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?
Funny all of a sudden "Justin's House" was mentioned out of nowhere. So I am not the only one a bit suspicious. Very telling that.
Encouraging children to come over to his "house" and "wiggle their bottoms"!!! Uh... inappropriate!!!!
Here's a suggestion OP. Give up your TV then you won't be 'forced' to pay the licence fee. You will, however, still be able to avail yourself of the other BBC services such as the radio, website, World Service, resources for schools etc. All for free with no adverts. All paid for by those of us who value the BBC.
However, if you prefer to pay money to an organisation that has systematically and blatantly broken the law over many years, feel free to pay your tainted penny to Murdoch and his cronies. Remember when you do though, that it is Murdoch who owns the Sun, a paper that degrades women on a daily basis then ask yourself just what levels of hypocracy you are willing to accept.
I'struck by the number of people who say that the BBC is great value and they are very happy to pay the licence fee.
In that case there's no problem - no need to make it compulsory.
Just convert it to a voluntary subscription and people will be queueing up to subscribe.
I, myself HAD valued the BBC for ages... not so much now! If exploitation and sadistic abuse of children is your thing... crack on supporting these cretins.
Yes, because that's what the whole of the BBC is about isn't it?
Oh god this is scaring me! I'd consider emigrating if I could think of anywhere better to go!
I think OP must be an agent of the American Right, who think it's "immoral" for a government to tax its citizens in order to provide services for those citizens, but think it's fine and moral for that government to spend trillions on weapons of mass destruction and then invade other countries and kill innocent people.
People all over the world love the BBC because it (mostly) tells the truth; governments hate it for the very reason.
I think I'll pay a licence fee now although I don't have a TV; it's worth it just for the radio - intersting stuff all day (and night) and no commercials!
I meant governments hate it for the same reason.
And I meant interesting, not intersting!
no. Gary Glitter still has the right to be paid royalties. Lots of undesirable people are paid royalties by all sorts of broadcasters, not just the bbc. He will be receiving payments from all over the place. It is the government who set and control the tv license, why do you not object you are not forced to buy the bbc's service. The bbc are not gangsters, the license has always been under the control of the government. If Rupert Murdoch is scum why would you be willing to fund him? The Bbc were not covering anything up, not as an organisation and you sound a little unhinged in the rest of your rant.the way you have posted does little to form a convincing argument to get rid of the license fee, in fact the longer something like the bbc exists the less likely rants daily mail style shit like this will prevail.
I support the BBC. It offers a brilliant invaluable service.= necessary for our democracy.Murdoch and cronies keep your paws off.
Agree with Somebloke
If y'all like it that much subscribe to it then it won't have to be compulsory for peeps who don't listen to the radio, only watch tv for kids cartoons and other stuff on sky, and want to be able to watch other stuff without worrying about an inspector knocking on their door and then being sent to prison for non payment of tv licence.
Plus side is everyone will realise what exactly they were paying for service wise and will be queuing up to get their subscription
If you don't like it, watch it all after it goes out (ie not live) and don't pay the fee at all.
Dude! Is this how desperate Sky's PR team are getting
By the way you know what this argument is really about - more people use the BBC online news, and rate it more highly than the times online which has gone to a pay-only model of use.
This is really about the free supply of good quality, well-researched online news that cuts into Murdoch's revenue model - its not about TV at all.
Newspapers are struggling without a pay model across the board. Sky feels it can use its TV weight to make the argument about the licence fee to gain control of the newspaper market online. That's what this is about. They do this in order to be able to wield political power. Lets not let them, please.
Ah, but kid's TV is one of the reasons to love the BBC. No advertising means they are not trained early to be little consumers, pestering their parents for bits of shiny plastic they see every time they watch cartoons. Yet another reason why Murdoch and his ilk are gnashing their teeth.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.