The Great Debate about the BBC and Licence Fee

Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
  • Subscription no....free and they make money through advertisements or paid through tax then yes. We do need some form of national communications. Maybe BBC news should remain as is regardless but minus the fee. Paid for through tax. What happens whenever there a national emergency and government need some form of official channel to communicate to the public. Then again if I had my way I would completely abolish any government rule over the people. Maybe removing the BBC is the start of that but then if the gov remain who is going to pay the higher costs to other channels so they can put out political broadcasts. This will cost the tax payer lots more and will only feed the big corporations who are no better than government rule.\


    How did they do it before the days of radio. OldBoy you must be able to remember. Was it just newspapers back then. And what about the days before newspapers. The internet is no good because the whole Internet could be brought down in a cyberattack very easily. Do we revert back to dropping propaganda on leaflets out the back of aeroplanes.

  • I think the licence fee is good value for money. How many subscriber channels would give you all this for 43p a day?


    licence-fee.jpg


    some people only want the bbc defunded for political reasons. the bbc is protected by a royal charter which means the hard right control it completely. they brand it as being biased when it isnt.

    Most people want the BBC defunded because it is inefficient, infested by the Wokerati and left leaning to the extreme. If they had lived up to the charter there would have been no reason to ask for it to be defunded, but the BBC had other ideas and have now burnt their boats.

  • Subscription no....free and they make money through advertisements or paid through tax then yes. We do need some form of national communications. Maybe BBC news should remain as is regardless but minus the fee. Paid for through tax. What happens whenever there a national emergency and government need some form of official channel to communicate to the public. Then again if I had my way I would completely abolish any government rule over the people. Maybe removing the BBC is the start of that but then if the gov remain who is going to pay the higher costs to other channels so they can put out political broadcasts. This will cost the tax payer lots more and will only feed the big corporations who are no better than government rule.\


    How did they do it before the days of radio. OldBoy you must be able to remember. Was it just newspapers back then. And what about the days before newspapers. The internet is no good because the whole Internet could be brought down in a cyberattack very easily. Do we revert back to dropping propaganda on leaflets out the back of aeroplanes.

    I’m not that old, Norra!


    The answer, surely, is to have a basic BBC channel comprising news, public information, old films and old repeats, free of charge and funded by the public service grant and new BBC subscription channels which would provide premium BBC programming on a BBC streamer.


    The BBC could make even more money by making the content of the BBC I-Player available abroad by way of a subscription. They could make more money still if they allowed advertising for overseas access as an alternative to a subscription.

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

  • That's a fair point, but another one would be, how many of those services do people actually watch/listen to?


    It is and talking of which, there is actually a Select Committee investiation into BBC impartiality at the moment. Just caught a bit on BBC Parliament today. I haven't got time to watch all the stuff, but if anyone else does, I would be interested in their opinions.

    How many people watch all the channels that they pay for on sky? That is a bit of a bogus answer. Just like subscription tv nobody watches everything they pay for. who watches sky arts or sky showcase? Who watches Alibi or Quest, which come with the subscription. some might watch one or two but I dont believe anybody ever looks at every channel.


    But somebody elsewhere asked what will happen to items of national importance? who will cover the coronation of king charles when he is crowned. who will cover the fa cup final for people who cant afford subscription channels? commercial channels will sell things to the highest bidder. Do we really want the kentucky fried chicken coronation of king charles III? The bbc is our national broadcaster. it belongs to and it serves the entire country. and it costs a poxy 43p a day. peanuts. I can afford 43p a day but I cant afford the exorbitant price of sky sport which i would love to have. and then I get less half the football because bt sport get a load of matches so thats another subscription. then amazon prime get some games and netflix get some. You might be able to afford all that but I cant. BBC provides match of the day which at least gives us highlights. what about all those really great documentary series like green planet and universe. genuine quality. brian cox and david attenbrough are miles ahead of anything on discovery.


    the bbc is the envy of the world and it is something we should take pride in, but the alt-right want to defund it because it doesnt kowtow to the liars in the government. and then they call it bias because it tells uncomfortable truths and exposes those lies.


    43p a day. its sod all for what you get.

    Just telling the truth, that's all. I know you don't like it, but there it is.

  • The BBC is good value compared to sky who you can pay a subscription too and they still get shown adverts.

    Good value Ron ?---- It's crap, inefficient, biased and it's failed business model is that of the early 20th century. I don't rate Sky either for different reasons.

    Defunding the BBC is the only way to ensure that it will survive at all.

  • The analogy with Sky is not a good one, because no TV user is being forced to pay for Sky against their will.


    I am not advocating the destruction of the BBC, far from it. I simply want people to have the option of not paying for it if they are not interested in their content. The licence fee is now antiquated, having been conceived when only the BBC was broadcasting in Britain. We live in quite different times now.

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

  • Firstly, let me just state, I can't stand Nadine Dorris. She emphasises perfectly, for me, what's wrong with this country. Right, rant over. :)


    The pandemic has shown clearly, I believe, that we need public service broadcasting in this nation. GirlAgain spoke aboout coronations, but there are also other national events and yes I would include sports in that, that should be available to all.


    So, my first problem with this government statement is that it does not include the wider question of all public service broadcasting, it should.


    If it were to be decided that the BBC should be privatised, it could become a subsidary of Amazon, Apple, Disney etc. Is that what we want? I don't think so.


    Apart from the licence fee, there is the question of bias and the fact that the entire output of the broadcaster, not just the news, promotes a ultra liberal central London view of the world, one I can't stand. I'm not sure how that can be addressed.


    Therefore, I do think we need public service broadcasting. That needs to be paid for and "controlled" in some way, so I think there needs to be a broadcaster that is funded mostly by direct taxation, in effect becoming a state broadcaster, but be allowed to pursue private ventures as it wishes. But it's primary purpose should be to service us, not a global audience and as the BBC and its infrastructure is already there, then I guess that would meet the criteria.


    So folks, in case you missed it, I think the BBC should remain, the licence fee should go and be funded and controlled by the State.


    Frankly, the 43p per day argument is a strong one, whether we like it or not, it just needs to come straight from the exchequer.

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

  • How many people watch all the channels that they pay for on sky?

    Probably no one, I'd imagine, so fair point.

    Do we really want the kentucky fried chicken coronation of king charles III?

    Certainly not, although I don't want a King Charless at all, but that's a different point.


    Good points again for this bit.

    the bbc is the envy of the world and it is something we should take pride in, but the alt-right want to defund it because it doesnt kowtow to the liars in the government. and then they call it bias because it tells uncomfortable truths and exposes those lies.

    The reason why so many people object to paying the licence fee is because the broadcaster does reflect the views and culture of the majority of this country. The BBC is all about minority interests and look what a mess they made over Brexit.

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

  • The best channel the BBC have is BBC Parliament. How sad is that. What I have issues most of all with about the BBC is the forced payment to those that don't even watch it including many elderly folk who are already existing on the breadline and having to decide between heating and food. Add to that folk are receiving intimidating visits from debt collectors or being made into a criminal and getting a criminal record. It's a vile corporation.


    We could all pay a tenner a year and that would cover the news, weather, party political broadcasts and royal wedding, remembrance days etc. The only thing really worth holding onto is Attenborough but he will be dead soon and that will be the end of quality nature programmes. They are already screwing that up with dodgy post production and sound levels and using zoo animals against a chroma (green or blue) screen etc when they don't capture them in the wild.

  • The pandemic has shown clearly, I believe, that we need public service broadcasting in this nation. GirlAgain spoke aboout coronations, but there are also other national events and yes I would include sports in that, that should be available to all.

    By 'public service broadcasting', presumably you mean the news, which incidentally is also provided by ITV, Channel 4 and Sky. PSB also covers other things as well, such as religion, but the BBC is not the only means by which PSB can be delivered. However, the government needs to fund this as it is not a commercially viable aspect of broadcasting. The government could invite bids for funding for such broadcasting, although for good reason it may wish to regard the BBC as the best conduit for PSB funded news.


    If it were to be decided that the BBC should be privatised, it could become a subsidary of Amazon, Apple, Disney etc. Is that what we want? I don't think so.

    The BBC could remain organised as it is. I'm not sure if there is a compelling case for privatising it.


    Apart from the licence fee, there is the question of bias and the fact that the entire output of the broadcaster, not just the news, promotes a ultra liberal central London view of the world, one I can't stand. I'm not sure how that can be addressed.

    Yes, the Beeb needs to remind itself that we expect neutrality from the news it disseminates. Let's get the facts in the news and leave personal views to other shows. We should be able to trust the news stories we get from the BBC.


    The fact that both Labour and Conservative voters complain of bias does not mean that the BBC is neutral, as they like smugly to say. The Camerons and the Starmers of this world will get a better hearing from the Beeb than the Johnsons and the Corbyns.


    Therefore, I do think we need public service broadcasting. That needs to be paid for and "controlled" in some way, so I think there needs to be a broadcaster that is funded mostly by direct taxation, in effect becoming a state broadcaster, but be allowed to pursue private ventures as it wishes. But it's primary purpose should be to service us, not a global audience and as the BBC and its infrastructure is already there, then I guess that would meet the criteria.

    Whether we need public service broadcasting and whether we need the BBC are two separate questions.


    The taxpayer could fund the BBC as you say, although there are three dangers with this. Firstly, the government of the day may be too generous with the money, leading to waste and giving it an unfair advantage against commercial broadcasters. Secondly, governments could underfund it to the extent that there is an outcry that the government is biased against it, and leading to a deterioration in the programming.


    Thirdly, it doesn't resolve the gripe that people are paying for entertainment they may not watch or listen to.


    No, it is my firm belief that subscribers should pay for what they want to watch or hear, and that the majority of the population would take that option anyway.

    So folks, in case you missed it, I think the BBC should remain, the licence fee should go and be funded and controlled by the State.

    I don't honestly think that is the right solution and it means the criticisms will continue to get louder. People are using the Beeb more as an occasional backup rather than the primary service now in the main.

    Frankly, the 43p per day argument is a strong one, whether we like it or not, it just needs to come straight from the exchequer.

    It's not an acceptable argument. It is only 'cheap' in the way you have presented it because everyone pays for it. Sky would be cheap as well if everyone was made to pay.

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

  • Boris Johnson throws weight behind scrapping BBC licence fee after Cabinet row
    BORIS Johnson threw his weight behind scrapping the ‘telly tax’ last night after a Cabinet row over the BBC, The Sun can reveal.  The Prime Minister told his…
    www.thesun.co.uk

    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.

  • As long as the BBC is infested by Wokinistas and Lefty influencers, It will never survive.---- It's apparent need to promote "strange" lifestyles and for the placement of "Token" minorities as a box ticking exercise in every programme is insulting both to the people themselves and the Great British Public.

    It lives up to the name of The British Biased Corporation.

  • Radio 4 now has a disproportionate amount of issues relating to black people. From plays to religious programming, from technology programmes to music programming, it is somehow shoehorned in.


    Yes, represent them, yes have some programmes about black history (I actually find these interesting), but they are now so ridiculously overrepresented it's become a farce.


    Talking of farces, Nadine Dorries now appears to be backtracking about scrapping the licence fee after being admonished for tweeting about this before announcing this to Parliament.


    She also erroneously believes that Channel 4 receives Government funding, that bailiffs can call if it is not paid, that (along with Johnson) you need a TVL simply for owning a TV set and that elderly people in particular can be threatened with prison for not paying it. The woman is an idiot.

  • She also erroneously believes that Channel 4 receives Government funding, that bailiffs can call if it is not paid, that (along with Johnson) you need a TVL simply for owning a TV set and that elderly people in particular can be threatened with prison for not paying it. The woman is an idiot.

    Yes, Channel 4 is funded entirely from its commercial activities.


    Although Nadine wasn’t quite right on the need for a licence ‘just for owning a TV’, people are very limited on what they can do with the TV if they have no licence. You can watch catch-up services on the commercial stations, but you cannot watch any live TV (or recordings from live TV) and you cannot watch the BBC I-Player either.


    As for pensioners, they can indeed be threatened with prison for refusing to pay their TV licence.


    Pensioners denied a free TV licence warned by BBC enforcers
    Demands from 'BBC bullies' ordering pensioners to pay have led to hundreds of readers proclaiming that they will never surrender and pay up. Ian Barratt…
    www.thisismoney.co.uk

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

  • pensioners, along with everybody else, can't be sent to prison for not having a TVL. What can happen is that people who are fined for not having a TVL who refuse to pay it can be threatened with prison for refusing to pay a fine.


    The reference to pensioners is deliberately designed to be emotive as, unlike any other group of people, those on lower incomes (which are still higher than for many younger people) qualify for a free TVL on low income grounds.

  • People tend to forget that a license is necessary in order to receive broadcast signals. You used to need a license for a radio. Don't know if that has been scrapped.

    There is the assumption that old people spend all their time watching tv....therefore they shouldn't have to pay for a license. I have read that watching long hours of tv could be a cause of dementia....don't know how true that is, as dementia is not a new problem.

  • I have read that watching long hours of tv could be a cause of dementia

    Long hours of watching the BBC could. I mean 1 episode of Eastenders is enough to send you mad. ^^

    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.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!