TV license... how to get it scrapped?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by fly_past, Oct 5, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

?
  1. Keep it

    100.0%
  2. Scrap it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. What is the best way you can think of to get the TV license scrapped. Or would you like to see it kept
     
  2. The Americans don't have licences and fund their programmes by advertising and sponsorship. Need I say more?
     
  3. These programs are normally made for those with a low IQ. However the BBC then proceeds to buy these programs from the American TV producers using Licence payers money> :pukel:
     
  4. Maybe you could tell us how the beeb would be funded if the license was scrapped??........you would still have to pay to watch.
     
  5. And it shows in both the quality of production and the level of talent.

    Please name on show which is of any value. ffs don't say Friends I will throw up :pukel:
     
  6. Are you advocating that the BBC should be able to exist as a profit making body either as a trading fund or wholly in the private sector, or are you suggesting that some other mechanism be found to fund the BBC?
     
  7. At present the BBC is uniquely funded by all who own a television receiver whether they watch BBC television or not. Over the past couple of decades program quality has been significantly reduced while payment to top executives and presenters has increased.
    Instead of allowing the BBC to increase it's licence fee I would decrease the payment to them by 20% per year until they received zero. They should be allowed to raise revenue by advertising and sponsorship. This would give all television companies the same playing field with the same rules.
    The licence fee could be reduced to £50:00 a year and the money raised invested in high quality British made programs which any channel would be able to bid for.
     
  8. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Progressively reduce to zero over five years - the water would close over its head and good riddance to a nest of state-subsidised Communist vipers.
     
  9. My attempt at irony clearly failed. I'm sure we must buy the stuff from Septic side by the kilogram; it's certainly not what you would pick for quality! That is my point and I thought the poor gold to dross ratio would be obvious. If you fund all television commercially, chasing viewer ratings, descent to the lowest common denominator becomes the result. We know that we get some good quality programmes from Chs 4 and 5 but they have the BBC as a benchmark.

    All of this is equally true, if not more so, for Radio.

    For what it's worth, I voted to keep the licence.
     
  10. me too :threaten:
     
  11. It also recieves funding from a range of organisations who purchase content from it, and it has a fair sized publication division. The Foreign Service is, at least part, funded by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

    I couldn't comment on the majority, I listen to Radio 4 and use the, extensive, website.

    So would you impose a requirement for public service broadcasting on all content providers, or reduce the requirement on the BBC? Presumably the same would apply to C4 which also receives a proportion of state funding?

    I'm a little confused, do you mean channels would bid for the produced content or bid for the rights to produce the content?

    If the former, then who would actually make it, and if the latter then how would quality, or public service value, be assured?
     
  12. Was going to post a long winded sermon why the fee should be scrappped, but they won't scrap it, so I won't post my reasons.
     
  13. Point 1
    So it gets even more than the licence fee in order to run its empire. This is not only wrong it is immoral.

    Point 2
    I also listen to radio 4 and use the BBC website. However having stated that you can't comment on program quality because you rarely watch television do you object to the licence fee? Or do you not have a licence?

    Point 3
    Public service broadcasts are already imposed on the other channels. Party political broadcasts are seen on all channels, as are health adverts. There would be no need to force anyone if payments were made.

    Point 4
    The same private companies who are presently producing these programs for both the BBC and ITV channels. These programs could then be bought bid for by any channel. Don't forget the American made program "The Simpsons" started in this country on BBC and has now been bought by ITV
     
  14. Here's a thing; when joining this Thread, one is invited to vote. That is usually before any Posts have been read. I wonder what the for/against ratio would be if there was another vote after reading?
     
  15. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    I'd like to see it scrapped and the BBC fund itself the way other media empires do. The BBC aren't shy in advertising their own products and BBC World TV carries third party adverts so it isn't going to be a massive suck back for them to change.

    I object to the treatment of those without a television at all who are treated as suspected criminals by the BBC's hired pretend officials because they don't have a licence. I don't have a commercial pilots' licence but the CAA aren't banging on my door and sending snotograms telling me I'd better get one or face a fine if I'm caught piloting a 767.

    The BBC could ask the viewers' opinion. Phone in with opinions and when the majority of viewers say 'scrap it'; lie.
     
  16. Is it? I suppose the fundamental question probably comes down to should there be any publically funded broadcaster?

    Personally I think there is value in having a broadcaster which is free from the pressures of commerciality, although maintaining freedom from political interference becomes a challenge. Whilst that doesn't entirely sit well with my libertarian principles I'd argue that a healthy democratic and liberalised economy benefits from having an educated and informed populace. Freedom to produce content benefits that.

    I don't own a TV, I download the odd programme, or torrent it, or I buy stuff on DVD when it's released in that format. I used to have one but about a year ago I realised that I very rarely watched it and it was just taking up space and presenting a rather artificial focus in the room.

    The issue there is that the TV licence approach to funding the breadth of BBC output isn't particularly fair, I consume some BBC output but don't support it, except from the purchase of DVDs. That's why I'm focussing on the question of state funding of a broadcaster, rather than the license fee element.

    What the license fee does provide is a degree of distance from government, if the funding came straight from Treasury then the corporation would be too close to the political system to be trusted. I suppose one could argue that it isn't at the moment independent, but given that it gets hammered by both main political parties it's probably managing to retain a balance.

    Public service broadcasting includes a requirement to transmit a proportion of educational and news/ current affairs content, the examples you cite are trivial in this area.

    This really reflects back to the previous point about supporting a democratic liberalised economy, we could expose the broadcast media to the market completely, but I'm under no illusions about what would disappear very quickly.

    It's an interesting proposition, although I'm not sure that the funding the stratification in the industry from the other end would really do a great deal to improve programme quality. I'd argue that the cash to make the programmes coming straight from government would probably reduce distance from government, rather than increase it. How might one assure quality whilst avoiding undue political interference, and indeed when the broadcasters are subject to commercial pressures would they actually buy this programming, if nobody wanted to watch it?

    I have a feeling that you'd end up with the worst of both worlds, although that is not to say that there isn't a candidate industry structure which could improve broadcast quality and adequately fund industry players in a more equitable fashion.
     
  17. Its a good argument put forward for independance and subjectivity. But i really do begrudge MY money being used to fund Jonathon Ross and Graham Norton to the tune of £18 million each for five years. And heres another thing. They (the BBC, not those two talentless wkstains) recently hired every advertising hoarding in all the bus stops round here to advertise Eastenders. Now its not my cup of tea, but surely if you want to watch it you won`t need reminding at every single advertising hoarding.


    Currently there appears to be very little accountability, but hey, thats not just the BBC is it ?
     
  18. IF and I repeat IF the adverts were restricted to the begining and end of programs I would say go for it BEEB and scrap the license.

    On the subject of septic imports, apparently the stuff we buy is the cream of the crop, they show even worse garbage than us.
     
  19. Looks like basically Karma you dont pay a licence but enjoy facilities provided by the licence payer.
    If as you state you realised that you rarely watched it so gave it up I think this must have been in part because of the low quality programs being broadcast by all channel owners.
    I normally watch the news on BBC and the Bill on ITV. The history channel is also worth watching.
    I disagree with having to pay a licence fee for the BBC to squander it on rubbish. Make them play in the pond with the other fish and let them sink or swim
     
  20. Indeed, as I said above, that's not particularly fair, but it's the way the system works.

    I would suggest that it's unwise to seek to put words in my mouth, I made no indication of why I was rarely using the TV, merely that I wasn't using it enough to justify having it.

    I see that as a restatement of your position, and I note you haven't actually addressed any of the broader points above. Do you object to a publically funded broadcaster in general, or do you object to how the BBC uses the equity raised through the licence fee at present?
     

Share This Page