| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
What's the law.
I can live without BBC TV at home.
We need real guidance on what we ha e to do to legally avoid having to pay these
Tax raising lefties.
There must be a way to opt out now surely.
I ask because I'm paying two bloody licence fees.
How come?Originally Posted by AlwaysAway2
Do you have two houses?
Wasn't the government funding scrapped so the bbc have kept it going themselves for quite a while?Tax raising lefties.
The bbc will still be paying a third of the cost for poorer pensioners too.
It may not be ideal but there are more pensioners than ever so it was always going to be difficult to keep it going after the tories cut the funding.
They should scrap the licence and add a tiny amount to the income tax to pay for it
I think the tories would love to be rid of the bbc just like the NHS. I remember when the funding was cut in 2015 the free to over 75s was expected to be scrapped completely anyway, I'm surprised this has come to anyone as a surprise.
Well not that surprised thatthe posters who just post "lefty" as an insult have such short memories.
The plug will be pulled on free bus passes next!
Considering Whittingdale was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, they'd love to get rid of it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...e-impartiality
And Matt Hancock is funded heavily by the Taxpayers' Alliance, so bye bye NHS.
Yep both of these will be gone soon and they'll be missed.
People slag the bbc and call it a "lefty" organisation (I'd love to know which part of it because it certainly isn't the news and current affairs part of it).
But the value for money is crazy, I don't watch much tv but for 5 live, radio 4 and 6 music alone I'd pay the fee, the podcast archive they have is incredible too, match of the day an FA cup coverage, the amount of amazing comedy produced over the last 6 months alone, then stuff they broadcast like killing eve and peaky blinders, plus all the documentaries they have.
All that for £150 a year!
I wouldn't watch their news or politics coverage ever, but people need to realise not everything on it can be aimed at everyone.
Definitely. If the BBC stopped competing with the private sector by making programmes like Eastenders and Strictly, which are ideal for mass-market commercial TV, then it could even be paid for without any increase in tax. The Australian equivalent is paid for from general taxation.
Why do they have to send production teams to far-off places to cover events, staying at the best hotels, when they could hire a local stringer to report in for them?
It's a public service broadcaster which thinks it's an institution.
It does produce some excellent stuff and could still do that if financed by taxation and run more efficiently.
I don't think anyone is saying it's perfect but how many big organisations are?
The value for money we get is incredible imo.
Look how much more sky costs and what you get for it (plus adverts!).
You have a choice with Sky. You don't get fined or put in prison for not subscribing to Sky. There's nothing stopping the BBC from producing quality shows if financed some other way, and as I said it shouldn't be competing with mass-market commercial TV. They have to make their money from the market, not from public money. Fans of Eastenders wouldn't stop watching if it carried a few minutes of ads, like Corrie.
As for its news and current affairs, it's nothing more than a news production agency. If you want real journalism, real investigative reporting you have to look elsewhere. The BBC won't rock the boat, it's an establishment channel which needs to please all the people all the time to ensure its licence fee. If it pisses off the powers that be then the phone calls will come and it'll lose its privileges.
When the switch from analogue to Freeview digital came in, there was thought of making everyone buy a box with encoding built it so it could receive encoded subscription-only channels. The BBC saw the threat: it might be forced to offer some of its channels on a private subscription basis. It opposed the idea, and the govt gave in to its lobbying.
Its remit is wrong, it's too big and should be restructured. This is not about value for money but rather what should a public service broadcaster do and what's the fairest, most efficient way to finance it.
What do you get from Sky? Many more channels than on the BBC.
Does Sky do radio, online, local news and media, produce as many quality programmes of its own? I think you have the wrong comparator there.
Why would you want to mess around with (a somewhat admittedly flawed) public institution that actually works and the world envies?
Britain has privatized numerous public services and look at how that has turned out.
It really gets me why people complain about the BBC. Here's a quote from Digital Spy:
"... £97 million was spent making seasons one and two of The Crown, resulting in 20 hours of content across two seasons, which was viewed by 14% of adults and ranks 8.2/10 for viewer appreciation of that content.
Meanwhile, the BBC claims to have spent £97 million making 18 different drama series – including Poldark, Call the Midwife, Our Girl, Peaky Blinders, Sherlock and many more – and producing around 85 hours of content viewed by 72% of adults with a viewer appreciation ranking of 8.7/10.
"We have done a vast amount to make the BBC simpler, leaner, and more efficient. We have brought down overheads to industry-leading levels: just 6% of our total costs." BBC Annual Plan 2018/2019
Just curious. Can you provide more detail of how they are inefficient?
Maybe we'll have to start talking to our elderly relatives and neighbours now? How ghastly!
Is the law the same as it used to be.
If you don't have a television you don't need to pay.
If so I'm getting rid of the TV.
I can have a monitor for Sky etc.
If you watch any live tv (incl Sky) on any device (incl a monitor) then you need a tv licence,
If you own any device - including a computer - capable of receiving a live TV signal then you need a licence. Some people were getting round it by not owning a TV and then watching catch-up on their computers, so the BBC started checking on people watching the iPlayer.
This is wrong, it has nothing to do with the device capability to receive a live signal. Here is the official guidance:
You don’t need a TV Licence if you or anyone at this address:
never watch or record programmes on any channel as they’re being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and
never download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.
This could be on any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
And why is it everyone who seems to hate the bbc are the same people who are pro brexit, deny climate change, love trump etc? It's almost as if certain people are all affected by the same propaganda.
The same people that have been made by the BBC etc. If it wasn't for the BBC, Farage wouldn't be a thing.
And they helped climate change deniers too, by getting on one person from each side of the argument for balance. Normally it was Nigel Lawson (that known environmental expert) on the denial side.
We've got an environmental scientist, who's studied all his life on the subject, and let's be honest, is a little dry.
On the opposite side, we've got Ben Shapiro. https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/stat...80309671747585
why pay for some thing that you never ordered and never use. ( in my case)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote