[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Or rather more basically, if given a simple option of a "free lunch" most people would opt to not pay anything regardless of how much they enjoy the BBC services.

Making payment optional isn't a sufficient measure of the quality of the BBC.

Supply and demand though, surely? People DO pay for things that they enjoy, and so if people aren't willing to pay for the BBC, then the only reason can be that they do not enjoy it enough to pay what is being asked, which would be an indication that the service provider either needs to increase what's on offer to tempt people in, or drop their price to a level that more people find reasonable.

Also not buying the "cultural significance" angle. It's entertainment, not a public service, and whilst yes you could I suppose make a tentative link to museums, it's again not the same because of the amount that's being asked. Do we pay £150 a year per household towards the cost of maintaining each museum? It seems unlikely.

Here's a compromise. Make a BBC museum! It can have a waxwork of Phil Mitchell in ice skates and a leotard, bending Doctor Who over a BBC news desk, repeatedly smashing his face into a layered sponge cake and threatening him with sexual violence because the TARDIS doesn't have a TV license... and The Doctor has dared to watch The Great British Bake Off.

We can all pay 50p a year towards its upkeep. Now there's value for you.

[Kizzy]

The BBC actively don't report on the protests against the cuts to the real 'great British institutions' the BBC imo is not one. it's an old boys club of elitists who choose what we view as a means of social control.
If you think that's less important than salivating over Poldark then that's your issue, I don't.

[Cherie]

A lot of excuses being made here for tax avoidance, who likes paying tax..no one ..there's a lot of talking the talk but not walking the walk on this forum I feel

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

A lot of excuses being made here for tax avoidance, who likes paying tax..no one ..there's a lot of talking the talk but not walking the walk on this forum I feel

Which tax are people avoiding?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm fully accepting of the fact that SOME people like it and would like for it to continue as the stealth-tax-funded behemoth that it is, but likewise, there are plenty of people who don't enjoy any of the content that's on offer?

This one

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

This one

It's not officially a tax though, is it, it masquerades as something else, as an optional fee. You know, in the same way that small businesses owners paying money to protection rackets was "optional".

Refusing to pay a stealth tax enforced through extortion and aggression is not the same as "tax avoidance" of a real tax, by any stretch. If it WAS a real tax, there's no way they'd get away with taking so much.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

'Essentially what I'm saying is, how is it in any way morally right for everyone to have to pay for something because you happen to enjoy it?'

Like Cherie made the point though, you could apply this logic to a lot of public services. We're not only obliged to fund 'essential services' like health care and welfare, we also pay for the upkeep of libraries, museums, sports grounds, and numerous other public buildings or things which, like the BBC, have a cultural importance.

We are not obliged to prop up the BBC no, like other public bodies that are profit making it is being privatised.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...atisation.html

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

A lot of excuses being made here for tax avoidance, who likes paying tax..no one ..there's a lot of talking the talk but not walking the walk on this forum I feel

I thought this had been addressed a bit back? It's not a tax.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We are not obliged to prop up the BBC no, like other public bodies that are profit making it is being privatised.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...atisation.html

That's a private members bill, the BBC is not going to be privatised

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

That's a private members bill, the BBC is not going to be privatised

It's a nice threat though isn't it? Do as we say or you'll be privatised, sounds about right.

[joeysteele]

I do agree that the BBC is in a difficult position as to political reporting,there will always be times where some from all parties seem to get a less fair ride in interviews and news coverage than others, however I also think that balances out and becomes more like swings and roundabouts with some good and some bad.

I do think they provide some good programmes but then so do other channels too,however for me the quality of programming has gone down considerably in the last few years.

Really other than what I said before, I watch the BBC likely the least of all the main 5 channels.
I do begrudge the licence fee,I pay it in full on time but really do begrudge it.

What I hate about it as I said before too is it applies to all except those who are exempt,regardless of income.
I think it should be perhaps looked at again as to being more income related.

Also, sorry for this one,the over 75s and the free licence,again, I think that wrong, anyone over 75,who has massive wealth and a good income too, should in my view pay the licence fee.
I gave an example before and that stands for me because I feel it is unjust to have the rich pay exactly the same as someone on say jobseekers.

Jack_ has made a strong argument on this thread pro BBC in the main, others have made strong posts against the licence in its present form too.

Personally,I would go back to the drawing board as to it,to 'have' to have a licence to watch TV in your own home on a TV you have had to buy and despite likely Sky or other subscriptions being paid too,to me is more ridiculous than not.

We have come a long way since having only 4 and then 5 channels,however the BBC seems to be stuck in the past and this licence fee,on top of all the other outlets the BBC has now to gather funding from too,should be a thing of the past.
That is just my view.

As long as it exists I will pay it but somehow do think the writing is on the wall for it in the future.
It will need good planning to put in its place something that is much fairer and more to the point optional rather than forced.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's a nice threat though isn't it? Do as we say or you'll be privatised, sounds about right.

Not really, Peter Bone is an MP of little consequence and is more of a nuisance to the government than an asset. People like him have wanted to privatise the BBC for years to no avail.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Not really, Peter Bone is an MP of little consequence and is more of a nuisance to the government than an asset. People like him have wanted to privatise the BBC for years to no avail.

It's been on and off the table for years, as a 'publicly owned' asset it is as at risk as any other service.

[bots]

i do think its ridiculous in this day an age, with so many viewing options, that owning a tv means you need to pay a licence. The license fee should be moved to an encrypted channel model with a subscription. We could then dump all the bureaucracy tracking non payers. If the subscription model doesn't bring in sufficient cash, then they should improve or reduce their content until it is viable

[Kizzy]

'director general Tony Hall said: “To fund great programmes in an era of global competition for talent and ideas, we must work even harder at the partnership between the licence fee and our commercial arm, BBC Worldwide. 71% of the funding of BBC One’s Life Story was commercial funding. The licence fee paid for less than half the budget of some of our biggest dramas last year.”

What does this mean, is the intention to raise the licence fee?
Is the profit from the commercial arm not to be used for BBC1, if not why not?


http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...harter-renewal

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Supply and demand though, surely? People DO pay for things that they enjoy, and so if people aren't willing to pay for the BBC, then the only reason can be that they do not enjoy it enough to pay what is being asked, which would be an indication that the service provider either needs to increase what's on offer to tempt people in, or drop their price to a level that more people find reasonable.

Or people prefer freebies, which is the most obvious reason.

Look at the statistics for torrent downloads when it comes to music, TV and movies. People enjoy all kinds but rather than pay to watch any of these things legally as they enjoy the services, they'd rather get it for free when provided with that option.

Again, making payment optional isn't an accurate measure of quality. Vast majority of people would opt to save a little cash if they could use that same service for free.

[user104658]

I wouldn't watch the BBC if someone offered to pay ME £12.50 a month to have it. Each to their own though, I guess. I've enjoyed doctor who on and off, but even then the quality is massively inconsistent. The rest, IMO, is as much trash telly as any other channel. I don't want it. I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to pay for other people to have it based on the flimsy argument that it's somehow culturally significant. And I don't want to be harassed and threatened if I refuse to participate. That's my entire stance on the issue.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I wouldn't watch the BBC if someone offered to pay ME £12.50 a month to have it. Each to their own though, I guess. I've enjoyed doctor who on and off, but even then the quality is massively inconsistent. The rest, IMO, is as much trash telly as any other channel. I don't want it. I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to pay for other people to have it based on the flimsy argument that it's somehow culturally significant. And I don't want to be harassed and threatened if I refuse to participate. That's my entire stance on the issue.

If the licence fee were scrapped in favour of a subscription all the old dears (under 75) who only watch corrers will save £145 a year! yey!

[Kizzy]

'In the UK, the Guardian and the BBC have led reports on the 11.5m files, described as the biggest leak in history'

Expect privatisation in 3-2-1...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/live...b0fde262ff63fc

[Kizzy]

big brother corporation?..

'The BBC has voiced concerns at moves it says will undermine its independence, particularly about plans for the government to directly appoint most members of a new body to run the corporation instead of the BBC Trust.

Whittingdale has said the charter was looking at whether the BBC should continue to be “all things to all people”, or whether it should have a more “precisely targeted” output mission.'


http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...table-meddling

[Beso]

the bbcs sports coverage is unrivalled!



omg

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I would have no issue with a subscription service as long as it made provision for the current lot of over 75s who have a free licence and for those reaching that age say in the next ten years it would be unfair to take away this benefit from those who already have it. It would be a fairer system all round no payee no viewee : I found this thread very enlightening thanks for starting it Parmy

ty cherie.

Couple of things im not getting is why pensioners get free licence when single parents would surely benefit more and are probably more in need of help here.

Another thing, i may be wrong, but dont we get product placement tv nowadays on the bbc, also when they do stuff like comic relief etc, time and time again some large company gets their big cheque moment in front of the camera which is another form of advertisement. I want to see the normal people who have given what they probably can't afford, thats who i want to see with a big cheque, not some suited arsehole from Sainsbury looking all smug as though they personally donated the money.

[bots]

Originally Posted by parmnion

ty cherie.

Couple of things im not getting is why pensioners get free licence when single parents would surely benefit more and are probably more in need of help here.

Another thing, i may be wrong, but dont we get product placement tv nowadays on the bbc, also when they do stuff like comic relief etc, time and time again some large company gets their big cheque moment in front of the camera which is another form of advertisement. I want to see the normal people who have given what they probably can't afford, thats who i want to see with a big cheque, not some suited arsehole from Sainsbury looking all smug as though they personally donated the money.

Many pensioners are house bound without the means to go out. All their friends have died and they are alone. This is a very common scenario as people grow old, so TV becomes their only form of company. Thats why they deserve it for free.

With regard to the fund raiser events, I hate them, never watch them now.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Many pensioners are house bound without the means to go out. All their friends have died and they are alone. This is a very common scenario as people grow old, so TV becomes their only form of company. Thats why they deserve it for free.

Yeah, keep 'em placid, quiet and out of our way. Smelly old bastards.

[Livia]

I think the licence fee is good value. If you don't want to pay it, remove all the receiving equipment from your house and you won't have to!