Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?

[hash tag]

oh Pickman's model, I am very disappointed with you, sorry for digressing from BBC, remember this.
Should Cadburys remain British, does it matter?

Maybe you're well off enough to pay those higher prices than some of us.

Or simply be a little more selective. I have no need for Amazon, sky etc. I come from a generation before they existed. I got my without them then....

 

[Saul Goodman]

oh Pickman's model, I am very disappointed with you, sorry for digressing from BBC, remember this.
Should Cadburys remain British, does it matter?


Or simply be a little more selective. I have no need for Amazon, sky etc. I come from a generation before they existed. I got my without them then....

I come from a generation before sky, et al. I don't buy into the sky bullshit. I don't pay for any TV at all, but I do have needs, and Amazon is usually the cheapest place I can find to fulfill those needs.
It's cheaper for me to buy light bulbs from Amazon and have them posted to Ireland, than it is to buy them anywhere in Ireland. So should I buy one bulb in Ireland or 10 bulbs for the same price from Amazon?

 

[hash tag]

Your money.
I would have difficulty supporting a company with such questionable practices.
My downfall is petrol, but there is no avoiding it

 

[Saul Goodman]

Your money.
I would have difficulty supporting a company with such questionable practices.
My downfall is petrol, but there is no avoiding it

There's also no avoiding light bulbs, and plates, etc.
Also, there is an alternative to petrol. Buy an electric car, then you won't have to support those loathsome oil companies, but I guess it's your money, eh!
Glass houses, etc.

 

[hash tag]

My only use for petrol is in a car which is essential for work. No car no job no care for people. I don't have £30+k for an electric car, but we digress. I would suggest we continue this elsewhere, alas my bed is starting to call me.

 

[D'wards]

Happy to pay- I get a lot from the BBC.

Plus the fact they aren't beholden to advertisers means they can let things settle and not cancel at first sniff of low ratings

 

[weltweit]

I'm torn.

I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".

Yes, I had a similar experience with TV in the states, so many channels but so little to watch and most of it utter rubbish.

And either I've got pickier, or the quality of programming has declined, to the point that I watch barely any TV (BBC or otherwise now), and am even more disinclined to prop them up with a licence fee when I see how supine the BBC has become to the prevailing government over the last 10-20 years.

As I mentioned up-thread, I only watch BBC comedy on a Friday night, I resent the full licence fee when that is all I watch.

But - and this probably isn't even their fault - the thing that turns me agin the licence fee most of all is the oppressive and threatening approach used to get people to sign up to the licence. Within a day of moving in to this flat, I had a thuggish letter from the TV licensing authority that said, in terms, "we're 'avin' you, son, for watching a tell. SIgn up or else". Fuck off. I took a fairly instant decision right there.

I agree, the tactic seems to be if you have an address you must have a TV also ..

And there are lots of people avoiding it altogether, there are loads of people who have an illegal "magic box" connected to their tv which permits them access to all sorts of channels for free, there is a whole sub culture of licence and subscription avoiders out there, I have seen it in the UK and abroad. People are ingenious avoiding paying where this is concerned.

 

[Poi E]

Stopped paying the licence years ago. We use several streaming services and BBC iPlayer was not competitive, and we don't watch much content from England anyway.

 

[Sea Star]

I would like to abolish the BBC

 

[weltweit]

I would like to abolish the BBC

Why?

 

[Sea Star]

Why?

I'm not a fan of state controlled media. It never ends well.

 

[D'wards]

Thinking of the BBC products I've consumed this year and seeing if it represents value,

PODCASTS
Danny Baker
Kermode
Peter Crouch
News Quiz
DID
Books and Authors
A Good Read

RADIO

R6 and R4, TMS and the boxing

TV

Ghosts
Fleabag
WILTY
Back to Life
LoD
The Victim
QI
Frankie Boyle
Partridge
Snooker
MotD
Old TOTP
Norton
One Show (when someone good is on)
HIGNFY
BBC4 Friday night music docs
Killing Eve
The Bodyguard


Ruddy good value for me - cheap at twice the price!

 

[Kaka Tim]

I think a publically funded broadcaster is fundamentally a sound idea. Funding it from direct taxation would give the government massive power over it and the temptation to keep cutting back on its funding would be a constant - it would make the Daily Mail whingers ten times more vocal.
Also, there is an argument that the quality of the BBC forces up standard in competing broadcasters. However, decision making power in the bbc should be massively expanded - its should be ours, not in the hands of the same old clique of oxbridge twats who know what is good for us. And the fawning over the royals is a constant embarrassment.

 

[D'wards]

I suspect that the reason the BBC is the world leader in nature documentaries is because they are cash rich, and can afford to fund some gadge sitting in a hide for 9 months to get a 30 second clip of an Arctic Fox.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I suspect that the reason the BBC is the world leader in nature documentaries is because they are cash rich, and can afford to fund some gadge sitting in a hide for 9 months to get a 30 second clip of an Arctic Fox.

I think the strongest challenge to the BBC comes from Netflix, which not coincidentally is now branching out into nature docs. Its subscription model has proved a pretty powerful thing, and its subscription is substantially lower than the licence fee. What the BBC is not very good at any more, imo, is taking risks, giving money to people to make stuff then just standing back to allow them to get on with it. The BBC needs to learn from Netflix or it will find itself increasingly irrelevant.

 

[hash tag]

I suspect that the reason the BBC is the world leader in nature documentaries is because they are cash rich, and can afford to fund some gadge sitting in a hide for 9 months to get a 30 second clip of an Arctic Fox.

I am sure a good nature documentary sells. Well, taking in a small fortune. I'm am sure this is the case for many documentaries. Bet people like the Americans suck up all the heritage that the likes of Dr Lucy Worsley puts out there, helped in part by working for the royals.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Not owned or watched telly for over ten years, and don't miss it. TV licensing threatening letters go straight in the recycling bin.

 

[weltweit]

I think a publically funded broadcaster is fundamentally a sound idea. Funding it from direct taxation would give the government massive power over it and the temptation to keep cutting back on its funding would be a constant - it would make the Daily Mail whingers ten times more vocal.
..

I don't get why funding it from general taxation would make such a difference. The licence fee is arrived at by negotiation with government departments, and politicians are already vocal when they think BBC bias is going against their particular viewpoint.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to have a ringfenced tax which goes to the BBC reviewable on the same intervals that the licence fee is currently reviewed?

 

[T & P]

I didn't vote because there was not a single option that resembled something like 'I am very happy paying the licence fee at its current price, its revenue should be fully kept by the BBC, and British people should frankly worship the ground it sits on because it is the best broadcaster in the world by far, one of this country's greatest assests, and made so by the very existence of the TV licence'.

 

[weltweit]

I didn't vote because there was not a single option that resembled something like 'I am very happy paying the licence fee at its current price, its revenue should be fully kept by the BBC, and British people should frankly worship the ground it sits on because it is the best broadcaster in the world by far, one of this country's greatest assests, and made so by the very existence of the TV licence'.

Perhaps for you it is not a significant cost, but do you accept that for many people £150 odd is a significant amount of money?

 

[Gromit]

Thinking of the BBC products I've consumed this year and seeing if it represents value,

PODCASTS
Danny Baker
Kermode
Peter Crouch
News Quiz
DID
Books and Authors
A Good Read

RADIO

R6 and R4, TMS and the boxing

TV

Ghosts
Fleabag
WILTY
Back to Life
LoD
The Victim
QI
Frankie Boyle
Partridge
Snooker
MotD
Old TOTP
Norton
One Show (when someone good is on)
HIGNFY
BBC4 Friday night music docs
Killing Eve
The Bodyguard


Ruddy good value for me - cheap at twice the price!

Many of those TV shows were produced by production companies independent of the BBC and then sold to the Beeb. If the Beeb didn't exist they'd have just sold them to someone else and you could have watch them for free (adverts) or via a subscription of your choice instead of extortion with menaces (the licence fee).

 

[Gromit]

The BBC world service is the only thing I'm happy to have compulsory funding.
Only because it's a useful resource to British citizens caught in conflicts abroad.

Nothing else is an essential public service that isnt available elsewhere.

 

[T & P]

Perhaps for you it is not a significant cost, but do you accept that for many people £150 odd is a significant amount of money?

It is a lot of money for some of course, as are many things. And there is an argument to be had about concessions for the worse off. But my point is that the BBC should be treated as an asset to the nation, and those who can afford to pay should do so, and be happy to do so while we're at it, because changing its funding to an advertisment-dependant system would make the BBC utter shit, and no better than other broadcasters.

 

[weltweit]

T & P I think most of the serious suggestions on the thread so far haven't been suggesting the advertising route.

 

[Gromit]

would make the BBC utter shit, and no better than other broadcasters.

The flaw in your argument:
It's already no better than other broadcasters.

 

[mauvais]

One thing the BBC should do, as an act of good faith and sharpish, is to arrange for its entire output to be available to all licence-fee-payers all the time. Selling it to others to repeat at a fee/with adverts isn't on any more.

It can't do that because it doesn't own it.

 

[Poi E]

I'm not a fan of state controlled media. It never ends well.

Corporation controlled media is pernicious, too.

 

[hash tag]

As opposed to advertiser, product placement type of organisation, which simply goes for Garbage targeted at the masses. Never mind the quality....

 

[T & P]

I'm not a fan of state controlled media. It never ends well.

As opposed to privately-owned media by a single individual or family, free of any accountability and enjoying full and absolute control to broadcast or print whatever they please no matter how untrue or deceitful?

Granted that broadcasters in this country are subject to certain controls and restrictions, but the printed media is not and invariably about 90% of our national newspapers are owned by very rich and very right wing families not only subscribing to a near-extreme brand of politics but also hellbent on using their newspapers to manipulate public opinion and even influence general elections or such crucial events for the nation as Brexit. Which is why they own the newspapers in the first place.

Do you think a Britain with no BBC or meaningful broadcasting regulators is in any way better? Have a think about (or do a bit of online research on) how the USA compares with us and what outrageous false bullshit gets beamed into the living room of every American home unchecked.

Unless you live in a dictatorship or deeply corrupt country, a State run national broadcaster is infinitely preferable and less sinister than the likes of Rupert Murdoch controlling it.

 

[Gromit]

As opposed to advertiser, product placement type of organisation, which simply goes for Garbage targeted at the masses. Never mind the quality....

You do know that the BBC uses product placement and has even been found guilty of breaking their own rules around how it's allowed?