DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
BUT IF WE DON'T KEEP THE BEEB MURDOCH WILL CONTROL ALL MEDIA FOREVER
ships fucking well sailed.
ships fucking well sailed.
The Tory attacks on the BBC begin in earnest
- Thread starter D'wards
- Start date
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Indeed, the idea that the BBC is anything but reactive or towing the line is farcical. BBC reacts to other broadcasters rather than setting the agenda
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I do think they should get rid of strictly come dancing. To avoid complaints, everyone who watches it should also be done away with.
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
I've got mixed opinions on the BBC, I like the tv music stuff, radio 1xtra (occasionally) and BBC 4. But a lot of the stuff they put on is shit... their Drama's particularly are dire quality and I'm sick to the back fucking teeth with programs about selling stuff, and cooking.
It would be a shame to see it go, as it is a great institution, butI do feel that I could get better value for money for the license fee. I've also heard talk of making iplayer pay per view?
It would be a shame to see it go, as it is a great institution, butI do feel that I could get better value for money for the license fee. I've also heard talk of making iplayer pay per view?
Yes, Shanene Thorpe comes to mind, but many many other cases, slurs, misinformation.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
On a purely practical note, I wonder how much could be saved if the BBC was funded out of general taxation rather than the licence fee. There would be no administration and no chasing of defaulters and no legal fees for prosecuting avoiders. Wonder how much the saving would be. Certainly the licence fee is regressive in that everyone pays the same amount regardless of means, it means nothing to a rich person on a high salary but is quite a significant charge for those on more restrictive budgets. That alone could be an argument for replacing it.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Its amusing watching the revision of history, seeing the likes of Saville and Glitter airbrushed out when they were numbered among the biggest players and influence on British TV in there day.
D'wards
IT'S YOUR DECISION DANIEL
Iain Lee did a phone in over Christmas saying how Glitter did some great songs, that are great party tunes - would you be upset if they got played at your Christmas party? Most who rang in would be deeply offended with some claiming violence against the DJ. As SuperHans pointed out, you can't trust people - people like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the only reason he did those songs is so he could do the other things.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
in that case it's toeing the line rather than towing the line.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's not mis-spelling: it was spelt correctly. it just was the wrong word.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Now you're just being a dick.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
i'm personally in favour of a much less regressive and expensive to administer system of funding public service broadcasting, and a taking the sum out of direct taxation would appear to be the easiest/fairest/cheapest way of do that, however it has one potentially large flaw - that the government of the day its an opportunity to fiddle with the level of taxation and what its spend on twice a year.
if we think that the BBC gets lent on in the run up to charter renewal every 7 years....
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
are you dyslexic?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Why should he tell you either way?
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Fuck this, can we get back to the discussion at hand please.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Don't dodge the point, what right have you got to ask somebody that?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i can ask whatever i want: as can you. whether people answer, now, that's up to them.
Have you ever been assessed as being on the autism spectrum?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no. but then again i haven't made reference to autism in any of my previous posts on this thread. artaxerxes had made reference to dyslexia, and i simply wondered whether, despite his previous silence on the subject, he was dyslexic. an apology would have followed if yes for my towing/toeing post.
ooc, has someone ever thought you were, or have you been assessed as being, somewhere on the autism spectrum?
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Exactly. The BBC, and how it's funded is not without its problems, however having media sponsored by corporations, and ultimately having it's content dictated by its sponsors is a far worse prospect.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
so having the state sponsor it better than having big business sponsor it? both poisonous imvho.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Thinking about organisations that exist for the national good.
What about the NHS? A vital public service with a budget of about £115.4 billion. There are about 64m people in Britain. If we had to pay for the NHS in the same way we pay for the BBC, every person in Britain would have to pay an annual charge of £1,803.13 (But many are kids or OAPs).
eta: 36% of the UK population is below 18 or over 70 so adults eligible for charge would be 64% of 64m or 40,960,000. Which means eligible adults would actually have to pay a levy of £2,817.38 annually to fund the NHS.
For those of us on a low budget that is a lot of money, money they probably could not afford. And as it would mean a lot more proportionally to people on low incomes, i.e. it is regressive, it is deemed better to pay for the NHS through general taxation.
So, why charge everyone the same flat licence fee for the BBC, why not fund the BBC out of taxation?
What about the NHS? A vital public service with a budget of about £115.4 billion. There are about 64m people in Britain. If we had to pay for the NHS in the same way we pay for the BBC, every person in Britain would have to pay an annual charge of £1,803.13 (But many are kids or OAPs).
eta: 36% of the UK population is below 18 or over 70 so adults eligible for charge would be 64% of 64m or 40,960,000. Which means eligible adults would actually have to pay a levy of £2,817.38 annually to fund the NHS.
For those of us on a low budget that is a lot of money, money they probably could not afford. And as it would mean a lot more proportionally to people on low incomes, i.e. it is regressive, it is deemed better to pay for the NHS through general taxation.
So, why charge everyone the same flat licence fee for the BBC, why not fund the BBC out of taxation?
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
weltweit
Well-Known Member
And they are funded out of general taxation, even their astounding 10% pay rise!
allegedly
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
not to mention they want an austerity-busting 30bn or something to do up their workplace
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I just saw someone online say that the BBC Licence fee of £145.50 is nothing to worry about being so small an amount. But the thing is it is just another bill of about that size that regularly falls onto the mat of people who are not on very large incomes, for whom every bill is a difficulty.
So, on top of rent or a mortgage, the gas bill, the electric bill, the water bill, the telephone bill, the council tax, the mobile phone bill, the broadband bill, the grocery costs, clothing, any car costs, MOT, insurance, road tax, etc etc the BBC Licence Fee is just yet another bill that poor households have to pay or face nasty consequences.
Similar threads
