Should The Licence Fee Be Scrapped? Should the BBC?

Please treat other members in a friendly and respectful manner: Our Community Guidelines.

  • The rise of the internet has done much to dispel the myths as well as providing alternative entertainments.


    Strictly speaking people go to jail, not for not paying the BBC tax, but for not paying the court fine for not paying the BBC tax.


    When I'm on the main system I'll post the link to a site that explains much.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • Thanks for that Heero.


    As my mother just had her 75th birthday last week, I'm going to get a refund of the tv license which I've paid for and then claim a free one while I still can. Then and as when, I will come back to your post and refresh myself on what you've said.;)


    There's no way I'm paying for wall to wall celebrity chefs and Eastenders anymore.

    If she gets pension credit her licence will still be free

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • Get it while you can though I suspect that the BBC will have to continue the concession.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • When I'm on the main system I'll post the link to a site that explains much.

    Bit slow on this but this is the link: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/


    This site does NOT belong to the BBC and they have tried to take it down a number of times. They have also bought up all the domains with similar names. On the landing page top right are links to the resources and other info. Read about the empty "detector" vans.^^

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • Most interesting Heero....that gives me something to think about in the future.;)


    Those constant letters to him constitute harassment.:thumbdown:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • This is a difficult one for me. I'm not totally against the license fees but it defiantly needs to be reformed, the license and the corporate status of the BBC and money better spent. I am also a big believer that all pensioners and those on low income should get it free or at least at a heavily reduced fee. Something I don't think that has been mentioned is the MET office. I might be wrong here but is this not part of the license fee. The MET office also has very close ties with the military so there's a link there with government control and the BBC and the MET office which also ties in with the shipping forecast.


    The BBC is not a regular TV channel it's a propaganda machine cough cough. It acts as an early warning system for us in case of any emergencies. It's also something that has to be controlled in case of an act of war. This is also why the ties are there with the military and MET office. One could argue that the BBC is part of our defence system. Maybe it a should be fully funded by government as part of the defence budget but would government want to blatantly advertise that side of things. We are a very secretive country and things go on the sly hush hush. IIRC false weather reports have been reported in the past as a smoke screen for either an enemy attack or us attacking an enemy. I need to look into that but I'm sure I have heard something along them lines.


    Oh and I'm getting sick of the amount of BBC self advertising in between programmes and at the the start of iPlayer programmes. I could do without BBC1 even though I like a few soaps as escapism but I have to say I love BBC Four especially late at night / early hours of the morning and I think the BBC know people like this, especially the older generation who happen to be the bigger license fee payers. They then use this as a threat that it will be lost along with BBC Three if the license fee is reduced. I don't like that kind of dirty blackmail. The corporate side of the BBC certainly don't do themselves any favours with the public, and their news bias; political string pulling and brainwashing is disgusting.


    I'm even starting to question some of the stuff that Prof Brian Cox comes out with when he talks about things that are mostly theory as if its fact. I can't help feeling there is a case of you pay my funding so I will bias my science in the direction you want for entertainment purposes. I miss Sir Patrick Moore :( and haven't watched the Sky at Night since. What a legend he was. The Sky at Night has gone to pot now. Alice (redhead), I can't remember her surname, the geologist, she is very good. Love her programmes. She done an interesting one recently on sea temperatures as part of the counter global warming movement and how science results can be faked or misleading.

  • The licence fee was the way a previous government chose to finance the development of the BBC. It was like injecting capital. But easier to finance as direct taxation. But to all intents and purposes it was financing the BBC.


    Was the BBC designed to be a public-funded media for evermore? Because it certainly has grown to the point where it can and should be self-surviving. What stops it being so is that with the licence fee as a safety net the BBC can pi55 away most of its income by a top heavy bureaucratic non-creative management and administration. It's high time the BBC left home and went off to earn a proper living rather than relying on forced handouts.

  • I miss Sir Patrick Moore :( and haven't watched the Sky at Night since. What a legend he was.

    Me too. A very clever man who could explain complex things in a simple way, and his enthusiasm was infectious.


    He supported Brexit too. Publicly! :)

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • The BBC is not a regular TV channel it's a propaganda machine cough cough. It acts as an early warning system for us in case of any emergencies.

    I don't think I'm against the BBC essentially being a State broadcaster minus leaving out matters to do with defence, for the reasons you state, but at the moment I do not believe they are a public service broadcaster as laid down by their remit, nor are they are a private broadcaster either. Although you wouldn't think that with the money they pay to their "talent".


    Oh and I'm getting sick of the amount of BBC self advertising in between programmes and at the the start of iPlayer programmes. I could do without BBC1 even though I like a few soaps as escapism but I have to say I love BBC Four especially late at night / early hours of the morning and I think the BBC know people like this, especially the older generation who happen to be the bigger license fee payers. They then use this as a threat that it will be lost along with BBC Three if the license fee is reduced. I don't like that kind of dirty blackmail. The corporate side of the BBC certainly don't do themselves any favours with the public, and their news bias; political string pulling and brainwashing is disgusting.

    Yes, BBC Four is good, but what did with have before this? BBC Two of course. That's where the serious stuff (sometimes) was put before BBC Four was launched. Commerical companies can still make good factual content like the Smithsonian Channel and the Discovery Channel as was, before it became a reality crap channel.


    Their news bias is much talked about here and one of the reasons why I'm luke warm on the BBC these days.


    I'm even starting to question some of the stuff that Prof Brian Cox comes out with when he talks about things that are mostly theory as if its fact. I can't help feeling there is a case of you pay my funding so I will bias my science in the direction you want for entertainment purposes. I miss Sir Patrick Moore :( and haven't watched the Sky at Night since. What a legend he was. The Sky at Night has gone to pot now. Alice (redhead), I can't remember her surname, the geologist, she is very good. Love her programmes. She done an interesting one recently on sea temperatures as part of the counter global warming movement and how science results can be faked or misleading.

    I used to like the Sky At Night too, but I still think the younger chap does a good job. I'm not really familiar with newer shows at the moment, as I don't get much time for tv, but I did watch one of the Cox shows where all the background music blasted everything else out. Which is just as well, if it was all theory.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • The licence fee was the way a previous government chose to finance the development of the BBC. It was like injecting capital. But easier to finance as direct taxation. But to all intents and purposes it was financing the BBC.


    Was the BBC designed to be a public-funded media for evermore? Because it certainly has grown to the point where it can and should be self-surviving. What stops it being so is that with the licence fee as a safety net the BBC can pi55 away most of its income by a top heavy bureaucratic non-creative management and administration. It's high time the BBC left home and went off to earn a proper living rather than relying on forced handouts.

    Why do you reckon the then government went down the licence fee route, rather than the direct taxes?


    Yes, is the answer to your question. They have a remit in their Charter to broadcast to as wide as audience as possible. The clue is in the name too...:P British Broadcasting Corporation.


    I agree, perhaps it should be self surviving now and perhaps they may choose not to piss away, as you put it, millions on "talent" like Graham Norton and Gary Linekar.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I agree, perhaps it should be self surviving now and perhaps they may choose not to piss away, as you put it, millions on "talent" like Graham Norton and Gary Linekar.

    I would favour a vestigial operation of news and education on a single TV channel plus R4 financed from general taxation. The rest of the PC stuff and so called "entertainment" would be a subscription service. R1, R2 and R5 advertising. R3 closed.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • I totally oppose the licence fee. I stopped paying it 15 years ago. The BBC is the most biased, vile media outlet. Their letters to none payers are criminal acts of harrasment. They totally boycotted UKIP. A lawful prominent t party. I literally stopped paying the (tax) fee and sent the £154 to Tommy Robinson.. I felt great.

    I am but mad north north west.. But when the wind is southerly I knowa Hawke from a Handsaw.

    People don't believe lies because they have to - they believe lies because they want to.

  • I totally oppose the licence fee. I stopped paying it 15 years ago.

    We stopped 13 years ago. A couple of Bozos in the first few months, door not answered, since then loads of threatening letters that help fill our composter but no Bozos. I think they've given up.^^

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • The wages some of them get is sickening but that's the celebrity thing and scratch each other backs and look after their own at everyone else's expense. Even ITV done this recently. Remember the whole Lorraine Kelly tax evasion incident where she claimed to be an actress and not a presenter, well shortly afterwards she made a guest appearance on Coronation street.


    The reality TV stuff is getting beyond a joke and cooking programmes. It's not as if they are teaching anyone to cook either unless you can afford all the luxury products they often use. Hairy Bikers which I actually liked is no longer getting funding. But to give them credit where credit is due they have brought back a little Saturday night entrainment type shows with Michael Mcintyre not that I'm a massive fan. I wish they would get rid of Strictly Come Dancing though or have members of the public on there instead of so called celebrities bumping their status. BBC News 24 can be good at times but only late or in the middle of the night. I like BBC Click which is all about the latest tech and they at times do some good exclusives, panorama style programmes like one not so long ago about Xinjiang in China.

  • ITV is different as that's not publicly funded, but I see no reason to pay all these so called celebs such high wages. Pretty much agree with everything else you said.



    I would favour a vestigial operation of news and education on a single TV channel plus R4 financed from general taxation. The rest of the PC stuff and so called "entertainment" would be a subscription service. R1, R2 and R5 advertising. R3 closed.

    A cut down service and if people want celerity chefs, reality shows etc, that stuff can go elsewhere. I agree.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Channel 4 is also paid via licence fee.

    I am but mad north north west.. But when the wind is southerly I knowa Hawke from a Handsaw.

    People don't believe lies because they have to - they believe lies because they want to.

  • I suspect that given the treatment meted out to the Tories, and Boris in particular that whoever the new culture secretary and the government will take a long hard look at the UK TV industry

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • Boris already said he was going to look at the licence fee and Andrew Neil's recent tantrum has probably made that a certain now.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Boris already said he was going to look at the licence fee and Andrew Neil's recent tantrum has probably made that a certain now.

    I think that Channel 4 may live to regret their ice block representing Boris

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • If he goes after Ch4 for just political reasons, then he may well find himself in a sticky situation, but if there is a genuine attempt to look into PSBs (public service broadcasters) that's another matter. Personally, on CH4, I think it should be privatised and perhaps merged with the BBC.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Put the BBC out to tender. If as they say, David Attenborough on his own is worth the licence fee, then the free market response should rake in billions. The BBC is rotten to the core.

    I am but mad north north west.. But when the wind is southerly I knowa Hawke from a Handsaw.

    People don't believe lies because they have to - they believe lies because they want to.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.