Isnt it time to end the BBCs license to extort?(91 Posts)
In light of recent events isnt it time we have the right to decide what TV services we buy and who we pay our money to? Earlier this year the BBC even made a royalty payment to Garry Glitter because they still choose to show programs with him performing in them. Why should we be forced to pay Garry Glitter just because we want to watch Television? Why cant we just subscribe to SKY if we so choose?
Why should we be forced to buy the BBCs service? Why shouldnt we be able to watch TV without been harassed into paying the BBC? Isnt this how gangsters work? All be it using the courts rather than heavies.
Rupert Murdoch may be scum but at least I get to choose whether to fund him or not, at least I can buy the mirror newspaper without having to buy or pay the sun for the privilege! What other product or service do we have to stand for this with and be bullied into buying in this way? I want to buy SKY but I dont want to buy the BBC, why cant I do this? Does anybody ever question the morality of this principle? Or have we all just been brainwashed into believing it is acceptable and morally ok? Why are the people who dont pay made to look like the bad guys?
Why should we have been forced to fund SaVILE? And pay to make his TV programs when people at the BBC basically seemed to know what was going on and were covering it up even until a couple of weeks back (i.e. news night)? Why should we have been forced to be his enabler and give him a position that allowed him to do this? Why should we have been forced to pay for his Rolls Royce in which he would drive around raping our children?
Why cant the BBC use a subscription technology like SKY? The technology has been around for decades. The BBC may keep people in work but so did the Krays, it doesnt justify this way of operating and forcing people to support you? The value for money is not the issue at stake here! Why do people who defend it keep saying that? Is it because there is nothing else they can say to defend it? Why cant the BBC operate like other channels and use advertising, subscription or both? Why cant the public be allowed to choose?
I also wonder if we should all be doing what Noel Edmunds did and refuse to pay. Enough people did it in Australia and in the end they had to abolish it. Isnt it time to stop supporting this extortion racket for moral reasons alone? What morality justifies the BBC license fee? By the way there is one of those government e petition things to abolish the TV licence if you Google it you will find it.
If the government want to give the economy a boost by putting money back in peoples pockets is this not a £120 a year start which should be the very top of the list? If David Cameron wants to now let the public start choosing what they spend our money on cant we start on this? Isnt this less important than welfare? Who else is for this tax cut? Is it me who is mad or just most the rest of the country who seem to think this is ok? Or is it the majority who support it? Whats your view?
- if you want to own a TV, then you have to have a licence.
If you don't want to pay for a licence, then don't have a TV.
It's that simple. Now stop whining like a spoilt child.
Absolutely not. (Btw, Gary Glitter would have claimed negligible performance royalties for that appearance, as Mike Leander wrote the songs; I think the Daily Fail claim that he received thousands is plain lies and part of a wider campaign to discredit the BBC).
I thought GG took BBC to court for omitting him from old TOTP shows.
I hate the idea of GG getting royalties to pay for things like trips to the far east to harm kids like he did.
Well, if they keep running full TOTP episodes from 1977 etc. Then we'll be seeing lots more of J. Savile... I think it would be a shame to pull this series as it's just getting interesting, musically-speaking, perhaps they can edit him out.
I would embrace a subscription fee for BBC rather than a TV licence. I don't watch BBC, I don't listen to BBC radio, I don't see why I should pay for it.
Freedom, if one can't afford to pay then don't have a tv. It's not a necessity. I didn't have one until I was an adult and managed just fine.
In the early seventies NASA and the US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare got together to put together a TV channel intended to distribute educational programming. It eventually became known as The Learning Channel, or TLC for short.
It was eventually privatised. Now it specializes in child exploitation programming (Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, Toddlers and Tiaras) and other nightmare grade 'reality' programming.
I will happily pay the licence fee because BBC in general puts out far better programmes than all the other channels and I listen to BBC radio too. We pay for sky too, but if I had to chose between the two, I'd always choose the BBC.
Soggy that's shocking! That is as good an argument against privatisation as any.
Except, the reason that TLC was privatised in 1980 was because of terrible viewing figures. No-one was watching. What's the point in spending 'public money' on a service that wasn't wanted?
Consumer demand, the public spoke and the public got what it wanted.
I dislike the use of the courts as the bbcs debt collector
The BBC does not charge anyone a licence fee to watch its programmes. The government imposes a licence fee on people who posess the necessary equipment to receive live television. They decided long ago that the money they raise from that licence fee should be ring fenced and used to fund a public service broadcaster, quite how this makes the BBC like the mafia god only knows!
I love the naive optimism of anyone who thinks that a government would just hand this large some of money back to people. Even if they chose to scrap the BBC (which I think would be a huge loss as it represents one of the very best things this country has produced) you can be damn sure that a similar fee/tax would be levied for some other reason (like funding communications infrastructure). People are used to paying that money, and that is too good an opportunity for a government not to exploit.
According to its own figures, less than 11% of the licence fee revenue went towards things like 'funding communications infrastructure' so to that end, as I am NOT a BBC user I will happily pay £15 quid a year towards that rather than £145.50 for something I don't use!
Dallas, I'm not talking about what the BBC does with the money. I'm saying that the government, knowing that people already budget for spending this amount would simply continue to collect it for some other purpose that suits them.
Anyway, as the argument always goes, I don't get to pick and choose what my taxes go towards, whether it is the NHS, Defence spending etc, I have to accept that they are allocated to whatever the government deems appropriate. Why should people think the BBC is any different. At least in that case there is some ability to opt out if you don't own a tv. I could have private medical insurance up to my eyeballs but no one will ever let me escape paying full whack for the NHS.
British governments of the day spent a small fortune in developing the equipment and infrastructure to allow radio and television broadcasting, and it remains a significant benefit for Britain not only financially but as an expression of 'soft' power on the worldwide stage.
Therefore the Government is entirely justified in implementing whatever framework that maintains these aspects.
Ah I misunderstood then, apologies
Although it doesn't change my stance. Once I am out of my current employment I won't be paying for a TV licence, and i'll take whatever punishment I'm due.
The BBC figures for spending can be found HERE the majority of the cash is spent on programmes.
Dallas. You'll get a huge fine. Honest. Plus costs.
You must pay.
Oh no, I do get that Maureen, I'm just ready to take the risk that I won't get caught - TV licence prosecutions etc come into that 11%, I'm willing to play the odds on getting caught or not.
Why is it compulsory with having a TV?
The BBC is a con. It's just a make-work scheme for post lefties.
Who am I campaigning for DameFannyGallopsAtaGhost? And why am I here? Sorry I didnt realise it was such an exclusive club. This is exactly the brainwashed mentality I am talking about.
Why is it that in order for me to object to the morality of the issue concerned that I have to either be Rupert Murdoch, work for him or one of the BBCs other competitors or have some shadowy agenda? Do you honestly think you have be one of such things in order to find the TV licence immoral and want such a system changed? How absurd is that? Is that your best argument for the TV licence? Doesnt sound like much of a case for it to me.
I do not work for anybody who has an interest in destroying the BBC and am not a part of any shadowy conspiracy to do so. I simply dont agree with the morality of this issue, cant you understand that? Why is it so crazy to think this way? Talk about when you cant win the argument just try and dish the dirt on your opponent.
If your argument was any good then you could defeat my argument even if I did work for Murdoch and regardless of my motives, which as it happens are basically just for a fair system, I want the BBC to continue but just in a way that is fair not only to its competition but also the public.
Instead of trying to attack my obviously conspiratorial motives for objecting to such morality why dont you try and actually win the argument? Perhaps you would like to try again and answer why I cant watch TV without paying the BBC? Explain how that is moral if you can, I havent heard one good case that justifies it yet.
I know you may like the BBC but why do I have to subsidise the products that you want and like so they are cheaper and better quality for you, that just seems selfish to me. Why not let the public choose who they want to buy? Why would that be unfair? Explain if you can.
Sorry to get tetchy I do not mean to be hostile but I really dont think such a way to argue is relevant or fair. I dont accuse people who support the issue of having an agenda or working for the BBC.
Freedom - you've got a good point there! Doesn't seem right to me either that a £120 TV licence is compulsory with a tele. A bit like protection money!
SNORT tv licence isn't compulsory, only if you watch live TV. If you have a tv and don't want to pay for a licence have it detuned and watch non live tv on itv player, bbc iplayer, dvd's, ect.
Then you won't have to pay anything.
The licence fee is not collected by the BBC. It is a fixed government tax for being able to receive live television transmissions.
The government chooses to use most, but not all of, this tax to fund the BBC as a public service broadcaster. If you don't want the BBC to be the public service station, then our system provides a means for you to express this at the ballot box - lobby your MP for the charter not to be renewed in 2016.
But remember that the BBC isn't just funded so British people can watch Eastenders - it's partly funded because it's useful to the country as a projection of cultural power around the world. That's why the World Service exists and will be funded through the TV licence soon.
Although there are aspects of BBC culture I do not like, I think it would be a huge shame to dismantle it as you would never be able to get all the accumulated resources and people back under one roof again if you wanted an all-encompassing public broadcaster at some point in the future.
Actually I said something slightly inaccurate there - yes the BBC does collect the licence fee, but it can only do so because government sets the fee and subcontracts collection out to the BBC (TV Licensing).
Join the discussion
Please login first.