Quantcast

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: 105 19.5%
  • The BBC has to change its funding approach to remain relevant

    Votes: 127 23.6%
  • The BBC should become commercial and the licence fee scrapped

    Votes: 295 54.7%
  • Other, please answer in the thread below...

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    539

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Certainly seems to be a lot of stirring at the moment.
The most I've ever seen I feel by those in high up places.
I get the feeling a change if finally going to happen sooner rather than later, though I'm sure whatever that change is, it won't be the full change many would wish to see.
If it's decriminalized, which seems to be the 1st step which realistically could happen, I wonder how that will affect the non payment of the tax/fee ?
 

Dreadatthecontrols

Standard Member
The BBC is a public service broadcaster and I would want to see it remain funded by the licence. IMO in the main those that seek to undermine it tend to be politicians of a particular persuasion who are ideologically opposed to public services and hate the fact that the BBC, technically at least, provides impartial news and information. Every time the BBC reports something uncomfortable to the political class there is the typical response howling for the BBC to be reformed. As a public service broadcaster the beeb is accountable and transparent to the licence fee payer, the public, not shareholders and money men with hidden agenda's.
Long live the Beeb, long live the TV licence. Its existence maintains a certain bar, without it I believe we would see a race to the bottom in broadcasting content standards, ever tried watching broadcast TV in the US for example.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
^ Tricky to go with this bit about:

"As a public service broadcaster the beeb is accountable and transparent to the licence fee payer, the public"

When you are legally bound to pay for it.
What power do BBC Customers have over the BBC?

If customers chose to pay for a service, be that any service, and those customers don't like the service and stop paying, then the service has to change/correct itself or go broke.

As the BBC cannot do that, how can they suffer how the public feel about them?

Many shops that are not great go out of business as customers leave and go elsewhere, and some manage to change.

I mean, let's say Marks & Spencer was the same as the BBC and you had to pay the M&S Tax, even if you shopped at other stores. Where would be the incentive for M&S to try and reinvent themselves and offer what the shoppers actually want from them?
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Note, this was posted on twitter on the day the UK left the EU.


Nish Kumar showing a clip from Horrible Histories where Queen Victoria is told her tea and sugar isn't British as the point is made the tea came from India and the sugar from the Caribbean. Therefore "not British."

Where to start with this.

1. Giving Nish, a left winger and remainer, a platform to have a go at Britain on the day when we leave the EU. Naked bias.
2. If you are pointing out tea isn't British and came from India, why not point out tea came from China first? So not Indian either.
3. If the point is that something originating from India can't ever be considered "British" where does that leave Nish?
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member

Boris Johnson’s government will launch its first strike on BBC funding next week, opening a formal process to lift the criminal penalties on those refusing to pay the licence fee.

The consultation on decriminalisation will be one of Mr Johnson’s first domestic policy initiatives since the election — a sign of the importance he is placing on shaking-up the broadcaster and the licence fee system it has relied on since the 1920s.

BBC executives fear that if criminal sanctions were removed by law, the corporation’s ability to collect the licence fee would be badly weakened, increasing evasion and blowing a hole in the broadcaster’s programming budget of £200m or more.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
Nish Kumar showing a clip from Horrible Histories where Queen Victoria is told her tea and sugar isn't British as the point is made the tea came from India and the sugar from the Caribbean. Therefore "not British."
Has anyone ever claimed that cane sugar and tea comes from Britain? - so what was the point of the program?

It doesnt seem like very good case being made for a tax funded TV service if this is the best it can do.
 

Sonic67

Distinguished Member
Has anyone ever claimed that cane sugar and tea comes from Britain? - so what was the point of the program?

It doesnt seem like very good case being made for a tax funded TV service if this is the best it can do.
Same point made by Andrew Neil.


The comedian Emma Kennedy stepped up to defend the song on Twitter, asking: “Drivel? Which bit of it is factually inaccurate?”.

Neil replied that he regarded the suggestion that people think tea and sugar are British was a false premise: “That anybody has ever claimed tea or sugar cane came from Britain. Doh.”


There was also a huge takedown of it.

1580605559509.png

1580605611791.png

1580605637753.png

1580605662059.png

1580605683910.png

1580605706652.png

1580605730122.png

1580605754819.png

1580605783816.png

1580605801991.png
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
The bias over the last year or two has become so evident to me. I have reported it to the BBC several times giving very clear examples but each time they come back with a glib “we are not biassed”. Not only do they not have to work for their income but they also seem to be self-regulating.

There needs to be a proper independent investigation but I doubt even Boris will let that happen out of fear of what it will turn up.

I think one of the problems that the BBC now faces is that they have been sh*tting on a good proportion of what were once some of their most ardent advocates.

By their own admission, the BBC admit that the average age of the licence payer is 55. I get that they are concerned by this, that younger generations are preferring to get their entertainment on-demand so they think they need to pander to them but in doing so they are they are alienating the once loyal supporters that they already have.

The reality is that they might attract more younger generations but unlikely because they are driven by how the entertainment is made available, they are losing the top end through natural lifespan and they are driving a wedge between them and many of their once loyal supporters (like me).

So even if they are not inclined to do something they will be forced to act because they are losing licence payers at a significant rate - too much to cover by licence fee increases.

Personally, I‘m not that keen on decriminalising non-payment because I fear that I will continue paying because I watch live TV but many will not pay but continue to watch live TV.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

Tempest

Distinguished Member
The funny thing is, the public hold all the power here.
The BBC could be shut down within a few months, simply down to the public taking totally legal decisions.
Simply have almost everyone stop watching BBC, and stop paying the licence fee, and that that.
No law broken and the BBC are done for, end of story.

It's simple of course, but as we know you'd never get the bulk of the population to agree to do this.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
The funny thing is, the public hold all the power here.
The BBC could be shut down within a few months, simply down to the public taking totally legal decisions.
Simply have almost everyone stop watching BBC broadcast television, and stop paying the licence fee, and that that.
No law broken and the BBC are done for, end of story.

It's simple of course, but as we know you'd never get the bulk of the population to agree to do this.
Fixed - or am I missing something?
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
I should of course more accurately said, stopped watching any Live TV from official entertainment providers (or something like that) :)
Yes, in order to be correct :)
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
The funny thing is that even the most ardent defenders of the BBC keep undermining their case for it continuing to be funded through taxation.

Take Polly Toynbee in last weeks Guardian


"The latest anti-BBC argument is that with binge-watching Netflix, Amazon and the rest, who needs an outdated national broadcaster? The answer is: because most people want British-produced programming. Because arts, music, movies, TV and video gaming are a rare booming British success and the BBC is the industry’s springboard."


If Polly is correct and most people want British produced programming then the BBC will thrive under a subscription funding model - after all she has already pointed out that people are more than happy to subscribe to Netflix, Amazon etc.

The only way the BBC would fail is if Polly is not correct... o_O

Guardian
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
The funny thing is that even the most ardent defenders of the BBC keep undermining their case for it continuing to be funded through taxation.

Take Polly Toynbee in last weeks Guardian


"The latest anti-BBC argument is that with binge-watching Netflix, Amazon and the rest, who needs an outdated national broadcaster? The answer is: because most people want British-produced programming. Because arts, music, movies, TV and video gaming are a rare booming British success and the BBC is the industry’s springboard."


If Polly is correct and most people want British produced programming then the BBC will thrive under a subscription funding model - after all she has already pointed out that people are more than happy to subscribe to Netflix, Amazon etc.

The only way the BBC would fail is if Polly is not correct... o_O

Guardian
Reminds me of a stupid ignorant stuck-up female fox hunt rider in the past.

She stated that, they needed to hunt in order to keep the population of fox's under control to protect stuff like chickens etc....

Later on when pushed on cruelty of dogs ripping fox's apart she said, oh, no, that's not a problem as it's very rare that we ever catch a fox.

So chase wild animals with packs of dogs and horses for fun then?
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member

Tempest

Distinguished Member
If I'm totally honest, personally I'm fine with the current system,
I don't watch any live TV, taken all the TV Aerials down a couple years ago.
So being able not to pay due to not watching suits me fine. But I'm aware I'm just thinking of myself here.
The only Live TV I would like to watch would perhaps be 5 mins on New Years Eve, though I didn't bother this last year as it's getting boring. And perhaps some earth scattering major live news event.

In reality if you wait a few hours, anything THAT important will be on YouTube anyway.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

High End Munich 2020 Hi-Fi Show cancelled
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung leads global TV market for 14th straight year
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Apple wireless home cinema audio hinted by patent?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung and BT deliver UK’s first live 8K sports broadcast
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins confirms corporate changes
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom