End of the BBC

Lefty said:
I did not know that and it needs addressing.

An independent organisation, owned and well funded by the people, protected from political interference from the Government, is a brilliant and desirable thing. The BBC is close to that. It needs moving closer to that rather than away from it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Sadly the appointment of Tory shills to the management board are doing the polar opposite at the moment
 
I'm sick of people telling me BBC is a 'bargain'. Why should I pay for it if I don't watch anything on it?

I don't listen to podcasts or any BBC radio stations. I can't think of the last time I used IPlayer.

The only thing I have in my sky planner on the BBC is Match of the day. That's it (I've probably already seen the goals on my phone). I also like Line of Duty that comes around every 2-3 years.

So why should I pay for a service I don't use or could do without? It's not even about the money.

If you said to someone 'do you have netfix or amazon prime?' and they said 'no I don't watch them'. Yet they were told they still had to pay a monthly subscription it simply wouldn't happen. I'm paying for something I don't use.

I'd rather put that money into paying my Netflix or even better YouTube Premium (once you've had it you'll never go back with no adverts).

That said I don't really watch anything on terrestrial TV. That's fine as I don't pay for the other channels.
 
S7DiscoDown said:
I'm sick of people telling me BBC is a 'bargain'. Why should I pay for it if I don't watch anything on it?

I don't listen to podcasts or any BBC radio stations. I can't think of the last time I used IPlayer.

The only thing I have in my sky planner on the BBC is Match of the day. That's it (I've probably already seen the goals on my phone). I also like Line of Duty that comes around every 2-3 years.

So why should I pay for a service I don't use or could do without? It's not even about the money.

If you said to someone 'do you have netfix or amazon prime?' and they said 'no I don't watch them'. Yet they were told they still had to pay a monthly subscription it simply wouldn't happen. I'm paying for something I don't use.

I'd rather put that money into paying my Netflix or even better YouTube Premium (once you've had it you'll never go back with no adverts).

That said I don't really watch anything on terrestrial TV. That's fine as I don't pay for the other channels.
Click to expand...

which elements of your council tax and income tax bill do you pay for and how do you get a refund for those that don't apply to your life and budget?

If people don't have kids so surely I should stop paying for schools. If they dont own a car, surely a rebate must come from taxation on roads and infrastructure and those that drive or get buses can take out a Netflix style subscription so they only need to pay for what they use?

schools, elderley etc can just support their own content and private industry will fulfil their needs fantastically. Quality broadcasters like GB news will step up I'm sure
 
S7DiscoDown said:
I'm sick of people telling me BBC is a 'bargain'. Why should I pay for it if I don't watch anything on it?

I don't listen to podcasts or any BBC radio stations. I can't think of the last time I used IPlayer.

The only thing I have in my sky planner on the BBC is Match of the day. That's it (I've probably already seen the goals on my phone). I also like Line of Duty that comes around every 2-3 years.

So why should I pay for a service I don't use or could do without? It's not even about the money.

If you said to someone 'do you have netfix or amazon prime?' and they said 'no I don't watch them'. Yet they were told they still had to pay a monthly subscription it simply wouldn't happen. I'm paying for something I don't use.

I'd rather put that money into paying my Netflix or even better YouTube Premium (once you've had it you'll never go back with no adverts).

That said I don't really watch anything on terrestrial TV. That's fine as I don't pay for the other channels.
Click to expand...
Did you make this much noise when your wheelie bin collection went from weekly to fortnightly or indeed didn't happen at all?

Or when your local police force decided they weren't going to bother investigating low level crime?

It's 43 pence a day FFS.
 
First they came for the safety net and I didn't say anything because I'm not on benefits.
Then they came for the EU and I didn't say anything because I didn't like the EU.
Then they came for the BBC and I didn't say anything because I don't like paying to watch it.
Then they came for the NHS and I didn't say anything because I'm not ill....

We know where this came from and where it ends. These b'stards, hiding underneath a shabby union flag, are dismantling our country as we know it and laughing as they go, while their trusty red wall shills provide them with cover.
 
Slightly torn on this one, whilst I completely understand the "not paying for something you don't use" argument, I am happy to pay and would remain so even if I watched very little of the programming.

There's a separate point about people who cannot afford the licence fee but that is linked to wealth distribution and not the price of the service in question.
 
Comparing the BBC to the NHS is a bit disingenuous. If we don't have the NHS people will be screwed but I think people could survive without Strictly, or with having to sit through adverts like they manage to do when watching every other channel. Things that should be nationalised and things that should be privatised have a pretty distinct difference. We should privatise anything that is essential but where there is no choice like healthcare, energy, education, rail & other infrastructure but not where competition is possible.

You could argue that what the BBC provides is essential but there is a choice so while the sector is essential, getting it from the BBC isn't. It's akin to having to pay a subscription to Tesco when we should be able to shop wherever we want. Many people would choose to shop at Tesco anyway but why should the Asda, Waitrose or Farmfoods shoppers have to pay their Tesco shopping license?

I'd be willing to bet that most people, myself included, aren't even anti-BBC. It's the license fee system that is the issue. It is unnecessary, removes choice and most importantly is a regressive tax. It would be better to pay for it via general tax instead of the license because then it would be a progressive tax instead of regressive.
 
Nano said:
Comparing the BBC to the NHS is a bit disingenuous. If we don't have the NHS people will be screwed but I think people could survive without Strictly, or with having to sit through adverts like they manage to do when watching every other channel.
Click to expand...
It's still part of the fabric of this nation, like the NHS. It's of cultural importance and you can't put a price or value on that.

The Tories of old would have done everything they could to protect the BBC as it protected british values......now because british values are changing, and the tory party itself has morphed into a libertarian organisation, they want to destroy it for political gain. It's not about the cost per se, it's about it now being an obstacle to their political goals
 
HarryVegas said:
So by your own words, you are in favour of privatising the NHS...?
Click to expand...
No, although I concede that I have probably not been explicit enough in my definition but that's because it is difficult to compare apples with oranges.

There are some things that are essential and should be provided by the state, healthcare is one of them. Nobody should profit from them and there aren't any benefits for everyone from them being private. (People benefit from private hospitals, education etc but that's because they are in addition to the state, not an instead)

However some things that are essential like food benefit massively from consumers having choice. BBC falls into this category. We can get our news and entertainment from hundreds of different sources.

Again for clarity:

BBC = Good, License = Bad
 
Nano said:
However some things that are essential like food benefit massively from consumers having choice. BBC falls into this category. We can get our news and entertainment from hundreds of different sources.
Click to expand...
so british culture can be sold to the highest advertising bidder then and has little value to you?
 
Nano said:
No, although I concede that I have probably not been explicit enough in my definition but that's because it is difficult to compare apples with oranges.

There are some things that are essential and should be provided by the state, healthcare is one of them. Nobody should profit from them and there aren't any benefits for everyone from them being private. (People benefit from private hospitals, education etc but that's because they are in addition to the state, not an instead)

However some things that are essential like food benefit massively from consumers having choice. BBC falls into this category. We can get our news and entertainment from hundreds of different sources.

Again for clarity:

BBC = Good, License = Bad
Click to expand...
It the bbc is good, surely the licence fee is the enabler of that good. Consider all of the local, regional and even international services the bbc provides - educational content, bbc2/3/4, bbc world service etc, is there really going to be profit in that? For many, access to these services is critical.

i loathe having to pay a licence fee because other than Attenborough and a few big tv shows we do not watch any of it, but I pay it for those that do and also recognise that the shows that we love to watch will be lessened due to fitting in 20 minutes of adverts per hour and having to kowtow to commercial interests

I also don't believe paying a subscription Service is the answer; firstly because those most in favour of this are probably the same people that will just take out iptv subscriptions and circumvent it, and secondly because it will encourage other services to go down the subscription model route. Once a great deal when you just had Netflix, but then you now have amazon prime, Disney+, sky, bbc etc so everyone winds up paying more. Sky already charging people £10 a month to remove adverts from content you've saved in sky glass, a service you've subscribed and paid for.

For me, having an institution like the bbc provided by the state is essential otherwise you end up with the media mire the USA has to put up with. The fact that the tories want to get rid of it should be a massive siren to anyone, and all parties should unite against them in this regard

posting polls showing how many disagree with the licence fee is also pointless. Do a poll on VAT, Income tax ,council tax etc and I'm sure you'll find unanimous agreement that it should be less, no one likes tax.

bbc costs about £4bn a year according to OBR. How much did we spunk on brexit, track and trace, ferry companies with no ferries, PPE companies ran by Tory donors? How are these people dictating anything to us around value for money?
 
I upvoted Nano because of his final sentence above
' It would be better to pay for it via general tax instead of the license because then it would be a progressive tax instead of regressive.' The license fee is very close to a poll tax and, as such, regressive. It is also expensive to administer and subject to widespread evasion. If for the sake of argument, the BBC is to be publically funded, then general taxation is better than the license fee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top