TO SAY I LIKE THE BBC....but the near £300 license fee needs questioning..Lets question

[ScousyFogarty]

BBC and COMPULSORY LICENSE FEE...(Paid by rich and poor alike.)

It has been suggested that the Beebs automatic cash-flow from rich and poor, should be looked at as the fee gets closer to £300 a year.

Victoria Derbyshire mentions this on her TWITTER site. (Dont know if she has ever done it on her programme.?)

You will notice that when a big name has a book out; they get interviewed on many BBC TV and radion shows. (They are usually rich and could be charged a fee for the free book plug.)

There will be many other ideas as to how the license could be REDUCED or the money RAISED by other means.

Do you have any ideas. ? Or are we going to sit back and watch the license fee go to £300 a year? (Its food for thought.

Victoria Derbyshire and Gabby Logan may well have ideas on this . Ask them if you feel like doing so.

'presumably claig they also have the ability to watch bbc on their mobiles?'

yes but what if they don't? Why should they be taxed to subsidise a state TV channel in a world of private enterprise?

is it morally wrong to charge people for their groceries? Well, you need food to live, so its morally wrong to make a profit from that, is it katvond?

TV is a luxury. When you buy a TV you agree to pay the licence fee. You watch your TV, you pay the fee. If you don't want to pay the fee, or can't afford it, you don't have a TV. A TV is not a necessity.

Need another coffee?

but the trouble is claig there is nothing to say whether that person is also watching BBC or not. In the event that people can't be "trusted" to not watch something they haven't paid for, they have to pay for just in case they do watch it

If that makes any sense...

If the money went to the other channels I'd agree with you katvond, but seeing as they have to rely on advertising it seems wrong to me that we have to pay the BBC in order to use its competitors.

TheFlyingOnion, I barely use the BBC, therefore i want the option of being able to opt out altogether and not pay for it. If I was using it constantly, I'd not resent paying for it.

Scousy with reference to your comment that radio 4 is a middle class station and the middle classes can afford the fee. I'm not sure that 'class' is at all relevant here, or the ability to pay. For me it is about choice and not being forced to pay for a service that I could live without.

You don't agree to pay the licence fee. It's compulsory and if you don't pay you get a whopping great fine.

In a world of digital broadcasting, presumabnly they could scramble BBC channels, so that you can only get access if you have paid the tax? then people who already pay for Sky, could choose whether they also wanted teh BBC. Scrambling could also be done on phones. I doubt that they will introduce that, because their revenues from the almost compulsory tax will probably decline.

wrt radio 4, no licence fee is required to listen to the radio, so it matters not whether radio 4 is middle class, working class or green with pink spots

It is morally wrong to tax poor people at £3 a week to pays stars between
100k and millions a year...

Who could describe that as fair except a died in the wool Tory....Or a BBC star? Why laugh when you are pretending to write about a serious issue?

What do you think the following stars should be paid from the license...Lets have some figures.

Wogan? Logan. G? Anne Robinson? (who is very open about money)
Paxman, Humphries? Nicky Campbell? Kirsty Young? J Ross (When he was with the Beeb) Mariella Frostrop? (who I like)

what would you pay the above geezers? you are paying them

And then the exorbitant salaries of many of their "star" presenters could no longer be paid for by teh public, who are enduring cuts and losing their jobs.

I wish that people could choose whether hey wanted the BBC channels, I would personally still opt yes, Eastenders, Holby city and Crimewatch
But as that is all I watch on BBC £145 a year is alot tbh. Dh doesnt tend to watch anything on BBC and my dc wouldnt care if they watched the channels that I have chosen to pay for with Sky.
I think the problem has arisen due to everyone having to get freeview or sky/Virgin.
It makes you feel like you are paying for it twice if you are not on freeview.

don't pay the licence fee scousy, so don't give a fuck, tbh

I think the licence fee is value for money! I would pay £200 a year to watch Being Human alone!

I wonder who gets paid the most - BBC news presenters or teh news presenters on Sky News. But when the public pays, who cares?

'It is morally wrong to tax poor people at £3 a week to pays stars between
100k and millions a year...

Who could describe that as fair except a died in the wool Tory....Or a BBC star?'

or a state socialist? Stalin probably paid his state broadcasters more than the ordinary workers got paid.

Karma as I've stated before if you don't want to pay it don't. Put your telly on eBay and sell it. If you want to continue watching tv pay the fee like the rest of us. Yes it's compulsory to pay it as your watching tv it's not fucking free and never will be.

Coffeeeeeeeee

Not sure that this is still up-to-date

www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=406915&in_page_id=2

'The rules apply to people watching any broadcaster's programmes - not just the BBC's. And licensing authorities warn that it could even affect foreign businessmen travelling into Britain who use laptops to catch 'streamed' programmes from anywhere in the world.

'It does not matter where the programme is being broadcast from. If you are watching live TV in Britain, you need a licence,' said a TV Licensing spokesman.

Officials are so serious about enforcing the rules that mobile phone and computer shops are passing on personal details about customers - just in case they start watching programmes on their 3G handsets or via broadband.'

Claig and scousy are you the same people, as your crappy views are the same. Tell you what STEP AWAY from the computer and get some fresh air you may feel better for it :)

Katvond, you are missing the point. The fee does not benefit all the channels. I want Sky and am paying for Sky. Why should I have to pay for the BBC in order to access Sky?

katvond, I'm not the same person as Scousy. Why don't you start thinking with the tiny brain that God gave you? Then you might feel better for it.

katvond I directed a comment at you before that was meant for karma sorry

Because karma that's how it is, I don't watch BBC but I still don't have a problem paying it. Sadly that's the rules I can't change them. For us to watch sky I have to buy a tv licence even though we hardly watch BBC. Until those rules are changed I will have to keep paying.

Claig me and my tiny brain are just damn fine, thankyou :)
Sorry but won't rise to the bait on that one darling

Thats ok flyingonion didn't think it was meant for me :)

Because you're not capable. Don't start insulting people who have different views to you. Expand your mind, you might learn something.

TFO when you buy groceries you choose what you want and pay accordingly. That's what I am asking for wrt TV. I'd like to choose my channels (as I do for Sky) and pay for them. I would choose not to pay for the BBC.

It is morally wrong to force people to pay for state television that they don't want.

That said, if the BBC didn't take the piss and kept the fee below £100 I'd mind less. Also as they are a publicly funded organisation I think they need to reign their spending in a bit and be more accountable for it.