I was just listening to the radio and some woman who was caught watching tv without paying the licence fee is defending herself using legislation on human rights to say she shouldn't have to pay or something... I didn't hear it all. Anyway, do we think that the BBC should be funded through the licence fee, which is essentially a poll tax on us, or should we try another way?

The BBC was meant to educate and entertain the people but has often been accused of dumbing down and making decisions on ratings rather than on its mission to educate and entertain. In other words it has been accused of acting comercially when its future is secure.

One of my pet hates is how the terrestrial channels put programmes of a similar genre up against each other, news at 10, sport on saturdays, it happens all the time.

Some have said the BBC should be funded by advertising, and although there are no breaks in the programmes there are plenty of adverts for BBC products and programmes on the BBC, others have suggested that the BBC should be funded directly out of general taxation as that "is largely based on income."

I dont know what to think, anyone else have some ideas?

Advertising is the obvious answer, but I don't think it's right that you have to pay the licence fee even if you don't watch the BBC.

Also students should be exempt from paying licence fees :wink: .

The poll says licence fee or general taxation - thy're virtually the same re the bbc - 99% of us get stiffed for £120 per year for a broadcast version of the Guardian whether we want to or not.
At least I can choose to pay for C4 or Sky (or any other media for that matter). Free the people from the tyranny of the evil BBC poll tax I say and make the beeb earn their living!

The licence fee should be funded out of general taxation, surely this would be more sensible than having van's touring round our street's looking for licence dodger's!It is a public service anyway and it would save money in the long run. So many thing's in this country are out of date and need bringing up to date, we are way behind other countries in streamling our system's in many way's.Trouble with this country, it is up to eyeball's in stupid confrontation with the europoean economic comunity and hasn't got time for any sensible legislation. :roll: :evil: :?

A modern equivalent to the licence fee would be helpful (the licence fee is a very outdated way of collecting the BBC's money). Digital TV systems could help in this regard - it's much easier ensuring people pay for only what they watch that way. Taxation is more likely to help retain the BBC's unique character - it is unique compared to other countries' broadcasters and special enough to be worth keeping (friends and relatives abroad bemoan the appalling TV other countries produce and miss UK telly). I don't know how the government could argue funding for the BBC from taxation when funding for the arts and grass roots sports are so lousy. I can't see advertising being the answer either, but I do feel the BBC could make more of it's position and nature. It needs to attract viewers as it does need to demonstrate it's viability, but it isn't above the other channels' methods in this regard which is enormously irritating (the morons who decide what we watch when seem to be as common in the BBC as in ITV).

The BBC is a British institution - sort of like the Monachy (oops whole other debate).

I dunno - I don't watch the beeb except to keep the kiddies queit with the highly educational programmes. Sky One and Sci-fi have taken over for me give the license to them.

I reckon the license fee should be a lottery for the TV channels, making them fight to make better programmes.

All TV Licence payers to give their votes on the best TV channel for the year and then the winner gets the WHOLE years takings from the TV licences to help continue with their excellent programming. Or have the money staggered so you get a first second and third place.

I do not see why the Beeb should get loads of money for repeats.

Moon Maiden

When I was a school boy a friend of mine had the BBC visit his father. Something to do wth him selling insurance. He said they wasted loads of money. He said that they wanted it to look like winter so they covered his house and car in fake snow. Then for lunch someone was sent to a supermarket and brought back twice as much food as what was eaten, all sandwiches for £2+ each. I know he was a liar and prone to exaggeration, but its true that we have generally become a nation which does not shop around, leading to a rip-off britain.

The BBC seems to be run as a profit making business, what with videos and rights being sold to the highest bidders. And if so where do the profits go? Certainley not into cheap to make reality television and other assorted tosh that the BBC insults our intelligence with.
The BBC makes enough money, and given the variety of choice through satelliete, why should we continue to be taxed to pay for a channel that doesnt deliver?

£120 through a licence fee is a bargain.
I have digital TV, so get all their channels which I watch regularly. Not to mention the interactive elements with it.
I've got digital radio in my car, and listen to BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 7.
If anyone complains about quality, they aren't using what's provided enough.
Again, £120 in my opinion is a bargain.

Originally posted by "djadam"

£120 through a licence fee is a bargain.
I have digital TV, so get all their channels which I watch regularly. Not to mention the interactive elements with it.
I've got digital radio in my car, and listen to BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 7.
If anyone complains about quality, they aren't using what's provided enough.
Again, £120 in my opinion is a bargain.

I think it's far too expensive and you don't get the quality or choice that Sky TV gives you. For the same price you can pay for the basic package from sky which gives you many more channels and better quality programmes but of course you still have to buy the damn licence.

I've seen the programmes and channels you get with a Sky subscription. Quality isn't a word I'd choose - particularly for Sky's own-brand stuff. Also, you still have to pay for a subscription despite having your programme interrupted with adverts on most channels. At least with a licence fee the BBC doesn't waste your time showing you adverts and the other channels limit theirs compared to Sky's.

Originally posted by "Chris"

I've seen the programmes and channels you get with a Sky subscription. Quality isn't a word I'd choose - particularly for Sky's own-brand stuff. Also, you still have to pay for a subscription despite having your programme interrupted with adverts on most channels. At least with a licence fee the BBC doesn't waste your time showing you adverts and the other channels limit theirs compared to Sky's.


well perhaps you watch the wrong channels. I mean, Dicovery, Hostory Channel, Uk Horizons, Biography channel and award winning sky news. I mean, compared to Terresterial channels this is quality IMO.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"


well perhaps you watch the wrong channels. I mean, Dicovery, Hostory Channel, Uk Horizons, Biography channel and award winning sky news. I mean, compared to Terresterial channels this is quality IMO.

You get the History Channel and Sky News with Freeview.

Nomme

Originally posted by "nommedenet"

[quote="Lickszz"]
well perhaps you watch the wrong channels. I mean, Dicovery, Hostory Channel, Uk Horizons, Biography channel and award winning sky news. I mean, compared to Terresterial channels this is quality IMO.

You get the History Channel and Sky News with Freeview.

Nomme


No, I never said free view I said one of the basic packages which is round about what the licence fee works out at.

I didn't vote on this but the poll shows (so far) that people actually prefer the licence fee.

I think the only option is to privatise it but maintain the World service from taxation.

Another way of looking at the present system is...the government set the price of the TV licence, therefore have an undue influence on the nature of BBC content and political leanings.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I didn't vote on this but the poll shows (so far) that people actually prefer the licence fee.



Not anymore it doesn't. I also voted for advertising, which is in the lead by quite a margin now. This shouldn't be a surprise. Why should we be forced into paying for something that we may not even use? The BBC shows so many boring and repetitive trailers between programmes that they may as well use this time showing adverts which would provide its funding, rather than forcing any household with a TV to pay them a fee, whether they watch it or not.

It's better than an evening of entertainment provided by BMG related artists...

I thought the Rolf Harris programme on BBC1 last night was exceptional.

I agree t020. IMO The licence fee system was devised in the days when only a minority had TV sets, and the only channel was BBC.

I think we are really behind the times with this system. Even the poorest of homes own TV sets. There are plenty of alternative options available. How about subsctiption? These days programmes can also be sponsored. Why should people pay again for 50 year old programmes that they have already paid for years ago.

I don't think it's right that people who can only recieve 2 BBC channels pay the same amount as people who can recieve all 8 or however many there are. This is presumably done to try and get people to ditch their analogue sets and switch to digital.

Not only that. It's just like the Government demanding you pay Asda for the right to shop at Morrisons or Sainsbury's.

But you do pay the government for the right to shop... VAT and income tax ... Foreign companies setting up branches in England will often get subsidies from the Government as they create jobs and bring in further revenue from taxation at later dates...

And don't forget that your TV licence pays for all BBC broadcasts, not just television... Radio 1,2,4 etc... AND Sky has ended up being mainly adverts to the extent that you forget what you were watching by the ttime the break's finished!!!

Originally posted by Agent Dan
But you do pay the government for the right to shop... VAT and income tax ... Foreign companies setting up branches in England will often get subsidies from the Government as they create jobs and bring in further revenue from taxation at later dates...

And don't forget that your TV licence pays for all BBC broadcasts, not just television... Radio 1,2,4 etc... AND Sky has ended up being mainly adverts to the extent that you forget what you were watching by the ttime the break's finished!!!

ok, I'll word it another way. It's like Paying Virgin Cola for the right to drink Pepsi or Coke. You might only watch the other channels and not the BBC but you still have to pay the BBC for the privilidge. You don't get any choice.

You're still paying the government for the privelige!! They just don't call it a "shoppers' licence" and it's diguised as taxes. Plus, the licence fee isn't the only way the BBC is funded, so it would just reduce the quality of programmes. I don't believe we get value for money with the licence fee but i don't object to paying for one in principle. I don't think SKY produce quality programmes either, for the price you pay (i.e. £30 a month for a reasonable package with all the sport that used to be on terrestrial for free)... I'd like to see an independant TV quality monitor who tries to make programmes better without all the moral and educational crap they'd usually put into a project like that... What do ya reckon?

I assume the beeb's web site is funded via the licence fee. Would you like to see advertising on that too?

Nomme

Originally posted by Agent Dan
You're still paying the government for the privelige!! They just don't call it a "shoppers' licence" and it's diguised as taxes. Plus, the licence fee isn't the only way the BBC is funded, so it would just reduce the quality of programmes. I don't believe we get value for money with the licence fee but i don't object to paying for one in principle. I don't think SKY produce quality programmes either, for the price you pay (i.e. £30 a month for a reasonable package with all the sport that used to be on terrestrial for free)... I'd like to see an independant TV quality monitor who tries to make programmes better without all the moral and educational crap they'd usually put into a project like that... What do ya reckon?

I don't understand what you mean. If I want to go into a shop and buy Coke, that is what I do. None of my money goes to Virgin cola does it? If I want to watch Channel 4 then I can do, but I still have to buy a TV licence to which the BBC gain money from.

Like I said above, the BBC show 50 year old programmes as repeats, don't you think that the people have already paid for these programmes when they were first shown?

As far as radio goes, the cost of maintaining them, in comparrison is minimal. To publicly fund them would cost practically nothing compared to cost of the the TV licence.

The Licence Fee is a form of taxation, The only difference from income tax is that it is not progressive, but falls disproportionately on those on low incomes. We all have to pay taxes. What I am suggesting is that it would be fairer, and cheaper, to fund the BBC through income tax (and other taxes).

I actually enjoy some of the commercial stuff on sky. There is lots of stuff on the Discovery channel that I watch.

I feel the Licence was designed when few people had TV's and it is now out of date. What is wrong with a subscription service where you have a set top box and you pay a subscription fee, which then enables you to view the BBC channels. That is just one of a few options available. Lets move with the times.

Originally posted by nomme
I assume the beeb's web site is funded via the licence fee. Would you like to see advertising on that too?

Nomme

IMO this is part of the World service which could be maintained through taxation.

I'm used to adverts on other channels, and even the beeb advertises itself between programmes. Let the beeb start advertising and kill the licence fee.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I don't understand what you mean. If I want to go into a shop and buy Coke, that is what I do. None of my money goes to Virgin cola does it? If I want to watch Channel 4 then I can do, but I still have to buy a TV licence to which the BBC gain money from.

the money doesn't go directly from Coke to Virgin, but does in a round-a-bout sort of way, as the levies that coke (an american company) pay the government for allowing their licence to be made in the UK will go to support british companies such as the Virgin franchise. I know it's not stricktly comparable but I just wanted to illustrate that the money doesn't all go in the organisation's back pocket. VAT is obviously the main source for this.

...As far a radio goes, the cost of maintaining them, in comparrison is minimal. To publicly fund them would cost practically nothing compared to cost of the the TV licence.

Actually Radio's more expensive than most think. It costs about £5000 a month for an FM licence alone which is paid to the government.

It isn't as expensive as TV and only a very small portion of the TV licence goes towards the BBC radio stations (I believe it should be a higher percentage)... So I agree with you in this one! Maybe they should get rid of the TV licence and introduce a radio licence back like they used to have...

...What I am suggesting is that it would be fairer, and cheaper, to fund the BBC through income tax (and other taxes).

Except that the government would just increase (income, or whichever) tax to cover the deficit. If they took even £1bn out of their defence budget, just imagine what they could achieve...

Originally posted by Lickszz
[B]The Licence Fee is a form of taxation.

Yes of course it is! A television is a luxury, so we should be taxed for it. It is everyones choice if they choose to pay for it or not!

Originally posted by Lickszz
[B]The only difference from income tax is that it is not progressive, but falls disproportionately on those on low incomes. We all have to pay taxes. What I am suggesting is that it would be fairer, and cheaper, to fund the BBC through income tax (and other taxes).

Yes the licence fee is steep for those on low incomes. But then if you can't afford it why have it? There is always the radio to keep you entertained.

The licence fee should not be a form of income tax. The television is a luxury, so why should I pay my taxes to subsidise a luxury for the poor?

Skatie

Originally posted by Agent Dan

Except that the government would just increase (income, or whichever) tax to cover the deficit. If they took even £1bn out of their defence budget, just imagine what they could achieve...

Wouldn't surprise me. Which is why I prefer subscription or privatisation then there could be no influenece from the Government regarding content/political leanings.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Yes of course it is! A television is a luxury, so we should be taxed for it. It is everyones choice if they choose to pay for it or not!



Yes the licence fee is steep for those on low incomes. But then if you can't afford it why have it? There is always the radio to keep you entertained.

The licence fee should not be a form of income tax. The television is a luxury, so why should I pay my taxes to subsidise a luxury for the poor?

Skatie

It was a luxury 50 years ago yes. Now just about everyone owns one and if they don't it's through choice.

So, basically we are hearing such remarks from you as, "Why should I pay taxes for poor peoples benefit"

This can be said about any public service. People who use private medicine have to pay for the NHS; those who use private schools have to pay for state education; those who never claim social security have to pay for the welfare system. The whole idea behind a public service is that it is funded by all of us.

If you don't agree with that, then why are you making an exception for the BBC? Why should I have to pay for a service, the BBC, which I hardly if ever use?

Wouldn't surprise me. Which is why I prefer subscription or privatisation then there could be no influenece from the Government regarding content/political leanings.

Which is a good point. Except for the evidence against privatisation, which seems to indicate that there is always a decrease in quality and a rise in costs before the service improves... look what happened to the trians...! I wish it worked, but I've yet to be convinced...

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, basically we are hearing such remarks from you as, "Why should I pay taxes for poor peoples benefit"

This can be said about any public service. People who use private medicine have to pay for the NHS; those who use private schools have to pay for state education; those who never claim social security have to pay for the welfare system. The whole idea behind a public service is that it is funded by all of us.



Er nope that isn't the case at all. I don't mind paying taxes for services which may benefit the poor.

If people do not recieve treatment on the NHS their health is at risk which may unfortunately result in death.

The people who claim social security need this to pay for food, and a home to shelter in.


What is the worse that can happen if they don't have a TV?????? They die from lack of boredom I suppose. Whoop 'e' do!


Originally posted by Lickszz
It was a luxury 50 years ago yes. Now just about everyone owns one and if they don't it's through choice.

Can you tell me in what way this is not a luxury? Just because everyone owns a television, does not give it the right to be a necessity.

IMO the television is a luxury. Life does not end without it and we do not need it to survive.

Next thing you will be telling me is that chocolate and playstations are also necessities and why should we have to pay for the right to own one.




Skatie

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Last edited by Agent Dan on 08-12-2003 at 02:10 PM
Reason: cos I'm hungover and can't type properly

LOL.
Gets my vote for editing reason of the year.

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
LOL.
Gets my vote for editing reason of the year.

Nomme

Heh heh! Cheers Nomme!

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Er nope that isn't the case at all. I don't mind paying taxes for services which may benefit the poor.

If people do not recieve treatment on the NHS their health is at risk which may unfortunately result in death.

The people who claim social security need this to pay for food, and a home to shelter in.


What is the worse that can happen if they don't have a TV?????? They die from lack of boredom I suppose. Whoop 'e' do!




Can you tell me in what way this is not a luxury? Just because everyone owns a television, does not give it the right to be a necessity.




IMO the television is a luxury. Life does not end without it and we do not need it to survive.

Next thing you will be telling me is that chocolate and playstations are also necessities and why should we have to pay for the right to own one.




Skatie

Are you suffering fom paranoia? Just asking.

Why do you think some pensioner get a free TV licence if it's classed as a luxury? Or do you begrudge them that as well?

Instead of sitting there sniping from the sidelines, how about you elaborate on your own ideas for the licence?

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Which is a good point. Except for the evidence against privatisation, which seems to indicate that there is always a decrease in quality and a rise in costs before the service improves... look what happened to the trians...! I wish it worked, but I've yet to be convinced...

Yep, Privatising the railways was one huge black mark against the tories.

Many tory notaries made much money out of that infamous exercise.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Why do you think some pensioner get a free TV licence if it's classed as a luxury? Or do you begrudge them that as well?


No they don't. Until very very recently, even blind people only got £5 off.

Originally posted by Agent Dan
No they don't. Until very very recently, even blind people only got £5 off. Are you sure? I've been told that over 75's don't have to pay for a licence.

I agree with Lickszz. I don't watch BBC much, cos it's crap viewing.
I really hate paying out for my TV licence, it goes through me. So much so that I get the better half to pay it cos she knows I wont.

It comes outta the joint account.

I think bbc should start advertising (they already do... there own stuff) but should gain revenue from the advertising... much like any other commercial tv station.


It works in America, why not here? There is no other reason than the government make money from the licence too.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Are you suffering fom paranoia? Just asking.


And what form of paranoia would you suggest I was suffering from and what would make you come to that conclusion? Are you making the assumption that anyone who decided to debate a topic and disagree with you suffers from paranoia????

Originally posted by Lickszz
Why do you think some pensioner get a free TV licence if it's classed as a luxury? Or do you begrudge them that as well?

You still haven't given me a good reason as to why the televison is not a luxury :) I rather think the over 75's shold be entitled for a free television licence. Most pensioners are unfortunately restricted to their houses, should they should be afforded this LUXURY! But for the majority of us, are are fit, healthy and work for a living the TV is a LUXURY!

Originally posted by Lickszz
Instead of sitting there sniping from the sidelines, how about you elaborate on your own ideas for the licence?

I think the current licensing system works very well.

Although what I do object to is having to pay the same licence fee for digital programs as well. The only reason we have to pay the same licence regardless of if we have digital or not, is that the government has a target of trying to move everyone to analogue to digital. The same fee for the licence gives people an incentive to move.

Now with my above comment, people will now argue why should I then have to pay for BBC2 when I don't watch the channel.

I do not think people should have the option to opt out of not receiving BBC2 for a cheaper licence fee. As it would end up costing the TV licensing more to regulate this service.

In terms of radio licences, yes they were a good idea. But they were again aborted because of the inability to regulate this service, which is why it was integrated into the television licence.

The BBC should not be funded through advertising. This would infact give us a poor service, and we would not be able to be proud of our national television. We are fast becoming an extension of america where there exist 100's of channels none of which broadcast any decent educational material.

Skatie

Well I for one would be quite happy to pay MORE for television with NO adverts. They drive me mad. Sometimes a programme has only been on for 10 minutes before the adverts start again.

I went to America a few years ago and films can be on for hours due to the amount of adverts that are shown. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.

I think the BBC makes some really good programmes. I have SKY and would be quite happy to ditch it if I could get the freeview channels (apparently the reception isn't good enough here).

I'm not sure what the answer should be for funding the BBC but revenue through advertising would be a terrible mistake. (When everybody finally gets digital perhaps you could pay only for the channels you use).

In terms of repeats the BBC do show quite a few, however, many of the channels on SKY just show programmes that have already been on the main terrestial channels.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
And what form of paranoia would you suggest I was suffering from and what would make you come to that conclusion? Are you making the assumption that anyway who decided to debate a topic and disagree with you suffers from paranoia????

You still haven't given me a good reason as to why the televison is not a luxury :) I rather think the over 75's shold be entitled for a free television licence. Most pensioners are unfortunately restricted to their houses, should they should be afforded this LUXURY! But for the majority of us, are are fit, healthy and work for a living the TV is a LUXURY!

I think the current licensing system works very well.

Although what I do object to is having to pay the same licence fee for digital programs as well. The only reason we have to pay the same licence regardless of if we have digital or not, is that the government has a target of trying to move everyone to analogue to digital. The same fee for the licence gives people an incentive to move.

Now with my above comment, people will now argue why should I then have to pay for BBC2 when I don't watch the channel.

I do not think people should have the option to opt out of not receiving BBC2 for a cheaper licence fee. As it would end up costing the TV licensing more to regulate this service.

In terms of radio licences, yes they were a good idea. But they were again aborted because of the inability to regulate this service, which is why it was integrated into the television licence.

The BBC should not be funded through advertising. This would infact give us a poor service, and we would not be able to be proud of our national television. We are fast becoming an extension of america where there exist 100's of channels none of which broadcast and decent educational material.

Skatie

I think the paranoia might be something in the way you write, perhaps something to do with your excessive use of question marks? ;)

RE: Over 75's. Yes but it's a luxury (as you put it) by your assumption shouldn't they be made to pay for it or if not (make do with the radio, as you said)

I'm pleased that you've now chosen to enter the debate properly and as I thought you are in favour of the licence. Can you answer the following?

Why Should people be made to pay for repeats that they have already paid for previously?

You said something along the lines of "if people can't afford it tough" well, don't you think that we should explore other possibilites that could make it feasible so that everyone can afford it. Remember it is these people who get heavily fined and sent to prison for the 'crime' of not possessing a 'licence' to watch TV.

We have regulations of commercial channels in this country, which ensures that the quality does not fall to the level seen in the USA. For example, all adverts must be at natural breaks, and there must be a clear indication that a commercial break is starting. You do not get programme breaks between the adverts as you do on some US channels.

Therefore it cannot be argued that only the licence fee prevents UK TV falling to US standards.

But you can look at it another way as well. The government of the day is able to cajole the BBC with threats to end its funding.

If we want to keep BBC as a state run public service, free of adverts, then fair enough. But why not pay for it through general taxation? It cannot be argued that this would be unfair to people who don't have TVs; they are a tiny minority, and the current system is deeply unfair to the much larger number of people who have TVs but never watch BBC.

Alternatively, why not have the BBC on subscription? The signal would be scrambled, but for a fee you could buy a set-top box which would unscramble it.

Your rambling post does not really address the legitimate criticisms which have been made of the licence fee by other posters, nor does it explain why you think there is no other alternative way of financing a state television service.

If people are against the license the only realistic way forward would be to pay on subscription. If you do it through tax everybody pays and in effect it's the same as buying the license.

I guess there would be lots of issues with this approach though like I wonder how much the subsciption would be likely to cost when not every house is paying as happens now.

Ok enough long posts for me for the day!, ;)

Yes I am infavour of the licence, just not all aspects :):D

Skatie

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Ok enough long posts for me for the day!, ;)

Yes I am infavour of the licence, just not all aspects :):D

Skatie

Any compromise is noted Skatie...and appreciated. So too are people's views, for or against my own. If we were all the same, things would be awfully dull? Cheers ;) :D

Originally posted by Agent Dan
But you do pay the government for the right to shop... VAT and income tax ... Foreign companies setting up branches in England will often get subsidies from the Government as they create jobs and bring in further revenue from taxation at later dates...



VAT is paid on items you *choose* to buy. Licence fee is paid whether you choose to watch BBC or not. Therein lies the fundamental and significant difference.


As for long advert breaks, I've lost count of the amount of times BBC programmes over run due to unnecessarily long trailers and silly dance routines.

The licence fee is worth it just to watch movies without any ad breaks or news 30mins into a film :rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
VAT is paid on items you *choose* to buy. Licence fee is paid whether you choose to watch BBC or not. Therein lies the fundamental and significant difference.


I know you are not a stupid man, so please do not forward stupid arguments

You *choose* to buy a TV do you not?

For £120 a year we get 2 terrestrial TV stations, 5 national radio stations and BBC Radio Sheffield (and all the other local radio stations). We aslo get all the satellite / freeview TV channels and digital radio (if you happen to have the kit). A bit of a bargain, I think - especially as I think Sky is £30 per month (= £360 per year for programmes interrupted every 3 minutes by adverts)

If the BBC was funded by advertising, then it would be entirely ratings driven - if the advertisers didn't like it, then it wouldn't happen. We would therefore lose a lot of minority and specialist programming - BBC2, Radio 3, local radio - and probably much more.

If it was funded by general taxation, the BBC would then be subject to more editorial control from teh Governemnt. The BBC run by the likes of Alistair Campbell and cronies to meet the agenda of the government of the day.

Cumbersome as it might be, I think the licence fee is the best answer.

Originally posted by Belle
I know you are not a stupid man, so please do not forward stupid arguments

You *choose* to buy a TV do you not?

I do, but do I *choose* to watch BBC? More importantly, am I allowed to not watch the BBC and not pay the licence fee? I think not.

Originally posted by t020
I do, but do I *choose* to watch BBC? More importantly, am I allowed to not watch the BBC and not pay the licence fee? I think not.

No you see the law in this country says that if you have a TV you must have a licence for it. Like a gun or vehicle.

The fact that the income from all licence fees is used to fund an independent, public service broadcasting corporation has nothing to do with it. At least it's not spent on 'asylum seekers' eh?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No you see the law in this country says that if you have a TV you must have a licence for it. Like a gun or vehicle.

The fact that the income from all licence fees is used to fund an independent, public service broadcasting corporation has nothing to do with it. At least it's not spent on 'asylum seekers' eh?

Well thats one bonus I suppose.

I would just prefer it if the BBC was free - funded for by a short ad break during the periods where they currently show endless amounts of trailers for forthcoming programmes.

Originally posted by t020
Well thats one bonus I suppose.

I would just prefer it if the BBC was free - funded for by a short ad break during the periods where they currently show endless amounts of trailers for forthcoming programmes.
hehe

Seriously, I think the licence fee is actually a small amount to pay. The BBC is the one british institution that still commands worldwide respect and successfully disseminates all that is best about British Culture and Life.

There are Pashtun goatherds that listen to BBC world service broadcasts, not only to receive sound farming advice through the Afghani version of The Archers but more crucially, to find out what is actually going on in their country

As an institution not only separated from the mechanics of state, but in some cases the only active opposition to a party with more parliamentary majority than sense, the BBC is well placed to provide a good objective standpoint on global affairs.

And with a worldwide network of reporters, editors, stringers and broadcasting hardware -all built up using our licence fee- the BBC is the premier global news authority.

The BBC performs a fantastic service that could never hope to be commercially viable, and also serves to enormously enhance the prestige of the UK overseas.

To subject it to pure market forces would be to kill its primary function of independence. The BBC belongs to we the licence payers.

To say that the BBC is perfect is a few steps too far however. Attempts to bring it in line with market practices has resulted in a substantial trimming down of in house production, and nowadays many previously redundant BBC producers have production companies producing exclusively for the BBC.

Creeping commercialism is a fact, and makes the BBC's case for commercial purity look a little hollow in the face of BBC worldwide, where it sells its own creations for global rebroadcast.

But the cost of multimedia broadcast and content creation are escalating, and the BBC has, as we all know, a world class website that constantly ranks as one of the highest visited with the largest global audience. It has committed to digital audio and television, and continues to innovate in cinematography and CGI for our benefit.

It surges forward independently of what Murdoch, No10 or George Soros thinks and it does so with our continued support. It could do with some changes but babies and bathwater should be borne in mind.

Hear hear phan! I'd just like to add this: David Attenborough. As if we needed another reason for the licence fee? :D

Originally posted by RPG
The licence fee is worth it just to watch movies without any ad breaks or news 30mins into a film :rolleyes:
To quote DaBouncer: "'Nuff said"
Originally posted by Agent Dan
Hear hear phan! I'd just like to add this: David Attenborough. As if we needed another reason for the licence fee?
and "End of"

Originally posted by max
To quote DaBouncer: "'Nuff said"

and "End of"
:thumbsup: Thou shouldn't take the lords name in vain!

So the BBC has acquired second-rate camp comedian Graham Norton, for a sum running into millions of pounds, as I understand.

Several thousand TV licence payers may consider their money well-spent.

Not that they have any choice in the matter. Or say in the matter. They are required to pay this money, whether they have any interest in, or desire to watch, Graham Norton.

We have been told, on this forum, that the licence fee guarantees the highbrow standards of the BBC, assuring us the provision of cultural programming of a high quality.

So I'm not sure where all the dosh shelled out for Norton fits in with this.

It looks more to me, like part of a crude ratings war with the ITV, a race to get to the lowest common denominator.

But ITV and the other commercial channels have to stand on their own two feet. Nobody has to pay for their programmes. If the programmes don't get the ratings, the advertisers won't pay for the adverts.

On the other hand, the BBC can just do what it likes. They have an uncomplaining milch cow, the British public, who cough up millions each year on pain of fine or imprisonment, for the 'privilege' of seeing their money squandered, with no accountability.

Doesn't this latest episode of money spent on trash, represent the shredding of the last fig leaf of credibility for those defending the TV licence fee?

Let's scrap it now!

Spot on Lickszz.

Originally posted by Lickszz
We have been told, on this forum, that the licence fee guarantees the highbrow standards of the BBC, assuring us the provision of cultural programming of a high quality.

Don't remember reading that. Any post in particular?


So I'm not sure where all the dosh shelled out for Norton fits in with this.
...

Doesn't this latest episode of money spent on trash, represent the shredding of the last fig leaf of credibility for those defending the TV licence fee?
No it doesn't, not really.
Let's scrap it now!
No let's not (as if we could).

I think MrH put it well when he pointed out what else you get for your money besides Graham Norton (which I imagine you won't be watching anyway).

If Graham Norton is so very popular that he can command very high fees, then the BBC has done well to secure his services for a price that could easily be matched and bettered by commercial television.

"Norton has won four Baftas, six British Comedy Awards and an International Emmy" (some web site)

Whether the BBC has made a mistake in doing so, considering his obvious overexposure and ubiquity, remains to be seen. If, however, he proves hugely popular on BBC tv, because he is an entertainer not an educator or arthaus producer, then the BBC will have successfully fulfilled its remit.

But his show (which I wont be watching either) is not really the issue when you consider his two and a half year contract with the bbc is to...
bbc website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3321569.stm)
...primarily work on ideas for Saturday night shows...

If you feel very strongly about it, remember that as a licence payer, the corporation belongs to you in a real sense. You can demand answers and lobby for change through countless channels.

If you really feel that strongly I suggest you apply for the post of governor of the BBC (but you'd better hurry)

see here for details - http://www.culture.gov.uk/public_appointments/current_vacancies/bbc_governor.htm

Please forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Don't remember reading that. Any post in particular?

I was referring to this.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

The BBC performs a fantastic service that could never hope to be commercially viable, and also serves to enormously enhance the prestige of the UK overseas.
To subject it to pure market forces would be to kill its primary function of independence. The BBC belongs to we the licence payers.

And this

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think the licence fee is actually a small amount to pay. The BBC is the one british institution that still commands worldwide respect and successfully disseminates all that is best about British Culture and Life.


I don't think the licence fee does guarantee these high standards, other commercial channels seem to provide high quality services and programs. ITV, Channels 4 & 5, Cable, Sky. So it is a false premise to assume that the BBC is the only guardian of good quality TV.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme

No it doesn't, not really.

It's not just the fact that he's a B list celeb. It is the amounts of money which the BBC is spending on such items. You hinted that the licence fee is the guarantee that the BBC can maintain it's standards as a 'public service' of which it could not achieve with such commercial pressures. The millions of pounds spent on a man who does not deserve that level of expenditure, and who seems to cater for smutty schoolboy humour, really gives the lie to that argument.

Why should I have to pay for Norton's dubious services to be purchased by the BBC, when I have no desire to watch him? What happened to the concept of 'freedom of choice' we were supposed to have in a 'free enterprise' economy?


Originally posted by Phanerothyme

No let's not (as if we could).

Can you be a bit more specific? This seems to be an example of the 'sacred cow' status that the Beeb has in this country. It's like motherhood and apple pie, nobody dare knock it. But in fact, I can't see that it does anything which the commercial channels do just as well (though I am open to evidence on this point). Moreover, I am not advocating the abolition of the BBC, merely a reform of its system of taxation.

We're supposed to live in a democracy. So if we were genuinely democratic, then the licence fee would be abolished if the people voted that way.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think MrH put it well when he pointed out what else you get for your money besides Graham Norton (which I imagine you won't be watching anyway).

If Graham Norton is so very popular that he can command very high fees, then the BBC has done well to secure his services for a price that could easily be matched and bettered by commercial television.

"Norton has won four Baftas, six British Comedy Awards and an International Emmy" (some web site)

Whether the BBC has made a mistake in doing so, considering his obvious overexposure and ubiquity, remains to be seen. If, however, he proves hugely popular on BBC tv, because he is an [b]entertainer not an educator or arthaus producer, then the BBC will have successfully fulfilled its remit.

But his show (which I wont be watching either) is not really the issue when you consider his two and a half year contract with the bbc is to...


Norton may entertain millions. I'm just not one of them. And you have failed to explain why I should have to pay for the entertainment of others. The argument in favour of the BBC is that it provides more serious highbrow items which commercial TV could not. The commercial channels do the job of mass entertainment perfectly well, without needing the licence fee.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

If you feel very strongly about it, remember that as a licence payer, the corporation belongs to you in a real sense. You can demand answers and lobby for change through countless channels.

People have been lobbying for years but the Government and the BBC wouldn't have it any other way. :mad:

Posted By Lickszz
Please forgive my editing your post.

No probs, I think it makes for better reading in threads because the reader can go to the last post and pick up the discussion quickly


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Don't remember reading that. Any post in particular?

I was referring to this.
Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The BBC performs a fantastic service that could never hope to be commercially viable, and also serves to enormously enhance the prestige of the UK overseas.
To subject it to pure market forces would be to kill its primary function of independence. The BBC belongs to we the licence payers.

And this
Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think the licence fee is actually a small amount to pay. The BBC is the one british institution that still commands worldwide respect and successfully disseminates all that is best about British Culture and Life.

I don't think the licence fee does guarantee these high standards, other commercial channels seem to provide high quality services and programs. ITV, Channels 4 & 5, Cable, Sky. So it is a false premise to assume that the BBC is the only guardian of good quality TV.

Nowhere, in either of those two excerpts, do I say that the BBC is the only guardian of good quality TV (or that " [the licence fee] guarantees the highbrow standards of the BBC, assuring us the provision of cultural programming of a high quality.").

The point I make is that BBC is not just a television company - it is an organisation funded and run by the public, with an entirely transparent executive structure that owes allegiance to no market or political forces. It does a great deal more than simply broadcast camp entertainers, as has been exhaustively covered earlier in this thread.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No it doesn't, not really.

It's not just the fact that he's a B list celeb. It is the amounts of money which the BBC is spending on such items. You hinted that the licence fee is the guarantee that the BBC can maintain it's standards as a 'public service' of which it could not achieve with such commercial pressures. The millions of pounds spent on a man who does not deserve that level of expenditure, and who seems to cater for smutty schoolboy humour, really gives the lie to that argument.

Well as a proportion of its overall spend, it is a bagatelle.
I agree, it's a salary that makes my jaw drop (if the figure of £2m is correct then that works out at about £240,000 p.a after tax.

You say that [Norton] does not deserve that level of expenditure. It seems to me that your real argument is that you personally find him so irritating that you are incensed that the BBC has paid a large (but not unusual) sum of money to secure his services for two and a half years. Whilst I appreciate your disgust that a camp, innuendo laden comic can command much larger fees than you or I, it is hardly a prima facie case for abolishing the Licence Fee.

Why should I have to pay for Norton's dubious services to be purchased by the BBC, when I have no desire to watch him? What happened to the concept of 'freedom of choice' we were supposed to have in a 'free enterprise' economy?

Why should you have to pay for any programs that are broadcast whilst you're not watching? So that you can get out of the house and do something, and other people can watch something on the BBC that they like. I thought that much was fairly straightforward. You have freedom of choice, Norton is not on 24/7. Why not watch some programs that you like on the BBC, listen to some BBC radio, use the BBC website, or speak to a Freefone BBC helpline and think to yourself what excellent value for money you are getting, whilst simultaneously flying the British Flag worldwide in a way that garners enormous respect and gratitude?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No let's not (as if we could).

Can you be a bit more specific? This seems to be an example of the 'sacred cow' status that the Beeb has in this country. It's like motherhood and apple pie, nobody dare knock it.

I simply meant that "we" as in this forum, cannot simply scrap the licence fee without consulting a few people.

But in fact, I can't see that it does anything which the commercial channels do just as well (though I am open to evidence on this point).
I agree, but i suspect you actually meant "which the commercial channels don't do just as well".

OK how many local radio stations does Channel 4 have? How many digital radio stations does Granada operate? How many Pashtun Radio Soap Operas does Sky transmit? Which Commercial TV station first introduced Colour TV? Which Network is used by the Open University?

Moreover, I am not advocating the abolition of the BBC, merely a reform of its system of taxation.

If your intended reform is to fund the BBC through purely commercial means, then you are advocating the abolition of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to be replaced with the British Broadcasting Company. The new BBC will then be bought up by a media conglomerate and all your TV quality nightmares will come true.

We're supposed to live in a democracy. So if we were genuinely democratic, then the licence fee would be abolished if the people voted that way.

Yup. but they haven't yet.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think MrH put it well when he pointed out what else you get for your money besides Graham Norton (which I imagine you won't be watching anyway).

If Graham Norton is so very popular that he can command very high fees, then the BBC has done well to secure his services for a price that could easily be matched and bettered by commercial television.

"Norton has won four Baftas, six British Comedy Awards and an International Emmy" (some web site)

Whether the BBC has made a mistake in doing so, considering his obvious overexposure and ubiquity, remains to be seen. If, however, he proves hugely popular on BBC tv, because he is an [b]entertainer not an educator or arthaus producer, then the BBC will have successfully fulfilled its remit.
...

Norton may entertain millions. I'm just not one of them. And you have failed to explain why I should have to pay for the entertainment of others. The argument in favour of the BBC is that it provides more serious highbrow items which commercial TV could not. The commercial channels do the job of mass entertainment perfectly well, without needing the licence fee.

Well, your view is a little one sided. Norton may entertain millions, and the reason you should contribute to their entertainment is because they all pay for your nature documentaries, or military histories, or whatever. IT'S NOT WALL TO WALL GRAHAM NORTON! (thank christ)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme [color=blue]
If you feel very strongly about it, remember that as a licence payer, the corporation belongs to you in a real sense. You can demand answers and lobby for change through countless channels.

People have been lobbying for years but the Government and the BBC wouldn't have it any other way.

People have, but have you? Have you mentioned Graham Norton to them?

Not tempted to apply for Governor? 15k for a one day week! (its an OUTRAGE!!!)

Please forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

The point I make is that BBC is not just a television company - it is an organisation funded and run by the public, with an entirely transparent executive structure that owes allegiance to no market or political forces. It does a great deal more than simply broadcast camp entertainers, as has been exhaustively covered earlier in this thread.

Hi Phan.

That's how it's supposed to be in theory but who sets the licence fee? And who appoints the BBC management?

As I've said I am not supporting the abolishment of the BBC, if the BBC was to go commercial then yes things might change with regards to the services you mention but nowhere do I advocate that, I just used this to compare the BBC to the current commercial channels which IMO are no worse (or better). What's wrong with funding the BBC out of General Taxation or even Subscription?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]

Well as a proportion of its overall spend, it is a bagatelle.
I agree, it's a salary that makes my jaw drop (if the figure of £2m is correct then that works out at about £240,000 p.a after tax.

You say that [Norton] does not deserve that level of expenditure. It seems to me that your real argument is that you personally find him so irritating that you are incensed that the BBC has paid a large (but not unusual) sum of money to secure his services for two and a half years. Whilst I appreciate your disgust that a camp, innuendo laden comic can command much larger fees than you or I, it is hardly a prima facie case for abolishing the Licence Fee.

I am expressing my viewpoint on an issue of concern to me, because I see my hard-earned money being spent on rubbish which I have no desire to watch, and I am powerless to do anything about it. It's like legalised mugging.

Considering that they are using my money and yours for such expensive 'investments' then as we are supposed to live in a democracy I think this gives us the right to complain all we wish. The licence fee is unfair because it is regressive, and unrelated to people's ability to pay, or to the number of TVs that they possess. It is expensive to collect and to police. The TV detector vans are intrusive, and the method of fining non-licence holders is unfair. Anyone found in a house with an unlicenced TV is liable to a fine, which is why a high proportion of those fined are women, since they are more likely to be at home all day, even though it is the husband/boyfriend who is the breadwinner, and who has failed to buy a licence. All these are compelling reasons for scrapping this anachronistic system.

There is also the principle that people should not be required to pay for something they do not use, unless it is established that it is a public service, in which case it can be paid for out of general taxation.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]

Why should you have to pay for any programs that are broadcast whilst you're not watching? So that you can get out of the house and do something, and other people can watch something on the BBC that they like. I thought that much was fairly straightforward. You have freedom of choice, Norton is not on 24/7. Why not watch some programs that you like on the BBC, listen to some BBC radio, use the BBC website, or speak to a Freefone BBC helpline and think to yourself what excellent value for money you are getting, whilst simultaneously flying the British Flag worldwide in a way that garners enormous respect and gratitude?

I am more concerned with the fact that you have to pay numerous times for 25 year old repeated programmes.

I don't see where these other services are relevant. I am talking about the licence fee. I don't need a licence to use the radio or website. I'm not clear how this answers my point: So if you had a radio but no TV, then licence payers would be paying to provide you with a free service. As well as the point that people who have a TV never listen to BBC radio or TV, have to pay for the radio service as well as the TV.

As I have said, I am not advocating that the BBC be abolished or commercialised, merely a change in its method of funding.

If the argument is that my licence fee is actually paying for something I watch, bear in mind that my cable company pays Discovery (which the BBC owns a large chunk of the company who makes the programmes) to show its programmes; I then pay the cable company to watch them. So in effect I am paying twice over for these programmes. Fair? I don't think so.



Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]
I simply meant that "we" as in this forum, cannot simply scrap the licence fee without consulting a few people.

Noted.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]

OK how many local radio stations does Channel 4 have? How many digital radio stations does Granada operate? How many Pashtun Radio Soap Operas does Sky transmit? Which Commercial TV station first introduced Colour TV? Which Network is used by the Open University?

If your intended reform is to fund the BBC through purely commercial means, then you are advocating the abolition of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to be replaced with the British Broadcasting Company. The new BBC will then be bought up by a media conglomerate and all your TV quality nightmares will come true.

A Licence is not required for the Radio.

Just because people own a TV, doesn't mean that they watch BBC. In addition to the commercial terrestial channels, there are Sky, cable, video and DVD, also games. I do not think that people should be required to pay for a service that they don't use. If the argument is that the BBC is providing a 'public service', I believe that argument is questionable for the reasons I have stated. But if we accept it for the sake of argument, then the BBC could be financed out of general taxation.

The licence fee was appropriate when TV's were first introduced because the BBC was the only channel and the sole purpose for a TV. We've moved on from this scenario



Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]

Yup. but they haven't yet.

I think the majority want a change. A 2001 MORI poll indicated that 56% wanted to see abolition of the licence, and only 35% supported it.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]
Well, your view is a little one sided. Norton may entertain millions, and the reason you should contribute to their entertainment is because they all pay for your nature documentaries, or military histories, or whatever. IT'S NOT WALL TO WALL GRAHAM NORTON! (thank christ)[/QUOTE[

How do these compare financially to Nortons extravagant fees though?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]

People have, but have you?

Fair comment. I need to ask my elected representative about this.

This is a highly topical issue because I believe that, in fact, the whole TV licencing system is coming up for review within the lifetime of this Parliament, and I hope that Parliament sees fit to amend it.


Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]
Not tempted to apply for Governor? 15k for a one day week! (its an OUTRAGE!!!)

Not tempted at all. I just would like a fairer system. As to the salary, my thoughts concur with yours.