Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bickster

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Surely those people can pay the cost of their lives being saved? Or pay for an insurance policy that will.

Why should I have to subsidise it?

Because at some point you'll use it. If I had the choice, I'd happily not use the BBC's services ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Bit unnecessary. Can be applied to yourself also. Bizarre your concrete thinking Bicks. 

It's not unneccessary because thats the only argument I'm seeing from the anti licence fee side of the debate. I don't like it, I don't use it.

Some people see the greater good for the whole of society regardless of their personal preferences, others don't want to pay for something they don't think they use, even though they do use a TV

Whoever mentioned the NHS is spot on, the argument about scrapping the licence fee / privatising the BBC is usually made by the same politicians that would scrap the NHS and reduce personal taxation. They are usually from the parties of self interest

So me me me me me me is exactly what is going on here

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Because at some point you'll use it. If I had the choice, I'd happily not use the BBC's services ever.

Will I? What if I've chosen instead to pay for a comprehensive private medical insurance policy of my own?

Why should I pay for something that I don't use and have chosen to pay for elsewhere?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't pay for the NHS if you get value from it, but why should I?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's not unneccessary because thats the only argument I'm seeing from the anti licence fee side of the debate. I don't like it, I don't use it.

Some people see the greater good for the whole of socity regardless of their personal preferences, others don't want to pay for something they don't think they use, even though they do use a TV

Whoever mentioned the NHS is spot on, the argument about scrapping the licence fee / privatising the BBC is usually made by the same politicians that would scrap the NHS and reduce personal taxation. They are usually from the parties of self interest

So me me me me me me is exactly what is going on here

I would scrap the licence fee but not the NHS. That the BBC is being compared to the NHS is insane to me. To me personally, the BBC is an entertainment platform that has no bearing on everyday life. The NHS is essential to the country. 

My argument is the BBC as an entity should be separate to watching non BBC TV on a device not made by the BBC. Bit like religion in politics. The two are separate. 

Like I said, we view the BBC differently and as it stands I have to pay and will do so. I should have the choice imo as I view it as I do any other content provider. If I don't like what Netflix offer, I can cancel. BBC should be no different. Differing views. That's all. Where you annoy - and ive said this to other posters about their posts- is how suffocating and black/white your posts are. Not nice to converse with on a message board sometimes. You don't discuss, you just dismiss and belittle.

Edited by Ingram85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Will I? What if I've chosen instead to pay for a comprehensive private medical insurance policy of my own?

Why should I pay for something that I don't use and have chosen to pay for elsewhere?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't pay for the NHS if you get value from it, but why should I?

But to reduce a BBC/NHS comparison to a binary choice is just bizarre. I understand it and what you are saying but to compare an entertainment service to a health service I don't get it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

I would

 

2 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

To me

 

3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

My argument

 

3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Like I said,

 

3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

I should have the choice

Thanks for helping 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bickster said:

 

 

 

 

Thanks for helping 

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rupert Murdoch, aka Mr Fox News, wants the BBC nobbled.

The dripping of poison from private media, run by tax swerving pieces of shit, has helped make this cluster**** country destroying Brexit happen.

Cameron's messing has hurt the BBC, but it can be repaired and we need it.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

Where you annoy - and ive said this to other posters about their posts- is how suffocating and black/white your posts are. Not nice to converse with on a message board sometimes. You don't discuss, you just dismiss and belittle.

See this bit? This is how it reads to me... I don't agree with your opinion... I also suspect it's bourne of cognitive dissonance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bickster said:

See this bit? This is how it reads to me... I don't agree with your opinion... I also suspect it's bourne of cognitive dissonance

Thanks for helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would happily pay the licence fee for BBC4 alone. It's the only channel (including Netflix, etc.) that I watch every day. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bickster said:

That's ok, don't have a telly then. it's a tax on your telly ownership but unlike most taxes in the UK the money goes into a very specific pot to provide a very specific service. You don't use it, that's pretty much your problem not the rest of the countries

 

2 hours ago, bickster said:

That's ok, don't have a telly then. it's a tax on your telly ownership but unlike most taxes in the UK the money goes into a very specific pot to provide a very specific service. You don't use it, that's pretty much your problem not the rest of the countries

Why? You can still have a telly watch the other channels. If everyone had the choice of all the bbc channels being scrambled like the old days I bet there would be a whole host of people who opt for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

 

Why? You can still have a telly watch the other channels. If everyone had the choice of all the bbc channels being scrambled like the old days I bet there would be a whole host of people who opt for that

The licence fee is not a subscription to the BBC as has been previously explained

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat, comparing a TV company to actual public services is madness. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I'm trying to get a good read for it and unfortunately it hasn't strictly answered the question.

The first highlight states it's a tax for using a device. Regardless of whether I watch BBC or not - at least according to this paragraph.

As for the second, It's funding the BBC but it's not a payment for BBC services. I'm trying to get my head around it. How can I find something but not pay for it at the same time?

It does answer the question, albeit it's not as clear as we'd like.

The license is a license to receive TV (and BBC live stream, now) transmissions. There's a fee for that license. That fee goes to the Gov't. The Gov't then funds the BBC to the exact amount as is collected. It used to be that they'd fund some stuff the license fee didn't fund - the world service, for example, which the UK used as an arm of soft power/diplomacy/promoting the UK. Channel 4 also got money from the license fee (dunno if they still do) and things like the conversion to DAB radio and switch over to Digital TV were paid for from the license fee - not just BBC channels but all the transmitters. So it's not strictly BBC only, IIRC.

There are other things that people pay a fee for a license for - Vehicle Excise Duty, for example. The gov't then spends money on roads and traffic lights...etc. Though the amount is not an exact match.

The underlying point, I think, that you and @Ingram85 are making is that it's a bit of an anomaly, an old fashioned funding model, and you're right. It is. It's just that no-one (without a financial interest) has come up with a better way of doing it. Sky or whoever would love to get rid of the license, as it would kill their competitor, then they could up their prices and no-one would have anywhere to go. The terestrial TV and streaming competition helps keep down netflix, Amazon and Sky prices.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

I repeat, comparing a TV company to actual public services is madness. 

It is a public service - it provides educational programming for schools and Uni's. It's mission is to inform, educate and entertain. It provides free radio stations and websites. it also runs the world service radio abroad, acting (sometimes) as part of the foreign office and UK "message" to the world, for the benefit of the UK culturally, tourism etc.

Sure it's not as critical as the NHS, but then other public services aren't as important either - from things already mentioned - leisure centres, sports pitches, schools even (for people without kids) and so on.

Edit - they also, by law have to show things like the world cup and so on, so that everyone with a TV can watch them, not just Sky subscribers or BT sport or AMazon subscriptions. If the WC went to ppv or subscription telly, we'd be deprived (or have to pay a high price) to watch them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...
Â