it's programmes and transmissions are repeats anyway.

The BBC is not as great as it was and also not as relevant as it was either,in the interests of fairness it should be made to get its business like all other companies and not be taking a full weeks income every year from some people who likely only have one TV while someone who has literally thousands coming in weekly with multiple TV sets in their homes pays as much as them.
I am not getting at those people though for that,I just believe 'no one' should have to pay this ancient tax anymore,I really detest this Licence fee and the fact it even still exists in the UK and just what would they do if everyone who did actually stopped paying,like many people did with that poll tax.

I'm as liberal as they come, but your argument would maybe have more sympathy if no one on benefits had Sky or Virgin.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I'm as liberal as they come, but your argument would maybe have more sympathy if no one on benefits had Sky or Virgin.

Including those people in prison btw..... who receive BBC plus satellite tv - without having to pay a penny.

another thing that the good old honest British citizen has to cover the cost of.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I'm as liberal as they come, but your argument would maybe have more sympathy if no one on benefits had Sky or Virgin.

Well I didn't say they all had,I just said if people had sky etc, they would have to pay a monthly subscription to that company.

People on benefits though, they are people too, I don't consider a TV a luxury.
You don't need to have sky that is true, but if you now buy a TV when you need one, it comes with freeview,the BBC is part of the freeview set up.

They may never get sky but they will still have had to buy the TV with BBC included in that,no option not to have it and then still have to pay this pathetic £145 yearly.

Are you suggesting pensioners on low incomes, people genuinely sick or disabled or who are genuinely unemployed because there are only 400,000 vacancies as opposed to 2.6 million people out of work in the UK are 'not' still entitled to have a TV with a sky subscription if they can budget for that. My Dad for instance pays for a friend of his,who is genuinely ill and cannot work, Sky subscription as a Christmas gift.
Maybe the people you say as to benefits have only a modest sky package and they may have someone in the house who works or a member of their family who pays for it too.

The argument of this thread is in the main, why should anyone,mega-rich, rich, well-off,just okay, on benefits or have near hardly any income have to pay every year £145 a year to the BBC for having the privilege to watch a TV in their own home whether they watch or want to watch the BBC or not.

What percentage of available channels do the BBC now transmit in the UK, certainly nowhere near the 50% it was in the 70s and 80s, how come all the other TV companies get by and why should the BBC get all on a plate given to them year on year, decade after decade.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well I didn't say they all had,I just said if people had sky etc, they would have to pay a monthly subscription to that company.

People on benefits though, they are people too, I don't consider a TV a luxury.
You don't need to have sky that is true, but if you now buy a TV when you need one, it comes with freeview,the BBC is part of the freeview set up.

They may never get sky but they will still have had to buy the TV with BBC included in that,no option not to have it and then still have to pay this pathetic £145 yearly.

Are you suggesting pensioners on low incomes, people genuinely sick or disabled or who are genuinely unemployed because there are only 400,000 vacancies as opposed to 2.6 million people out of work in the UK are 'not' still entitled to have a TV with a sky subscription if they can budget for that. My Dad for instance pays for a friend of his,who is genuinely ill and cannot work, Sky subscription as a Christmas gift.
Maybe the people you say as to benefits have only a modest sky package and they may have someone in the house who workd who pays for it too.

The argument of this thread is in the main, why should anyone,mega-rich, rich, well-off,just okay, on benefits or have near hardly any income have to pay every year £145 a year to the BBC for having the privilege to watch a TV in their own home whether they watch or want to watch the BBC or not.

What percentage of available channels do the BBC now transmit in the UK, certainly nowhere near the 50% it was in the 70s and 80s, how come all the other TV companies get by and why should the BBC get all on a plate given to them year on year, decade after decade.

It would be impossible to produce the quality of programming that they do, without us paying for it. They could run without it, of course they could, but it would be a catastrophe to have the BBC turn into an ITV clone. You may not appreciate all the documentaries that they make, as they're not for everyone.

We lose the BBC at our peril.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

It would be impossible to produce the quality of programming that they do, without us paying for it. They could run without it, of course they could, but it would be a catastrophe to have the BBC turn into an ITV clone. You may not appreciate all the documentaries that they make, as they're not for everyone.

We lose the BBC at our peril.

I have to disagree, the BBC is miles away from the quality it used to be. For me though, the BBC doesn't need to lose quality and doesn't need to go either,just be made to compete as a business like all other comapanies 'or' people should be given the opportunity to have the BBC on their TV sets or not, as it is the BBC wins hands down all the time and the viewing public have no choice at all.
That no option available is far worse then the BBC having to trim down a bit and take on more commercial funding in my opinion anyway.

[Niamh.]

I love the fact there are no ads

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I love the fact there are no ads

There are loads of BBC ads,




On SkyMoviesHD or MGMHD
once a film starts - No Ads
Non stop film.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by arista

There are loads of BBC ads,




On SkyMoviesHD or MGMHD
once a film starts - No Ads
Non stop film.

They only advertise their own programs though and it's only in between shows, it's not like say ITV where theres about 4 breaks during a one hour show.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by arista

There are loads of BBC ads,




On SkyMoviesHD or MGMHD
once a film starts - No Ads
Non stop film.

Not during a program though

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Not during a program though

They wouldn't need to interrupt a programme though, I bet there are advertisers who would be chomping at the bit to get a top and tail section at the start and end of Eastenders for instance and for many BBC programmes, especially Strictly and major Sports events in the same way.

Sky films don't interrupt the film usually, they show ads at the start and end.The BBC doesn't need to go down that route of interrupting a programme with ads.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

They wouldn't need to interrupt a programme though, I bet there are advertisers who would be chomping at the bit to get a top and tail section at the start and end of Eastenders for instance and for many BBC programmes, especially Strictly and major Sports events in the same way.

Sky films don't interrupt the film usually, they show ads at the start and end.The BBC doesn't need to go down that route of interrupting a programme with ads.

Advertising only at the beginning/ends of programmes would reduce the funds by over 75%. It's basic maths. How would they make enough money to continue to make the quality programming that they do?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I love the fact there are no ads

No ads but everyone has to pay £145 every year until they are 75.
They wouldn't need to show ads in between programmes though, (they show plenty ads for TV Licensing though).

I accept people like that fact but I think given the choice of ads and getting £145 into their pockets every year would outweigh that niggle.
Ironically I have found as many of the really well off people also want the Licence fee abolished as do the people on middle and low incomes.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

No ads but everyone has to pay £145 every year until they are 75.
They wouldn't need to show ads in between programmes though, (they show plenty ads for TV Licensing though).

I accept people like that fact but I think given the choice of ads and getting £145 into their pockets every year would outweigh that niggle.
Ironically I have found as many of the really well off people also want the Licence fee abolished as do the people on middle and low incomes.

That's incorrect Joey.

There are all sorts of concessions.

Patients in hospitals don't pay.

People in care homes that have a tv room - one tv - don't pay.

those in care homes have reduced payments if they have TV for sole use.

Prisoners don't pay - CRIMINALS who suck the system on all counts.

Young offenders don't pay. as above.

There are a great many types that don't have to pay.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That's incorrect Joey.

There are all sorts of concessions.

Patients in hospitals don't pay.

People in care homes that have a tv room - one tv - don't pay.

those in care homes have reduced payments if they have TV for sole use.

Prisoners don't pay - CRIMINALS who suck the system on all counts.

Young offenders don't pay. as above.

There are a great many types that don't have to pay.

**** me, Pyra, if the prison system was as easy as denying prisoners any kind of existence, then there are countries on eart that should have precisely zero prisoners. But there aren't. Lets see how far locking prisoners up in their cells for 24 hours a day without any stimulus gets us? They would be rioting constantly. It's one thing restricting prisoners freedoms and trying to re-educate them, it's another thing altogether to try and strip away the things we need as humans to exist.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That's incorrect Joey.

There are all sorts of concessions.

Patients in hospitals don't pay.

People in care homes that have a tv room - one tv - don't pay.

those in care homes have reduced payments if they have TV for sole use.

Prisoners don't pay - CRIMINALS who suck the system on all counts.

Young offenders don't pay. as above.

There are a great many types that don't have to pay.

Right,clearly I wasn't clear, I was talking as to people like myself who will have their own homes bought or council, on benefits or not who are under 75.
Obviously if nitpicking is now the order of the day there are people who will get to watch TV for free,but people like me up to the age of 75 will have to pay it.
The care homes will have to pay a licence just like the millionaire with TVs in near every room, Hospitals are likely to have to pay for TV licence too and also now in most hopspitals if you are in, you have to even pay massive amounts to just be able to watch TV anyway on those pull down TV sets there now.Even if they are in hospital and have a TV at home,despite being a patient in hospital they will still have bought a TV licence.

My reference, to clarify, was about people who have their home, bought or council, who are sick, working, well off or whatever,they will 'have' to pay this £145 yearly to watch TV in their own homes and only becasue of the BBC no other media organisation..