Bbc license,is it wrong

[willo]

In my humble opinion, The license fee is wrong. Take for example look north, they have 2 people reading the news,they have a person talking about sport & they have a weather person, have the BBC not heard of multitasking? then there's things like the heavy flooding last week, why do they always have some person up to the privates wading about in floodwater accompanied by film crew-lighting crew- sound crew-etc-etc? then there's the heavy snow! not long ago they had some woman seeing if she could get from one end of Yorkshire to the other in the extreme weather that had crippled the country,for no apparent reason other than they thought it might be interesting news! why?. Also there have been times when the BBC have paid so called celebs vast sums of money in so called golden handcuff deals to stop them defecting to rival channels [selina scott-natasha Kaplinsky- jonathan ross] why? BBC Radio, I haven't listened to radio 1 since the 1970s when it was 12 hours of the top 40 making recording artists & djs rich so why should i be paying for a multitude of channels that i don't use ? I believe the BBC is a dinosaur of a corporation that does not earn the right to be force subsided by anyone owning a TV & should be made pay per view, thus perhaps the available channels could concentrate on the programs that people actually watch,after all aren't we told that competition is healthy? as regards commercial breaks,with the advent of PVRS i don't see a problem! On a final note, as the BBC is a non commercial channel,why do they have people on day in day out talking about their latest record-book-or what pantomime they are in blah-blah & why when we are rescheduled to watch England/Scotland/Ireland play blatishcronia [or whatever] at football or cricket [or whatever the BBC seems to think we all like] are the advertising hoardings not blanked out,after all its not commercial TV [is it:confused:]

[muddycoffee]

But you are confusing two issues. Complaining about waste at the BBC is a different issue than whether they should be partly funded by a License fee.

[macmellus]

What about the fact that the BBC make programmes using license fee money and then sell those programmes abroad via a totally different company which profits its shareholders?

[dosxuk]

What about the fact that the BBC make programmes using license fee money and then sell those programmes abroad via a totally different company which profits its shareholders?

 

The "totally different company" being BBC Worldwide, which is a part of the British Broadcasting Corporation. All profits from sale of BBC programming / brands via Worldwide go back and supplement the licence fee income. There are no shareholders.

[macmellus]

The "totally different company" being BBC Worldwide, which is a part of the British Broadcasting Corporation. All profits from sale of BBC programming / brands via Worldwide go back and supplement the licence fee income. There are no shareholders.

 

Well done. I wondered who'd be the first to spot that one. Just shows that people should get their facts straight before coming on here and shooting their mouth off. Let that be a lesson to us all.

[willo]

But you are confusing two issues. Complaining about waste at the BBC is a different issue than whether they should be partly funded by a License fee.

 

my issues were examples of why they should perhaps not be funded by a license fee, as the BBC is a public corporation & thus supposed to be owned by the British public i was highlighting what i consider the way they squander the monies forced from the public & come back every year asking for more. if a private company were to manage revenue the same they would go bust. I am confused as i don't see 2 issues, kindest regards willo.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 07:09 ----------

 

apologies, you are correct. the license fee is for the usage of a television receiver & thus a tax on the ownership of a TV set. sorry, i let my BBC rantings get in the way of common sense [should listen to my Mrs more-lol] Kindest regards Willo:)

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 07:10 ----------

 

But you are confusing two issues. Complaining about waste at the BBC is a different issue than whether they should be partly funded by a License fee.

 

apologies, you are correct. the license fee is for the usage of a television receiver & thus a tax on the ownership of a TV set. sorry, i let my BBC rantings get in the way of common sense [should listen to my Mrs more-lol] Kindest regards Willo

[muddycoffee]

apologies, you are correct. the license fee is for the usage of a television receiver & thus a tax on the ownership of a TV set. sorry,..

Actually it isn't.

 

1) You can legally require a TV License if you don't have a TV. - but use an iPad or computer to watch live TV as it is being transmitted.

And

2) If you have a TV you don't need one - as long as you don't use it to watch live TV transmissions as they are being broadcast.