Not a fan of the BBC, but personally I think they should get rid of some of their radio channels instead of BBC 3, pay their main celebrities less or get someone else who'll do the job cheaper!
Still, any redundancy at the BBC is a small victory for the victims of license theft!
It's called a spoiled ballot and they are included in the count in the UK.
it's not the same thing though, thats very general.. but that is very specific.. thats why they outlawed anyone using the name "none of the above" as a party name
What do you call taking money from someone against their will for services they don't want?
dunno, extracting money with menaces?
If someone's held a gun to your head and made you fill out a direct debit form, I suggest you report them to the police immediately :lol:
What do you call taking money from someone against their will for services they don't want?
The BBC license fee is extortion, not theft (though the effect is the same). It's also a tax, as if you don't pay it then you can be sent to prison, even though the BBC is a business and is therefore not allowed to set taxes. The license fee is immoral, not necessarily because it's not worth the money (it is certainly well worth the money to some of the people who pay it), but because it's forced on you whether or not you want it.
If the law said that if you drink soft drinks then you must pay Coca Cola a hundred and fifty quid a year but in return you get all the Coca Cola you want for free, then for many people that would be a bargain, but for me it would be a waste of a hundred and fifty quid (or a prison sentence) because I don't drink Coca Cola, just Pepsi Max and Diet Irn Bru.
True, you can get by legally without paying the license, but you have to jump through hoops to prove you're not watching broadcast BBC programming, even though, since we're in a country where you are supposedly considered innocent until proven guilty, the BBC should have to prove that you're watching BBC, not the other way around.
But the BBC license wouldn't exist in any country that was (a) a democracy, or (b) wasn't run by an old boys network who have media and news related interests.
If you want to watch live television you need to buy a TV license. If you don't want to then you don't. The choice is entirely yours.
The BBC are responsible for collecting the license fee which is then distributed for public service broadcasting.
Now I'll openly admit that TVLicensing UK are a bunch of thugs that harass people without tv licenses etc. and it's time the government reigned them in. However they have no power to make you buy a tv license you don't want :p
If you want to watch live television you need to buy a TV license. If you don't want to then you don't. The choice is entirely yours.
All true, but what if you want to watch any of the channels that the BBC don't make, such as ITV, Channel 4, Sky News, etc? How do you then prove that you watch non-BBC channels live, but not BBC channels? The license fee only goes to the BBC, so it shouldn't matter whether or not you watch advertising based channels.
All true, but what if you want to watch any of the channels that the BBC don't make, such as ITV, Channel 4, Sky News, etc? How do you then prove that you watch non-BBC channels live, but not BBC channels?
You don't.
If you want to watch live television you have to pay for a tv license.
But the BBC license wouldn't exist in any country that was (a) a democracy, or (b) wasn't run by an old boys network who have media and news related interests.
erm, yes, plenty of other countries have tv licenses.
True, you can get by legally without paying the license, but you have to jump through hoops to prove you're not watching broadcast BBC programming, even though, since we're in a country where you are supposedly considered innocent until proven guilty, the BBC should have to prove that you're watching BBC, not the other way around.
I haven't had to 'jump through hoops' - I just let them know I didn't need a license and heard nothing for nearly 2yrs now. Someone came round to see if I had any equipment but that's it... has been painless and easy to do.
I'm a big fan of the BBC, what it does, how it works, and how it's paid for. On this occasion however people are getting a little bit excited, the channel will still exist, and this may also pave the way for more online channels.
Yes, but what about the people with no-online access, or very low download speeds? On-line is great for many people (including most WOSsers, I'd imagine), but not for everybody. And since the BBC is supposed to be a TV company, then you'd expect them to keep their TV programs, first and foremost, on TV.
erm, yes, plenty of other countries have tv licenses.
Yes, but as far as I'm aware only Britain treats the license fee as a tax - I've never heard of anyone being sent to prison for non-payment of a TV license anywhere else. I wouldn't disagree with the fee if it were fairly imposed and managed (i.e. if the draconian pay or else attitude was rescinded, if prison was kept for real criminals and not license dodgers, and (as if!) if the money from the license fee went to pay for good programs and not huge bonuses for the BBC directors and staff)
You don't.
If you want to watch live television you have to pay for a tv license.
Yes, and that's morally wrong. Why should I give money to the BBC if I only watch, say, ITV and Channel 4? Would you be happy to pay Virgin for their internet, if you only used Sky?
I haven't had to 'jump through hoops' - I just let them know I didn't need a license and heard nothing for nearly 2yrs now. Someone came round to see if I had any equipment but that's it... has been painless and easy to do.
Do you have Sky, or cable, or Freeview? If so, then how did you show them that you never watched the BBC channels?
Yes, and that's morally wrong. Why should I give money to the BBC if I only watch, say, ITV and Channel 4?
Because in this country watching TV requires a license, and the BBC have the right to collect the fee for that license.
You can disagree whether a tv license is the best way of funding public service broadcasting and that it should be funded from general taxation, or perhaps there shouldn't even be any publicly funded broadcasting, whatever - That still doesn't make the tv license extortion or theft, which was my main point. :)
Yes, and that's morally wrong. Why should I give money to the BBC if I only watch, say, ITV and Channel 4? Would you be happy to pay Virgin for their internet, if you only used Sky?
Is that a joke comment?
Because if it isn't then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or what the original argument is.
Yes, but as far as I'm aware only Britain treats the license fee as a tax - I've never heard of anyone being sent to prison for non-payment of a TV license anywhere else. I wouldn't disagree with the fee if it were fairly imposed and managed (i.e. if the draconian pay or else attitude was rescinded, if prison was kept for real criminals and not license dodgers, and (as if!) if the money from the license fee went to pay for good programs and not huge bonuses for the BBC directo, say, ITV and Channel 4?
you're right!
in other countries they just fine you, and if you cant pay it, they just let you off.
All true, but what if you want to watch any of the channels that the BBC don't make, such as ITV, Channel 4, Sky News, etc? How do you then prove that you watch non-BBC channels live, but not BBC channels? The license fee only goes to the BBC, so it shouldn't matter whether or not you watch advertising based channels.
You're aware that the some of the license fee goes elsewhere, right? Including Channel 4.
You're aware that the some of the license fee goes elsewhere, right? Including Channel 4.
Since when?! If they do, they should bloody well piss off. I don't want to have to pay ON TOP of bloody adverts and the constant sponsorships. That's why I refuse to have Sky TV. The licience fee should all go the the BBC! (I my opinion).
I'm shocked people are defending the odious BBC, they must have shares in them...
As has been pointed out, the license fee does not just pay for the BBC. It also funds all the broadcasting regulatory authorities and other services. And no one has shares in the BBC, it generates huge economic benefits for the whole country and costs less than 6p a day. For the broad range of programming in TV and radio plus one of the best websites out there for news & sport coverage, that's a bargain.
This could be the way forward as less and less people are watching tv in the traditional way (actually sitting down and watching a show as broadcast) more and more people are watching tv on smartphones, tablets etc.
So maybe more channels will go online only in the future?
Not sure they do get any currently (feel free to correct me), but they certainly have in the past.
Channel 4 has NEVER received any license fee money. They have always been a commercial broadcaster, originally when it was set up they received a subsidy from the ITV networks (much to the annoyance of said networks, and maybe where people might get the idea that it got license fee cash), but around the time Channel 5 started that subsidy was cut-off completely and is now wholly commercially funded.
Channel 4 has NEVER received any license fee money. They have always been a commercial broadcaster, originally when it was set up they received a subsidy from the ITV networks (much to the annoyance of said networks, and maybe where people might get the idea that it got license fee cash), but around the time Channel 5 started that subsidy was cut-off completely and is now wholly commercially funded.
Yep, you're quite right, I was confusing the various grants and such and the fact that they are required to make a certain amount of public service output by their license. (At least I was half right that they don't get any now! ;))
The other confusion is that S4C don't get money from the license fee and instead get a government grant, but the BBC provide programming for them for free - not only that but supposedly by next year this arrangement is supposed to change and see them get money from the license fee lol. :)
Because in this country watching TV requires a license, and the BBC have the right to collect the fee for that license.
So? That might be the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. Read my soft drinks analogy - if that became law, would that make it right?
You can disagree whether a tv license is the best way of funding public service broadcasting and that it should be funded from general taxation, or perhaps there shouldn't even be any publicly funded broadcasting, whatever - That still doesn't make the tv license extortion or theft, which was my main point. :)
It is extortion - you MUST pay this fee, whether or not you watch the BBC, which is wrong. Since the license only funds the BBC, then it should only be paid if you watch the BBC.
As has been pointed out, the license fee does not just pay for the BBC. It also funds all the broadcasting regulatory authorities and other services. And no one has shares in the BBC, it generates huge economic benefits for the whole country and costs less than 6p a day. For the broad range of programming in TV and radio plus one of the best websites out there for news & sport coverage, that's a bargain.
Yes it is a bargain, IF you watch it. My point is, if you don't watch it, then you should not have to pay for it. And it certainly should not fund the broadcasting regulatory authorities, as it then becomes in the interest of those authorities (who should be disinterested) to maintan, and even increase, the license fee.
It is extortion - you MUST pay this fee, whether or not you watch the BBC, which is wrong. Since the license only funds the BBC, then it should only be paid if you watch the BBC.
I understand your reasoning entirely, but it's a simplistic argument that misses the point by miles. It's on a par with complaining that you shouldn't have to pay for hospitals or schools since you never get ill or have children, or perhaps more accurately like you have private health insurance and send your kids to a private school.
It's so clearly not extortion (even if you ignore the fact that it's legal so by definition can't be). Just don't buy a TV license if the right to watch tv is not worth 150 quid a year to you.
The other confusion is that S4C don't get money from the license fee and instead get a government grant, but the BBC provide programming for them for free - not only that but supposedly by next year this arrangement is supposed to change and see them get money from the license fee lol. :)
And I suppose the license payers in Wales will be charged extra for this? :mad:
Not only am I being forced to pay for something I don't watch, now I'm going to be forced to pay for something I cant even understand!!
Comments
its the reason i stopped watching. :-D
It's called a spoiled ballot and they are included in the count in the UK.
Still, any redundancy at the BBC is a small victory for the victims of license theft!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
it's not the same thing though, thats very general.. but that is very specific.. thats why they outlawed anyone using the name "none of the above" as a party name
What do you call taking money from someone against their will for services they don't want?
dunno, extracting money with menaces?
If someone's held a gun to your head and made you fill out a direct debit form, I suggest you report them to the police immediately :lol:
The BBC license fee is extortion, not theft (though the effect is the same). It's also a tax, as if you don't pay it then you can be sent to prison, even though the BBC is a business and is therefore not allowed to set taxes. The license fee is immoral, not necessarily because it's not worth the money (it is certainly well worth the money to some of the people who pay it), but because it's forced on you whether or not you want it.
If the law said that if you drink soft drinks then you must pay Coca Cola a hundred and fifty quid a year but in return you get all the Coca Cola you want for free, then for many people that would be a bargain, but for me it would be a waste of a hundred and fifty quid (or a prison sentence) because I don't drink Coca Cola, just Pepsi Max and Diet Irn Bru.
True, you can get by legally without paying the license, but you have to jump through hoops to prove you're not watching broadcast BBC programming, even though, since we're in a country where you are supposedly considered innocent until proven guilty, the BBC should have to prove that you're watching BBC, not the other way around.
But the BBC license wouldn't exist in any country that was (a) a democracy, or (b) wasn't run by an old boys network who have media and news related interests.
The BBC are responsible for collecting the license fee which is then distributed for public service broadcasting.
Now I'll openly admit that TVLicensing UK are a bunch of thugs that harass people without tv licenses etc. and it's time the government reigned them in. However they have no power to make you buy a tv license you don't want :p
All true, but what if you want to watch any of the channels that the BBC don't make, such as ITV, Channel 4, Sky News, etc? How do you then prove that you watch non-BBC channels live, but not BBC channels? The license fee only goes to the BBC, so it shouldn't matter whether or not you watch advertising based channels.
If you want to watch live television you have to pay for a tv license.
erm, yes, plenty of other countries have tv licenses.
I haven't had to 'jump through hoops' - I just let them know I didn't need a license and heard nothing for nearly 2yrs now. Someone came round to see if I had any equipment but that's it... has been painless and easy to do.
Yes, but what about the people with no-online access, or very low download speeds? On-line is great for many people (including most WOSsers, I'd imagine), but not for everybody. And since the BBC is supposed to be a TV company, then you'd expect them to keep their TV programs, first and foremost, on TV.
Yes, but as far as I'm aware only Britain treats the license fee as a tax - I've never heard of anyone being sent to prison for non-payment of a TV license anywhere else. I wouldn't disagree with the fee if it were fairly imposed and managed (i.e. if the draconian pay or else attitude was rescinded, if prison was kept for real criminals and not license dodgers, and (as if!) if the money from the license fee went to pay for good programs and not huge bonuses for the BBC directors and staff)
Yes, and that's morally wrong. Why should I give money to the BBC if I only watch, say, ITV and Channel 4? Would you be happy to pay Virgin for their internet, if you only used Sky?
Do you have Sky, or cable, or Freeview? If so, then how did you show them that you never watched the BBC channels?
Because in this country watching TV requires a license, and the BBC have the right to collect the fee for that license.
You can disagree whether a tv license is the best way of funding public service broadcasting and that it should be funded from general taxation, or perhaps there shouldn't even be any publicly funded broadcasting, whatever - That still doesn't make the tv license extortion or theft, which was my main point. :)
No, he doesn't watch live television broadcasts (or he's a naughty boy and lied to them).
The TV license is a license required for receiving television transmissions...
Because if it isn't then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or what the original argument is.
you're right!
in other countries they just fine you, and if you cant pay it, they just let you off.
You're aware that the some of the license fee goes elsewhere, right? Including Channel 4.
Not sure they do get any currently (feel free to correct me), but they certainly have in the past.
Since when?! If they do, they should bloody well piss off. I don't want to have to pay ON TOP of bloody adverts and the constant sponsorships. That's why I refuse to have Sky TV. The licience fee should all go the the BBC! (I my opinion).
As has been pointed out, the license fee does not just pay for the BBC. It also funds all the broadcasting regulatory authorities and other services. And no one has shares in the BBC, it generates huge economic benefits for the whole country and costs less than 6p a day. For the broad range of programming in TV and radio plus one of the best websites out there for news & sport coverage, that's a bargain.
So maybe more channels will go online only in the future?
Channel 4 has NEVER received any license fee money. They have always been a commercial broadcaster, originally when it was set up they received a subsidy from the ITV networks (much to the annoyance of said networks, and maybe where people might get the idea that it got license fee cash), but around the time Channel 5 started that subsidy was cut-off completely and is now wholly commercially funded.
Yep, you're quite right, I was confusing the various grants and such and the fact that they are required to make a certain amount of public service output by their license. (At least I was half right that they don't get any now! ;))
The other confusion is that S4C don't get money from the license fee and instead get a government grant, but the BBC provide programming for them for free - not only that but supposedly by next year this arrangement is supposed to change and see them get money from the license fee lol. :)
So? That might be the law, but that doesn't make it morally right. Read my soft drinks analogy - if that became law, would that make it right?
It is extortion - you MUST pay this fee, whether or not you watch the BBC, which is wrong. Since the license only funds the BBC, then it should only be paid if you watch the BBC.
No, I didn't know that. Guesser and Jimmo say not. Can you provide a link to show this, please?
And if it is the case, then that's even worse, as Channel 4 advertise, so they shouldn't be entitled to any of the license fee.
No, it's not a joke, and yes I do understand the argument. My comment was simply an extension of my soft drink analogy.
Yes it is a bargain, IF you watch it. My point is, if you don't watch it, then you should not have to pay for it. And it certainly should not fund the broadcasting regulatory authorities, as it then becomes in the interest of those authorities (who should be disinterested) to maintan, and even increase, the license fee.
I understand your reasoning entirely, but it's a simplistic argument that misses the point by miles. It's on a par with complaining that you shouldn't have to pay for hospitals or schools since you never get ill or have children, or perhaps more accurately like you have private health insurance and send your kids to a private school.
It's so clearly not extortion (even if you ignore the fact that it's legal so by definition can't be). Just don't buy a TV license if the right to watch tv is not worth 150 quid a year to you.
And I suppose the license payers in Wales will be charged extra for this? :mad:
Not only am I being forced to pay for something I don't watch, now I'm going to be forced to pay for something I cant even understand!!