Article & Poll: Should we keep the BBC Licence Fee?

What do you think about the licence fee

  • The Licence Fee the most appropriate way for the BBC to be funded

    Votes: 109 19.4%
  • The BBC has to change its funding approach to remain relevant

    Votes: 133 23.6%
  • The BBC should become commercial and the licence fee scrapped

    Votes: 309 54.9%
  • Other, please answer in the thread below...

    Votes: 12 2.1%

  • Total voters
    563
everyone uses the bbc website, it's the only online resource that's not flooded with adverts, but if you go on the internet regularly and you don't use the bbc website i'll stand corrected

I don't use the BBC website regularly aside from occasionally reading an article on it when it's linked from the content aggregators I use for news sources.

With regards to the points about paying for Netflix I'm fine with that as I only pay for it when there's content I want to watch on it. When there's not enough content I can just cancel the subscription and take it up again when I want to whereas if I don't like the fact the BBC have scrapped just about everything I want to watch in favour of programs I'm not interested in, I still have to keep paying for it if I want to use a TV.
 
Another variety filled weekend, 4 hours of Eurovision yesterday and 3/4 hours of pretend Tennis matches at Wimbledon this afternoon.
 
Another variety filled weekend, 4 hours of Eurovision yesterday and 3/4 hours of pretend Tennis matches at Wimbledon this afternoon.

If that had been on one of the commercial channels then at least one and one half hours of that four hour schedule would have consisted of ad brreaks.

What exactly did you miss because of the BBC's coverage of the special event held at Wimbledon and who's to say that everyone else would have wanted to watch what you'd have watched instead of the Wimbledon event? Maybe the BBC would have been better off airing 3 to 4 hours of Jeremy Kyle reruns or coverage of a new roof on the Love Island villa?
 
Did you mean seven million... ;)

Michael Rice's parents didn't watch it, but are hoping to catch up on iPlayer so try not to spoil it for them :lesson:

HE CAME LAST!


Where else can you watch 3 Australians being swivelled on 10m tall poles?


(and that was just the Polish entry)
 
Last edited:
You can watch on youtube live no need for the bbc.

Not sure that it makes that much difference, but you'd not get Dolby Digital 5.1 via YouTube. The contest and its coverage includes DD 5.1 audio. You can hear Graham Norton sneaking up behind you. :lesson:


The BBC missed its chance to get Grumpy Cat to host next year's Eurovision contest. Where else but on YouTUbe can you see such talent as well as learn how to do a makeover? In fact, wouldn't Baby Shark make for an ideal Eurovision entry?
 
Last edited:
the fact that the Eurovision contest is your point of view goes to show out of touch the the bbc and its followers are
 
the fact that the Eurovision contest is your point of view goes to show out of touch the the bbc and its followers are

And Graham Norton sneaking up behind us:p.

Maybe the BBC need to stop funding it, if we don't qualify then who cares
 
Best thing is to not win it. You end up footing the bill for hosting it the next time around if you win it. Other than that, take it for what it is …

A bloody good laugh.

It isn't to everyone's tastes or liking, but neither is football. I don't think the BBC are so stupid as to keep paying towards something that isn't actually watched by anyone here in the UK and the viewing figures were probably higher than they would have been for what the BBC usually broadcasts on a Saturday night?

I don't personally care as to whether the BBC participates and broadcasts it or not, but neither do I think myself aloof enough to criticise or deny those who do enjoy it the opportunity to watch it once a year. I doubt many of them take it that seriously either?

You are not ever going to get anything broadcast by the BBC that everyone wants to watch. This is a fact and if demanding you not pay a license simply because not everything the BBC broadcasts meets with your approval all of the time then I think the best thing to do is allow you to not pay for it, but not be allowed to watch anything the BBC broadcast either. You'd still owe something though to cover the provision of other channels you'd be accessing which part of the license goes towards.

If you didn't want to watch the Eurovision contest then turn over and watch something else. No one was forcing you to watch it. I'm sure that there was something far more high brow over on ITV maybe even a synopsis on Jeremy Kyle and his charitable work with the homeless?
 
Last edited:
I watched it for a few minutes, then turned over to watch..........erm I can’t even remember what I turned over to, I must be getting old. Anyway whatever it was, it was better than the Eurovision Song Contest.

Actually I think I came on to avf and read and made a few posts. :laugh:
 
I never understood why spending money on reporters, camera people, outside broadcast uplinks and people, to deliver a report from outside the studio where there is no event actually unfolding and visible, is justified. Waste of money IMHO.
I have often thought this.

If there's a connected guest / interviewee / expert involved, then fine. So often it's over to a reporter standing outside of an empty building, just to break up the studio stuff. Even standing outside parliament with no guests and the MPs gone home, is a total waste. It seems to be how it all works for all news channels, but not great value.

MB
Often the resources are already paid for. That include space segment, uplinks, uplink engineers, hard wired sites (perhaps booked or owned), crews (camera and sound or camera that also does sound) etc. etc. Sit at base drinking tea or go earn your money......

Then of course they are all at it (24hr news and all that). And if you have paid for it and budgeted, then that is the way they present the story.
 
I still think the BBC still provides mostly average at best content and couldn’t care less if they had adverts if it meant not having to pay the licence fee.
 
Eurovision - personally, I don't like it but I believe that the BBC should continue to show it because it is clearly very popular with a lot of people.

However, I do feel that we should resign our place at the top table and become a standard applicant. The BBC pays a premium, extra licence fee money for its place at the top table which means that the UK get a guaranteed place in the final. Firstly I think it is morally wrong that richer countries can buy a place in the final but more importantly, given have the UK entrant gets treated on the night I don't feel that we get any value out of the premium that we pay.

So keep Eurovision but downgrade the UK to a standard applicant.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Eurovision - personally, I don't like it but I believe that the BBC should continue to show it because it is clearly very popular with a lot of people.

However, I do feel that we should resign our place at the top table and become a standard applicant. The BBC pays a premium, extra licence fee money for its place at the top table which means that the UK get a guaranteed place in the final. Firstly I think it is morally wrong that richer countries can buy a place in the final but more importantly, given have the UK entrant gets treated on the night I don't feel that we get any value out of the premium that we pay.

So keep Eurovision but downgrade the UK to a standard applicant.

Cheers,

Nigel
Would we then get through the qualification.:D
 
Lots of things I don't like on the BBC, they have a wide audience to accommodate but Eurovision is EBU meaning state broadcasters involvement. Usually.
 
Eurovision - personally, I don't like it but I believe that the BBC should continue to show it because it is clearly very popular with a lot of people.

So keep Eurovision but downgrade the UK to a standard applicant.
Solution: let ITV or Channel 4 have it, they'd definitely pick it up for the ad/sponsorship revenue and crappier companion shows on their lesser channels and/or online. Channel 4 would probably make a whole ubercamp themed night's or weekend's schedule out of it.
but Eurovision is EBU meaning state broadcasters involvement. Usually.
Nope, both state and independent can be members
- UK members of the EBU are: BBC, ITV plc, STV Group plc, Channel Four Television Corporation, S4C
Would we then get through the qualification.:D
Who cares? It'll still be a hit annual fixture for its target audience. It's a turd beauty pageant, and the best polished turd according to the votes of those with great taste in cheesy turd (and/or certain political/nationalistic bias) may win, and it's often the aim to submit a middling to crap turd so you don't win and don't have to bear the outrageous cost of hosting it next year.
 
Would we then get through the qualification.:D

Well, if our performance on the night is being judged on what people think of the act rather than what people think of the country then no we wouldn't make it to the final stage - but is that not the way things should be, shouldn't be buying a place.

Cheers,

Nigel
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom