|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 16, 2019 17:38:39 GMT
One of the first acts of this new Government is to launch a consultation on decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee.
The bigger question, which Johnson raised during the election, is should we fund the BBC through a licence fee at all.
What do folks think?
I’d bin it and have the BBC find ways to fund its operations commercially.
|
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Dec 16, 2019 17:39:28 GMT
It should go it's not worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 16, 2019 17:39:39 GMT
Get rid.
|
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Dec 16, 2019 17:48:51 GMT
To add to my above post once you reach retirement age you should get all tv free sky, virgin or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Dec 16, 2019 17:57:47 GMT
There's absolutely no other service on the planet that assumes you use it and forces you to pay for it through simple virtue of an item that allows you to receive said service.
It needs scrapping. Either subscription or adverts (or both) but if it can't survive on a commercial basis it shouldn't be propped up aftificially by the taxpayer. Let it collapse if it can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 16, 2019 18:50:35 GMT
So here goes. I think the licence fee should stay.
I think it should be free for anyone reaching pension age and decriminalised but a citizen funded National broadcaster is fine.
I have a problem with the impartiality and uber PC leanings but the output over all platforms is vast.
If you don't want to pay the fee don't watch BBC or catch up and don't pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidcrewbob on Dec 16, 2019 18:55:17 GMT
The Uber-lefty-biased BBC and it’s funding model is an anachronism and should go the same way as the dog license - They should have no problem being successful commercially providing they stick to what they are good at doing and not be paying c*nts like Lineker, Norton and the gang of trotsky, Islington-bubble auto-cue readers millions of pounds.......get it done Boris .....
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 16, 2019 19:28:25 GMT
I think it absolutely should stay.
I've got 2.5tb box which is permanently about 80% full and 90% of that content is from the BBC.
Once a week I go through all the channels on catch-up and NEVER download anything off of ITV or Channel 5 and very rarely download anything off of Channel 4.
We've got all the sky channels and the only thing we use it for, is the odd decent thing off Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts (which we use a lot) and football.
I think the quality of stuff on the BBC is outstanding (including radio) and I'd hate for it to go the way of the commercial channels.
I do realise that's due to personal preference of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Dec 16, 2019 19:40:05 GMT
Same here it should stay. The radio output alone leaves the rest of the field way behind in terms of quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 16, 2019 20:02:29 GMT
I think it should stay but how has the longer fee continued to ride when they are selling their shows for big money overseas.
Top gear (was), the dramas etc, the licensing of shows and products must be making small fortunes.
I guess you have to pay near the going rate for good talent but normally the verb is pretty good
But cut the wheat from the chaff.
I reckon some of the good stuff on bbc4 could replace the shit on bbc 2
The BBC sport coverage is a disgrace. They should be forced to bring back grandstand only covering the niche sports like swimming gymnastics and all the other stuff we only see once every 4 years at the olympics
If they are getting the olympics as a crown jewel event they should be forced to give the paragames the same coverage and like said do 4 years for us to invest in the smaller sports
Too many radio channels
Fuck off steve Wright as well
|
|
|
|
Post by henry on Dec 16, 2019 20:13:25 GMT
A high rate subscription fee would suit me. It would give me an outside chance of sitting down after tea and not hear a load of screaming and bastard shouting on Eastenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Dec 16, 2019 20:17:56 GMT
Get rid.
Get sponsors for their shows and have adds in between shows but not during.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2019 21:22:28 GMT
I don't think I've recorded anything off ITV CH5 and very little of CH4 but loads off BBC4 and BBC2 and listen to Radio 4 a lot, so yes it should stay.
I have no objection to paying for something I use.
After all, Sky isn't free, and it costs a lot more per year than the BBC and churns out utter shite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Dec 16, 2019 21:46:09 GMT
I don't think I've recorded anything off ITV CH5 and very little of CH4 but loads off BBC4 and BBC2 and listen to Radio 4 a lot, so yes it should stay. I have no objection to paying for something I use. After all, Sky isn't free, and it costs a lot more per year than the BBC and churns out utter shite. I don't think anyone's saying it should be free, but the difference is with Sky, Netflix, Prime etc if you don't pay for it you don't get it. They don't automatically pump it into your telly then tell you you're committing a criminal offence because you're receiving the signal and not paying for it. It's really weird and it's the only example of this bizarre business model I've ever heard of. If you want a TV to hypothetically only watch ITV then you still have to pay the BBC? It's an appalling outrage that they can extort the population like that, especially with their thuggish intimidation tactics and presumption of guilt if you don't pay the fee. If you want to pay for it then absolutely great, that suits both you and the Beeb, but the Beeb expect every fucker else to pay as well. It's an absolute mafia racket. |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2019 21:48:26 GMT
I don't think I've recorded anything off ITV CH5 and very little of CH4 but loads off BBC4 and BBC2 and listen to Radio 4 a lot, so yes it should stay. I have no objection to paying for something I use. After all, Sky isn't free, and it costs a lot more per year than the BBC and churns out utter shite. I don't think anyone's saying it should be free, but the difference is with Sky, Netflix, Prime etc if you don't pay for it you don't get it. They don't automatically pump it into your telly then tell you you're committing a criminal offence because you're receiving the signal and not paying for it. It's really weird and it's the only example of this bizarre business model I've ever heard of. If you want a TV to hypothetically only watch ITV then you still have to pay the BBC? It's an appalling outrage that they can extort the population like that, especially with their thuggish intimidation tactics and presumption of guilt if you don't pay the fee. If you want to pay for it then absolutely great, that suits both you and the Beeb, but the Beeb expect every fucker else to pay as well. It's an absolute mafia racket. I agree. Fair point. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 16, 2019 22:58:38 GMT
I think it absolutely should stay. I've got 2.5tb box which is permanently about 80% full and 90% of that content is from the BBC. Once a week I go through all the channels on catch-up and NEVER download anything off of ITV or Channel 5 and very rarely download anything off of Channel 4. We've got all the sky channels and the only thing we use it for, is the odd decent thing off Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts (which we use a lot) and football. I think the quality of stuff on the BBC is outstanding (including radio) and I'd hate for it to go the way of the commercial channels. I do realise that's due to personal preference of course. If you enjoy the BBC that’s great. But why should I pay for your enjoyment? |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 16, 2019 22:59:47 GMT
To add to my above post once you reach retirement age you should get all tv free sky, virgin or whatever. Have you reached retirement age? |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 16, 2019 23:01:58 GMT
So here goes. I think the licence fee should stay. I think it should be free for anyone reaching pension age and decriminalised but a citizen funded National broadcaster is fine. I have a problem with the impartiality and uber PC leanings but the output over all platforms is vast. If you don't want to pay the fee don't watch BBC or catch up and don't pay. The thing is you have to pay the BBC whether or not you watch it if you watch other terrestrial channels. Let the people who watch it pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 23:08:58 GMT
GO
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 23:11:45 GMT
To add to my above post once you reach retirement age you should get all tv free sky, virgin or whatever. Have you reached retirement age? yes  |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 16, 2019 23:14:49 GMT
Advertising on tv, during films, series, sports, concerts or anything else should be absolutely forbidden!
I have better things to do than to watch such bloody shit!
It has made me uninterested in what's on tv these days, unless it's our somewhat left oriented national tv. Just because there's no commercials there.
Listen to the radio, the same thing, it's only possible to listen to our national radio, P1 to P4. Advertising crap in all the other stations.
🤮
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 16, 2019 23:16:39 GMT
Advertising on tv, during films, series, sports, concerts or anything else should be absolutely forbidden! I have better things to do than to watch such bloody shit! It has made me uninterested in what's on tv these days, unless it's our somewhat left oriented national tv. Just because there's no commercials there. Listen to the radio, the same thing, it's only possible to listen to our national radio, P1 to P4. Advertising crap in all the other stations. 🤮 Pay for ad free versions (if available, of course) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 23:54:16 GMT
It should be abolished. For all the good the bbc produces (I'm thinking specifically the nature / science / general documentaries) the news wing has gone so rogue that it amazes me it's not more of a national outrage. I've been visiting the news page almost daily for two decades now, and, at the risk of this being merely a product of my personal political leanings changing as I've progressed through / left my 20s rather than a genuine seismic shift, I'm fairly certain bbc.co.uk/news has totally transformed from a news site into a (so called) progressive propaganda leaflet in the last decade. And specifically in the last few years that rate of change seems to me to have accelerated out of control.
The TV news and political shows in general are little better. It's arguably the most influential and important arm of the entire corporation and the rot is so deep that the house needs condemning. Similar to The EU, it's well beyond reform. Maybe that's why The BBC loves The EU so much. They're kindred spirits.
However, if the news and education wings were shut down I'd happily start paying the fee again (not paid in years) if it contributes to productions like Planet Earth / The Blue Planet / Stargazing Live / etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 16, 2019 23:55:15 GMT
Same here it should stay. The radio output alone leaves the rest of the field way behind in terms of quality. I don't think that you need a licence for the radio anymore Fel, not that it affects the question, the money has to come from somewhere |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 17, 2019 2:34:03 GMT
I think it absolutely should stay. I've got 2.5tb box which is permanently about 80% full and 90% of that content is from the BBC. Once a week I go through all the channels on catch-up and NEVER download anything off of ITV or Channel 5 and very rarely download anything off of Channel 4. We've got all the sky channels and the only thing we use it for, is the odd decent thing off Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts (which we use a lot) and football. I think the quality of stuff on the BBC is outstanding (including radio) and I'd hate for it to go the way of the commercial channels. I do realise that's due to personal preference of course. If you enjoy the BBC that’s great. But why should I pay for your enjoyment? It's a fair question but I perceive the BBC to be a (very high quality) public service, that is immensely more affordable than comparable services. Luckily, we don't have to pay a specific amount of £160 a year to access the NHS, like we do with the BBC but if we DID have to (pay a comparable amount), would it be fair to suggest, that because somebody didn't want, or need the services of the NHS, then that fee should be abolished and everybody else should have to pay the ACTUAL cost of their individual treatment? To get the levels of broadcast quality that the BBC provides, via private subscription, would mean that huge numbers of the population, simply wouldn't be able to afford the prohibitive cost they would be faced with. |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 17, 2019 6:35:00 GMT
One of the first acts of this new Government is to launch a consultation on decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee. The bigger question, which Johnson raised during the election, is should we fund the BBC through a licence fee at all. What do folks think? I’d bin it and have the BBC find ways to fund its operations commercially. Was that in their manifesto. All the $#!t that needs doin & that’s a priority. Is that what the people lent their votes to... |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Dec 17, 2019 7:38:17 GMT
If you enjoy the BBC that’s great. But why should I pay for your enjoyment? It's a fair question but I perceive the BBC to be a (very high quality) public service, that is immensely more affordable than comparable services. Luckily, we don't have to pay a specific amount of £160 a year to access the NHS, like we do with the BBC but if we DID have to (pay a comparable amount), would it be fair to suggest, that because somebody didn't want, or need the services of the NHS, then that fee should be abolished and everybody else should have to pay the ACTUAL cost of their individual treatment? To get the levels of broadcast quality that the BBC provides, via private subscription, would mean that huge numbers of the population, simply wouldn't be able to afford the prohibitive cost they would be faced with. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 17, 2019 7:43:49 GMT
Advertising on tv, during films, series, sports, concerts or anything else should be absolutely forbidden! I have better things to do than to watch such bloody shit! It has made me uninterested in what's on tv these days, unless it's our somewhat left oriented national tv. Just because there's no commercials there. Listen to the radio, the same thing, it's only possible to listen to our national radio, P1 to P4. Advertising crap in all the other stations. 🤮 Pay for ad free versions (if available, of course) It's not. Besides ... pay? On the contrary, I have another completely different suggestion: each one of the viewers or listeners should get 1 SEK (£0.1) for every advert being sent to their tv or radio. So, if a film has 5 commercial breaks each one containing 7 different product, a total of 5 x 7 = 35 products - that film should give me 35 x 1 = 35 SEK (£3.5).🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 7:44:13 GMT
One of the first acts of this new Government is to launch a consultation on decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee. The bigger question, which Johnson raised during the election, is should we fund the BBC through a licence fee at all. What do folks think? I’d bin it and have the BBC find ways to fund its operations commercially. Was that in their manifesto. All the $#!t that needs doin & that’s a priority. Is that what the people lent their votes to... No one is saying it’s a priority. But it’s a topical subject folk have diverse opinions on. It’s interesting to hear them. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 17, 2019 7:45:09 GMT
Pay for ad free versions (if available, of course) It's not. Seems like there is a gap in the media market in Sweden then. |
|
