GRcade

[iup=3532665]Winckle[/iup] wrote:I wonder if The Times or its owners have any sort of vested interest in discrediting or campaigning for the removal of funding from the BBC.

I think it's the opposite, the BBC being publicly funded/operating an extortion racket means that other broadcasters or news agencies are not competing with them for ad space/slots. The BBC may be corrupt as hell, but they are known for quality entertainment broadcasting, them suddenly having ad's would not benefit the competition at all.

I can't see how the bbc can be sending out that many letters. A recent bbc release said over a million households do not pay the licence fee, which implies to me that it is closer to one million than two. So if they are really sending out 100,000 letters a day then these people must be getting a letter every couple of weeks, surely they could take the bbc to court for harrasment?

[iup=3533536]Return_of_the_STAR[/iup] wrote:I can't see how the bbc can be sending out that many letters. A recent bbc release said over a million households do not pay the licence fee, which implies to me that it is closer to one million than two. So if they are really sending out 100,000 letters a day then these people must be getting a letter every couple of weeks, surely they could take the bbc to court for harrasment?

Haha, these people do get letters every few weeks!

They also send out goons to harass people at their doorstep, regularly. If you stop paying your licence fee, they will regularly harass you until you let one of their inspectors through the door and inspect any TV's you have to see if they are wired up. If you let them through the door and they see you don't have it wired up they will leave you alone for a year or so then want to check it again.

There's lots of videos on youtube of people filming these goons, some of them are intelligent and articulate and know their rights, some just get their kicks by insulting the guys.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ense+goons

Lots of people are obviously still watching TV and just don't want to pay, so don't let them through the door, but some are adamant that they refuse to be bullied by this corrupt organisation, and don't feel that they should have to prove anything so quite rightly don't allow them to enter, and treat the BBC with the scorn it deserves.

Of course the BBC is protected and would never actually get charged with harassment.

[iup=3533541]Faust[/iup] wrote:Lots of people are obviously still watching TV and just don't want to pay, so don't let them through the door, but some are adamant that they refuse to be bullied by this corrupt organisation, and don't feel that they should have to prove anything so quite rightly don't allow them to enter, and treat the BBC with the scorn it deserves.

Here's a wacky idea: If you're watching TV, pay the licence fee.

"Why do the police keep stopping me for not paying road tax!?"

Mind you, I do love it when the goons get their knickers in a twist about the BBC having a left wing bias.

Farage to stand for South Thanet seat

I have no idea how close elections there are, but I would imagine UKIP have selected this one carefully to ensure Farage has a good chance.

[iup=3534393]Stugene[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3533541]Faust[/iup] wrote:Lots of people are obviously still watching TV and just don't want to pay, so don't let them through the door, but some are adamant that they refuse to be bullied by this corrupt organisation, and don't feel that they should have to prove anything so quite rightly don't allow them to enter, and treat the BBC with the scorn it deserves.

Here's a wacky idea: If you're watching TV, pay the licence fee.

"Why do the police keep stopping me for not paying road tax!?"

Lots of people might not watch the BBC, yet still get harassed for not having a tv license and think it unfair and refuse to pay because they believe it is corrupt, and a fair number of people also don't watch tv at all but still quite rightly refuse to have their house searched by goons.

The BBC is a public service. You can't opt out of paying National Insurance if you prefer BUPA - and you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying the license fee if you prefer ITV.

[iup=3534591]Karl[/iup] wrote:The BBC is a public service. You can't opt out of paying National Insurance if you prefer BUPA - and you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying the license fee if you prefer ITV.

My house has never caught on fire, why am I paying for the fire brigade???

[iup=3534591]Karl[/iup] wrote:The BBC is a public service. You can't opt out of paying National Insurance if you prefer BUPA - and you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying the license fee if you prefer ITV.

Not all of it is an essential public service. If essential things like power, water, transport and telecoms are in private hands, why the strawberry float do we have state TV programmes?

Which is why people need to actively lobby against it if they want a real change. I'd rather have choice when it comes to the licence fee, but I do pay it begrudgingly, and god do some of the people on youtube who post their run-ins with the G4S goons come across as tin-foil hat wearing mentalists.

[iup=3534599]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3534591]Karl[/iup] wrote:The BBC is a public service. You can't opt out of paying National Insurance if you prefer BUPA - and you shouldn't be able to opt out of paying the license fee if you prefer ITV.

Not all of it is an essential public service. If essential things like power, water, transport and telecoms are in private hands, why the strawberry float do we have state TV programmes?

Agreed - we should renationalise power, water, transport, and telecoms. (And rail and mail too while we're at it.)

If the BBC is even half as 'treasured' and 'unique' as it insists it is then as a non-taxpayer funded digital subscription service it should have no problem at all attracting a very large and willing subscriber base. There is no legitimate case at all for the BBC to remain as a publicly-funded state broadcaster, demanding (by law) over £3.5bm a year in total income off every TV owner in the land. Not a single valid reason.

If the Fire Brigade is even half as 'treasured' and 'unique' as it insists it is then as a non-taxpayer funded subscription service it should have no problem at all attracting a very large and willing subscriber base. There is no legitimate case at all for the Fire Brigade to remain as a publicly-funded state fire fighting organisation, demanding (by law) income off every home owner in the land. Not a single valid reason.

If the NHS is even half as 'treasured' and 'unique' as it insists it is then as a non-taxpayer funded subscription service it should have no problem at all attracting a very large and willing subscriber base. There is no legitimate case at all for the NHS to remain as a publicly-funded health provider, demanding (by law) over £95.6bm a year in total income off every employed person in the land. Not a single valid reason.

Come on now, I think a member of the fire service or an NHS nurse would find some offense to being compared to a BBC reporter who's likely to be on a comparatively huge salary but ultimately funded from the same source. For the sake of both sides of the argument I think financial transparency is something that needs taking more seriously at the BBC, they do need to be held to account much more in some areas where their spending is concerned.

Edit: Then again, on balance, there are many people in highly paid marketing roles within the NHS, even at a very local level where you could argue they shouldn't be there. You can't win when it comes to fair spending of absolutely huge organisations like this, and privatisation probably isn't the solution.

[iup=3534668]Moggy[/iup] wrote:If the Fire Brigade is even half as 'treasured' and 'unique' as it insists it is then as a non-taxpayer funded subscription service it should have no problem at all attracting a very large and willing subscriber base. There is no legitimate case at all for the Fire Brigade to remain as a publicly-funded state fire fighting organisation, demanding (by law) income off every home owner in the land. Not a single valid reason.

If the NHS is even half as 'treasured' and 'unique' as it insists it is then as a non-taxpayer funded subscription service it should have no problem at all attracting a very large and willing subscriber base. There is no legitimate case at all for the NHS to remain as a publicly-funded health provider, demanding (by law) over £95.6bm a year in total income off every employed person in the land. Not a single valid reason.

[iup=3534675]Holpil[/iup] wrote:Come on now, I think a member of the fire service or an NHS nurse would find some offense to being compared to a BBC reporter who's likely to be on a comparatively huge salary but ultimately funded from the same source. For the sake of both sides of the argument I think financial transparency is something that needs taking more seriously at the BBC, they do need to be held to account much more in some areas where their spending is concerned.

Edit: Then again, on balance, there are many people in highly paid marketing roles within the NHS, even at a very local level where you could argue they shouldn't be there. You can't win when it comes to fair spending of absolutely huge organisations like this, and privatisation probably isn't the solution.

I agree firemen and doctors are different to the BBC. My point is that there are people in this country that would privatise the NHS and Fire Brigade as they don't believe in publicly funding such organisations.

I don't think Cal goes that far mind you! He's just annoyed that the BBC doesn't agree with him on climate change.

All worth it.

[iup=3534737]Dual[/iup] wrote:All worth it.

Not really. BBC Radio creates an unfair monopoly and makes it difficult for anyone else to compete. This is one area I wouldn't mind privatising. There's no need for the BBC to have entertainment radio stations or cover (popular) sports.

I'm a big fan of the BBC, and I make regular use of and enjoy their broadcast (TV & radio) and online output on a regular basis.

I understand, and generally agree with, the argument that the BBC shouldn't be our de facto state TV network. TV isn't an 'essential' service in the same way that healthcare, police services, fire, water etc. are, and in a democratic capitalist nation with a free market economy it doesn't make sense that one competitor should be funded by the public, rather than having to generate its own revenue stream. It would be like forcing people who want to subscribe to magazines, to subscribe to Edge first. You can subscribe to Edge on its own, but you can't subscribe to gamesTM, or PC Gamer, unless you have a fully paid-up sub to Edge first. Or, you don't have to pay, but then you can't read magazines at all.

While the current status quo is beneficial to me personally (as I'm sure a BBC subscription fee for TV, radio and online might cost me more than the current TV licence fee!) I would agree with the proposed change to a full free market service whereby the Beeb has to compete on the same footing as everyone else (ads on the BBC though )

However, I would be interested to know what would happen with the UK's broadcast infrastructure - TV and Radio transmitters, masts etc. At present I believe this is all owned, maintained and regulated by Digital UK, which is co-owned by the free-to-air stations, among other partners. Obviously all other channels, both radio and TV, broadcast using this infrastructure. AFAIK, the TV license also covers paying for the necessary maintenance of this network. If the BBC, Channel 4 (which also benefits from the TV license money, as do some other free-to-air stations I believe), etc. went private, then would they retain ownership of these assets? Would these retain nationalised status and be covered by some other, possibly new, group or body? Would we still have to pay a 'network fee' as opposed to the license fee - or might this just be covered by a rise in other taxes? Or would the BBC and its partners still be responsible for the network but charge a fee to their competitors to broadcast on what would now be 'their' network? Wouldn't this arguably be less of an 'even' playing field?

It's all very interesting to me, as someone who would (by and large) be happy with most outcomes.