Chindie Posted June 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: So why is it called a TV Licence? Because BBC Tax would get people's back up even more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, bickster said: You already have that choice. Don't use a TV That's the question I think. I want a TV and I want Netflix. Nothing else. So why should I pay to the BBC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 11, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Mic09 said: That's the question I think. I want a TV and I want Netflix. Nothing else. So why should I pay to the BBC? Why pay any tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, villa4europe said: like most of our institutions its ran poorly, its a leaky ship and those at the top get paid more than the going rate but when anyone suggests a fix or an alternative state its historical significance and blame the tories These discussions are always heated, regardless of the arguments. 'Privatisation' is a dirty word and even if it can bring an improved service, it's used as a political weapon. It's easy to get emotional about people losing jobs or things not being like they were in the olden days. Possible improvements are not as "appealing" to a wide range of voters. I'm not for privatising the BBC. Or at least I haven't got a definate, fact checked opinion. But it's worth a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, bickster said: Why pay any tax? Don't get me wrong, I don't want a discussion about the idea of tax. That's for another thread. I want to know why I can't plug my TV in and watch Netflix without paying the BBC £150 a year or whatever the rate is now. That's the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, bickster said: Why pay any tax? That isn't a valid response and you saying it over and over isn't going to change anything. The BBC does not provide life essential everyday services. The council do. I use services provided by the council, so I pay for it. I don't use the BBC. I want my money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Mic09 said: Don't get me wrong, I don't want a discussion about the idea of tax. That's for another thread. I want to know why I can't plug my TV in and watch Netflix without paying the BBC £150 a year or whatever the rate is now. That's the question. Or to take it further, I don't know why I have to fund Top Gear crashing 27 Ferraris each series if I don't watch it. That's the question. It's not a health service. It's not education. It's Matt Le Blanc driving in a Lamborghini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, Mic09 said: That's the question I think. I want a TV and I want Netflix. Nothing else. So why should I pay to the BBC? If you're purely watching Netflix do you have to have a TV licence? I thought you only needed a TV licence to watch live TV and iPlayer. May be wrong but I always thought this was the case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2019 Privatisation rarely makes things better for anyone but stockholders. The BBC shouldn't be privatised. It will die if it is. Which'll make a lot of people happy who I would rather don't get that happiness. Fix it. Don't kill it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, tom_avfc said: If you're purely watching Netflix do you have to have a TV licence? I thought you only needed a TV licence to watch live TV and iPlayer. May be wrong but I always thought this was the case. Yes because you cant be trusted as you are using a device that you could use to watch a BBC thing on. And the BBC don't like that. You untrustworthy clearing. Ugh. It's a digital world. I don't pay, block me from receiving your service. It's that simple. But because the BBC is a cultural phenomenon we should all be grateful for then we all need to pay for it. Edited June 11, 2019 by Ingram85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, Chindie said: Privatisation rarely makes things better for anyone but stockholders. The BBC shouldn't be privatised. It will die if it is. Which'll make a lot of people happy who I would rather don't get that happiness. Fix it. Don't kill it. Right now the BBC directors/boards have it good. And tax payer pays for its regardless or whether they want to or not. If it was BBC LTD, I guess you suggest the stockholders are not worthy anymore and don't deserve it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, Mic09 said: These discussions are always heated, regardless of the arguments. 'Privatisation' is a dirty word and even if it can bring an improved service, it's used as a political weapon. It's easy to get emotional about people losing jobs or things not being like they were in the olden days. Possible improvements are not as "appealing" to a wide range of voters. I'm not for privatising the BBC. Or at least I haven't got a definate, fact checked opinion. But it's worth a discussion. That may be true in general (though I hardly hear conservatives reacting with studied calmness to the word 'nationalisation' either, and in fact I think we know which word is dirtier in today's discourse) but privatisation of the BBC would not bring an improved service. We have abundant evidence in hand that it would not. It is far cheaper than even the most basic Sky package, yet provides not only TV channels but several national radio stations, local radio coverage of the entire country, the most-visited website in the country and on and on. The cheapest national papers cost 40p/day; the BBC licence fee costs 42p/day, and provides millions of times more content. In addition, private equivalents of BBC channels and stations are nearly all markedly inferior. We have actual evidence in hand of the alternatives; there is no 'even if it can bring an improved service' to be discussed. What it could do is provide a very large windfall to Rupert Murdoch, who has of course done very badly out of this country over the years 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 11, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2019 22 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: The BBC does not provide life essential everyday services. neither does a fishing rod 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 11, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2019 14 minutes ago, Ingram85 said: Yes because you cant be trusted as you are using a device that you could use to watch a BBC thing on. And the BBC don't like that. You untrustworthy clearing. It's nothing to do with trust and whether you watch the BBC or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bickster said: neither does a fishing rod I understand you're bordering on becoming a fully paid up BBC obsessive evangelist but even you're reaching with that post Bicks. Madness. That you see a non essential service provider as THAT essential rather than optional to the point that EVERYONE must pay is scary. Edited June 11, 2019 by Ingram85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 11, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11, 2019 Just now, Mic09 said: Right now the BBC directors/boards have it good. And tax payer pays for its regardless or whether they want to or not. If it was BBC LTD, I guess you suggest the stockholders are not worthy anymore and don't deserve it. Why? Because pleasing stockholders will become it's sole purpose and that isn't necessarily for the good of the consumer, be that through increased costs and/or impacts on content, be that type of content, or ahem, 'tone' of content. Right now the BBC is largely above that. It's beholden to a founding remit and (sadly increasingly as it has chosen to weigh in more) government. That gives it some freedom. It can commit to stuff that is very niche, or expensive for the ultimate viewership return, and it can provide a very, very wide range of content. That people are noticing and aren't very impressed by it's shift to dodgy ground in news and political broadcasting is a testament to how good it was. And everything else is still good generally and excellent value. And I say that as someone who also barely uses their services. I watch a handful of shows annually, I don't use their radio service, and I browse the news site as a base level news service. My actual media viewing for Beeb content is tiny, but I appreciate it for what it is and I want to maintain using it. It's traditionally my preferred avenue for live events and breaking news, and it's usually very good at both. But otherwise I'm looking at YouTube, streaming services etc and other sites for content. I'd still happily pay the licence fee. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: That may be true in general (though I hardly hear conservatives reacting with studied calmness to the word 'nationalisation' either, and in fact I think we know which word is dirtier in today's discourse) but privatisation of the BBC would not bring an improved service. We have abundant evidence in hand that it would not. It is far cheaper than even the most basic Sky package, yet provides not only TV channels but several national radio stations, local radio coverage of the entire country, the most-visited website in the country and on and on. The cheapest national papers cost 40p/day; the BBC licence fee costs 42p/day, and provides millions of times more content. In addition, private equivalents of BBC channels and stations are nearly all markedly inferior. We have actual evidence in hand of the alternatives; there is no 'even if it can bring an improved service' to be discussed. What it could do is provide a very large windfall to Rupert Murdoch, who has of course done very badly out of this country over the years Ok, however you have to assume that some people prefer to have Mr Murdoch's media and only watch that. Let's not discuss their intelligence here - that's another conversation Why does the British Tax Payer have to pay for a service that they might not use at all in order to be able to use a service they prefer? Again, I'm not against the BBC. But the discussion of paying Matt Le Blanc money to drive the Lamborghini whether I like it or not is not a conversation of numbers, but morality behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 11, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2019 Just now, Ingram85 said: I understand you're bordering on becoming a fully paid up BBC obsessive evangelist but even you're reaching with that post Bicks. Madness. That you see a service provider as essential rather than optional is scary. How am I reaching out? To use a fishing rod, you need a rod licence. To use a TV you need a TV Licence. First country I thought of btw without a National Broadcaster. USA, that is what TV would become. hell no! they all crave the BBC on their subscription services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Chindie said: Because pleasing stockholders will become it's sole purpose and that isn't necessarily for the good of the consumer, be that through increased costs and/or impacts on content, be that type of content, or ahem, 'tone' of content. Right now the BBC is largely above that. It's beholden to a founding remit and (sadly increasingly as it has chosen to weigh in more) government. That gives it some freedom. It can commit to stuff that is very niche, or expensive for the ultimate viewership return, and it can provide a very, very wide range of content. That people are noticing and aren't very impressed by it's shift to dodgy ground in news and political broadcasting is a testament to how good it was. And everything else is still good generally and excellent value. And I say that as someone who also barely uses their services. I watch a handful of shows annually, I don't use their radio service, and I browse the news site as a base level news service. My actual media viewing for Beeb content is tiny, but I appreciate it for what it is and I want to maintain using it. It's traditionally my preferred avenue for live events and breaking news, and it's usually very good at both. But otherwise I'm looking at YouTube, streaming services etc and other sites for content. I'd still happily pay the licence fee. But you've made that decision and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should people who see paying for entertainment services that they simply don't use as a bad thing be forced into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 11, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mic09 said: Why does the British Tax Payer have to pay for a service that they might not use at all in order to be able to use a service they prefer? You aren't paying for a service for the umpteenth time, you are paying a tax on your TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts