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*

it is not an implication Kate. It is fact. If you don't agree - then perhaps it wasn't the best thing to announce that you do not pay it, and never have.

The fixed rate of the licence - the cost of it - will be factored to accomodate those who 'do pay' and those who use the service but 'don't pay'.

If everyone took your stance - where do you think the money would come from?

The BBC would have to seek commercial funding and be made to realise it wasn't getting public handouts anymore as funding.
I will pay it when I have to,well I do now but as a group of us but I wish I had the courage not to.

The BBC and the Politicians need to wake up.The 'no ads' is 'not' a free option to the public it doesn't come free, everyone under 75 who has a TV has to pay £145 a year.
No choice for the public, a comfortable guaranteed income for the BBC from people who like the BBC and watch it or for those who don't and rarely watch it or even never do.
In this day and new thechnological age it is a fee that is plain ridiculous for every citizen to have to pay every year too.

Look at the money it wastes too, money from the public, does the Voice for instance really need 2 presenters, do News programmes really need 2 people on them too.
Don't get me started on chat show presenters as well.

[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 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..

[Niamh.]

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.

Well, we have to pay a license fee but our national TV channel still has ads, so count yourselves lucky

[waterhog]

i used to love the BBC - but they dont let me post my poems on there POV message board - so i have gone right off them as that is not fare or right to block someone's op-ion just because they have a different way of saying things like me.

[Black Dagger]

I really like the BEEB.

Good shows, good service imo.

[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.

Well, we have to pay a license fee but our national TV channel still has ads, so count yourselves lucky

Well,I am 20 now, I hope I see the day when the UK TV licence fee is abolished once and for all and as I said, if I go into active politics after Uni, it will be a major time of my time in politics campaigning to get rid of it.

The BBC has had things, for me, too good for too long and it has wasted a great deal of it's income on many unneccessary celebrity wages and overstaffing programming too.

In this day and age it's ridiculous to me that people have to pay a licence to watch a TV they have bought, in their own home.

[Niall]

I love the BBC. They're the only on thats pretty watchable out of ITV, C5, C4 and Sky1. They spend the money procured from licensing fees on quality documentaries, like Planet Earth, and Frozen Planet and all that. You also get all the programmes they air on BBC3 too. The documentaries that they put on there are actually really good most of the time. The reality shows they have are pretty damn good too (World's Strictest Parents, Blood Sweat and T-Shirts).

I mean if you removed the license fee and made them go commercial, then it'd probably degenerate into some trashy mess like ITV.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well,I am 20 now, I hope I see the day when the UK TV licence fee is abolished once and for all and as I said, if I go into active politics after Uni, it will be a major time of my time in politics campaigning to get rid of it.

The BBC has had things, for me, too good for too long and it has wasted a great deal of it's income on many unneccessary celebrity wages and overstaffing programming too.

In this day and age it's ridiculous to me that people have to pay a licence to watch a TV they have bought, in their own home.

I don't understand it at all. Think of what is happening in our country/across the world right now, and your emphasis is on abolishing the BBC license fee?

[Jack_]

The BBC are a fantastic broadcasting institution which we should all be proud of.

I quite like their liberal existence, and their balanced, fair and detailed coverage of news events. Their political programmes and coverage are top draw, better than any other channel's offering in the UK, as are their documentaries. There's a wide range of programming available to all kinds of ages and interests, far greater than any other organisation has to offer.

And the no ads are a bonus - although I prefer having no ads on BBC Radio channels (who wants to hear adverts whilst you're listening to something?), I think I actually prefer having adverts on the TV, but only from a 'I want a break to go and get something' point of view.

At the end of the day we should be very thankful we don't have yet another organisation owned by some vile media mogul like Rupert Murdoch. The BBC, along with the NHS, are one of the last few state-funded and publicly owned institutions and I believe it should remain that way. We're already far too down the road of privatising everything, let's not take that any further.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

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?

I disagree,I know of several companies who would love to get their ads on the BBC before and after,as I said Eastenders, there are also the advent of placement,less intrusive ads that could be incorporated into the programming too.

It won't be easy I admit for the BBC but then it isn't for all the other companies too who have to do that with no public handout., in fact I feel to get the real quality advertisers, the BBC and it's quality could even improve as to its core programming to attract such advertising.

With advertising we have now more choice of channels than ever before and they all manage. Without the commercial advertising channels all we would have is the BBC.
It is time they found out what it's like to compete in the real world and 'earn' its income too.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I disagree,I know of several companies who would love to get their ads on the BBC before and after,as I said Eastenders, there are also the advent of placement,less intrusive ads that could be incorporated into the programming too.

It won't be easy I admit for the BBC but then it isn't for all the other companies too who have to do that with no public handout., in fact I feel to get the real quality advertisers, the BBC and it's quality could even improve as to its core programming to attract such advertising.

With advertising we have now more choice of channels than ever before and they all manage. Without the commercial advertising channels all we would have is the BBC.
It is time they found out what it's like to compete in the real world and 'earn' its income too.

That's quite ridiculous. I'll find it hard to reply to this without patronising you, so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[Marsh.]

I don't really know. On one hand they're much more reliable to provide a good quality drama or documentary than ITV and many others.

However, I resent how much money was shoved in the back pocket of people like Jonathan Ross and the rest of the BBC Brigade. It's not a case of the license fee needing to be so high to cover costs but having so much money they can throw millions here and there willy-nilly.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I don't understand it at all. Think of what is happening in our country/across the world right now, and your emphasis is on abolishing the BBC license fee?

This thread is about the BBC and its licence fee, what else am I going to talk about on here?
I have a massive social conscience and on many major issues,you have no idea what other things I fight for and believe in,this thread is not about them though.
In political life,if I go into active politics,I will be fighting and trying to change many major issues and problems for people in the Country and the World in general when I can as passionately as I believe in getting rid of this licence fee if I can do anyhting to hasten that.

What an extraordinary comment to make considering this thread deals only with the BBC and the licence fee and not those other issues affecting the world.

Having said that I do feel putting £145 a year back to people to do whatever they want with is not a trifling issue really.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

That's quite ridiculous. I'll find it hard to reply to this without patronising you, so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I'm extremely happy to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

This thread is about the BBC and its licence fee, what else am I going to talk about on here?
I have a massive social conscience and on many major issues,you have no idea what other things I fight for and believe in,this thread is not about them though.
In political life,if I go into active politics,I will be fighting and trying to change many major issues and problems for people in the Country and the World in general when I can as passionately as I believe in getting rid of this licence fee if I can do anyhting to hasten that.

What an extraordinary comment to make considering this thread deals only with the BBC and the licence fee and not those other issues affecting the world.

Having said that I do feel putting £145 a year back to people to do whatever they want with is not a trifling issue really.

My point was aimed at your statement that abolishing the license fee is a big part of your emphasis. You can't have too many areas for such things as you'll spread yourself too thinly, and achieve nothing. I find it astounding that this is a consideration in political life.

It's a populist idea. The problem, is that once this was done, there is no way to change it back. So let's see how people are when all that is shown on the BBC is Towie.

It's so short sighted, and you'll probably realise this as you get older. Sun headline populism doesn't make great politics.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

It is time they found out what it's like to compete in the real world and 'earn' its income too.

No. Just no.

We should all be proud that we all pay into and effectively share an institution collectively, which can be enjoyed by not only everyone in the UK, but in many places around the world. An institution that has its content and programming as its main, primary focus, rather than yet another organisation owned by a Rupert Murdoch type only interested in profit and more importantly, shoving its own political allegiance down our throats.

God forbid that ever happens to the BBC. Just imagine it...The Sun TV. Or how about the UK's version of Fox News?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by WATERHOG

i used to love the BBC - but they dont let me post my poems on there POV message board - so i have gone right off them as that is not fare or right to block someone's op-ion just because they have a different way of saying things like me.

Are you altogether surprised?

What has this to do with the TV licence.

Posting on their website doesn't have a thing to do with that at all.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

No. Just no.

We should all be proud that we all pay into and effectively share an institution collectively, which can be enjoyed by not only everyone in the UK, but in many places around the world. An institution that has its content and programming as its main, primary focus, rather than yet another organisation owned by a Rupert Murdoch type only interested in profit and more importantly, shoving its own political allegiance down our throats.

God forbid that ever happens to the BBC. Just imagine it...The Sun TV. Or how about the UK's version of Fox News?

This and your other post on here Jack is (believe it or not) - one of the reasons I do like you as a poster.

You have many intelligent views and thoughts - some I don't necessarily agree with, but many (more than you think) - that I do agree with - and once again, your comments in this thread fall into the ''I most definitely agree with you'' on.

Well said.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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..

You don't currently have to pay yourself though. In effect, you are complaining about something that does not affect you, that has no impact upon you.

You are complaining of behalf of others that are affected?

Care homes do not have to pay for every single room. That may be down to the person to whom owns the TV set - it depends on the size of carehome, how many tvs are there etc... whether it is considered a business or not.

I'm not entirely sure Joey that this is one that you perhaps are aware of the ins and outs of.

Students, lodgers, tenents, owners of 2nd homes, etc: don't pay the same rates: if at all.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jack_

No. Just no.

We should all be proud that we all pay into and effectively share an institution collectively, which can be enjoyed by not only everyone in the UK, but in many places around the world. An institution that has its content and programming as its main, primary focus, rather than yet another organisation owned by a Rupert Murdoch type only interested in profit and more importantly, shoving its own political allegiance down our throats.

God forbid that ever happens to the BBC. Just imagine it...The Sun TV. Or how about the UK's version of Fox News?

We do not need it
as we have FoxNews live now


No way would they do a UK version.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

No. Just no.

We should all be proud that we all pay into and effectively share an institution collectively, which can be enjoyed by not only everyone in the UK, but in many places around the world. An institution that has its content and programming as its main, primary focus, rather than yet another organisation owned by a Rupert Murdoch type only interested in profit and more importantly, shoving its own political allegiance down our throats.

God forbid that ever happens to the BBC. Just imagine it...The Sun TV. Or how about the UK's version of Fox News?

All media inflences one way or another...choosing which news items to run with, the angle from which they are reported...This is not done soley by commercial stations.