Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Reform or Abolish the BBC


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2012 07:31:11 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
B.E.'s recommendation is that we shouldn't pay the fee because of the BBC's compromised political position; it's a valid opinion but - to me - that's not the issue. Even if the BBC was the purest snowy white, and totally free of the corruption, incompetence and extravagance that besets the organisation now, it would still be totally wrong to force every TV viewer to pay for it. I'm fed up with people rabbiting on about what good value the TV licence is and highlighting how brilliant a (very) small proportion of the BBC's output is; even if true that is still no excuse for imposing a charge on everyone, regardless of whether they want to use the BBC.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2012 09:43:43 GMT
Yangonite says:
I feel obliged to defend the Beeb in the face of Mr. Dumas's onslaught.

Firstly, I wouldn't describe BBC4 (TV) as "rubbish broadcasting". This is broadcasting of the highest order, almost certainly the best channel around. Even if you find one of its documentaries of little personal interest you cannot deny that it is extremely well done. Of course these type of programmes are not to everyone's taste, but I, for one, am quite happy to pay the L fee to keep this channel on air.

"we get to pay the salaries for Chris Moyles and all the other snouts in the trough" - Yes we do. But then what is the alternative? Adverts every ten - or less - minutes? No thank-you! The ads make most of the commercial channels unwatchable.
All the commercial channels also have "snouts in the trough" of course.

I wonder what sort of TV you prefer Mr WMD - Strictly, X Factor, Britains Got maybe, or some of the other mass-viewing pap.

"If you regard their other output as a bonus, I suggest you make the most of it and stop paying. "

Not quite sure what the above means - seems to be an error in logic somewhere.

Posted on 8 Feb 2012 09:58:37 GMT
Bones says:
I like it; therefore you should pay for it.

Posted on 8 Feb 2012 14:46:48 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
Yangonite: I agree that there is some very good stuff on BBC4; if there was more of that calibre across the BBC I might possibly consider paying for it, but what I object to is being FORCED to pay for it. I also agree that the adverts on commercial television can be intrusive, but find the constant stream of trailers on BBC (paid for out of my licence fee) far more annoying. I also agree that a lot (though by no means all) of commercial television is what you describe as "mass-viewing pap" but so is the bulk of BBC output.
Bones: I presume you're being ironic (!) but your comment neatly sums up the attitude of those who support the licence fee.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2012 22:12:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Feb 2012 22:14:35 GMT
Yangonite says:
SW: But then if the populace were not FORCED to pay the LF there would be no BBC4 - just not enough money in it for a non license based commercial channel.
Or if there was a commercial BBC4 it would be riddled with ad breaks like Yesterday, History Channel or Nat Geo.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Feb 2012 22:47:14 GMT
Bones says:
True, but i refer to my previous point: the fact that you like it is not justification for forcing other people to pay for it.

Posted on 8 Feb 2012 23:11:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Feb 2012 23:18:43 GMT
J A R P says:
Let the BBC rot to death.
It has no emancipatory value.
From the corpse new life will flourish.
These old vestiges of English patrician culture are like the MP system of old, for which seats and votes were bought; and army commissions, ecclesiastical positions, and other sinecures that were literally owed to the well-born. Somehow we believe we 'owe' the BBC respect - as well as its miserable annuity.

Its just a recruitment agency for the well to do and their harmless whitewashery.

People think highly of Radio 4; all I see is pot-boiling-book reviewing, blunt useless journalism, feting of the Freud family in art, and friendly fifthrate intellectual banter.

Posted on 8 Feb 2012 23:17:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Feb 2012 23:17:34 GMT
J A R P says:
I mean, all that fuss about Harry Redknap, or whatever his name is. And their interest in John Terry, a man who has been treated like a five-year old. In the meantime, the issue of the actual tax avoiders who give London its 50% of world trade - this friendly BBC couldn't care less. Friendly and useful to whom, exactly, is the BBC?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2012 06:35:09 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Feb 2012 06:40:30 GMT
Molly Brown says:
BBC Four is not worth £144.50 per annum though is it? It's not even that good really, a mishmash of programmes, doesn't really know what it is imo? It only starts at 7pm anyway. BBC2 used to show the sort of documentaries that BBC4 shows now, but that channel has become BBC One Plus. Get rid of the cr*p on BBC2 now, once again, sell off Top Gear, as long as Jeremy Clarkson doesn't get a take of the money, which he is now, with his own Production Company. Rip Off Clarkson!! Get Off Clarkson!

"Jeremy Clarkson pockets £2.14m from Top Gear"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/top-gear/9002449/Jeremy-Clarkson-pockets-2.14m-from-Top-Gear.html

"His annual windfall is thanks to a complex deal he struck with BBC Worldwide to ensure he benefits from the motoring show being shown in 198 different territories as well as the spin-off DVDs, merchandise and live shows. Accounts filed at Companies House for Bedder 6, a company he specifically set up a few years ago to take advantage of the Top Gear brand, show that his own cut amounted to £1.79m in the year to March 2011. On top of this, he is paid £350,000 as a performance fee by the BBC, taking his total annual pay from Top Gear up to £2.14m, up from £854,000 the previous year."

God I really hate that man!

Posted on 9 Feb 2012 13:57:02 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
People go on about ads on the commercial channels, forgetting the BBC is riddled with advertising. Not just those interminable trailers in between programmes, but also the flagrant plugging on actual shows. Take Graham Norton and similar programmes which are little more than billboards for whoever wants to come on and plug their latest film, book, record or whatever. Take any current affairs or magazine programme and it you'll regularly find it cosily advertising some other BBC show. Then that's awful bane of so much TV these days, where presenters keep telling viewers what's "coming up" in their show (and then wasting yet more time recapping what we saw just five minutes earlier)! Taken over a week, there's hours of waffle and padding for viewers to put up with and, quite franky, the BBC might just as well devote all that excess time to revenue-generating advertising.
No, I don' particularly want adverts slap bang in the middle of a major drama, sporting event or concert - but a few meerkats and cracked windscreens won't hurt between programmes; nor, for that matter, are shows like "Bargain Hunt", "Escape To The Country", "Total Wipe-Out" or "Let's Plug Lloyd-Webber's Latest Show By Running A Third-Rate X-Factor Clone" going to suffer from a couple of commercial breaks.

Posted on 9 Feb 2012 23:39:55 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
TradBBC was assassinated by Thatchler in the late 80s. COMbbc is the commerical simulacrum which remains to excuse the poll tax levied on anyone fool enough to pay it. Throw your telly in a skip or take out the aerial socket and spend the money on dvd's.

Posted on 10 Feb 2012 07:24:24 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
I sympathise with KNC's view but don't see why all television should be denied to me simply because I'm otherwise forced to pay for the BBC. The present system is totally unjustifiable and immoral; it's the equivalent of someone having to pay a fee to Tesco for the privilege of shopping at Sainsburys!

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2012 07:42:34 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Feb 2012 22:18:20 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
Telly hasn't been denied to you because of the COMbbc tax, it's been denied to you by the poverty of ambition of corporately owned telly. In the olden days the BBC set a standard that determined the lower limit of ITV programmes. Now COMbbc legitimises craptv by following ITV-Sky-cable into the gutter. Broadcast telly was a lost cause when Thatchler did to TradBBC what Bruning did to the Weimar republic in 1930. Make your own telly out of the wreckage.

Posted on 11 Feb 2012 20:03:53 GMT
Spin says:
The BBc makes decisions concerning programs and scheduling without ever consulting the license-fee payers. Further, if a company forces one to pay money against ones will and threatens one with court-action, that company would be acting illegally and immorally. Yet the BBC gets away with flouting the monopoly and enterprise laws. One should not be legally obligated to pay for a service one does not want.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2012 20:22:08 GMT
Nobody can be forced to pay the BBC licence fee as long as you reply to them drawing attention to the following points: (If you willingly pay the fee - you have been taken in by their false threats)

Interesting article on BBC TV licence fee ...

http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees

Posted on 12 Feb 2012 08:57:17 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
As an aside, I've just tuned in to watch BBC News' coverage of Whitney Houston's death. As an example of crass, insensitive and intrusive TV* this was hard to beat and shows the depths to which this ghastly organisation has fallen. The BBC is now so hopeless as to be beyond redemption - scrap it now and the licence fee along with it.
(* I know that the pictures themselves came from one of the US channels but that doesn't excuse the BBC for using them).

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 09:49:53 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
I heard something on the radio and it described her ability by listing "Grammys" and "Number ones" rather than saying something about the quality of her voice or the excellence of the songs. How puerile and how commercial? COMbbc is derelict and should be put out of its misery. I had a look at that no payer site and was rather impressed by the number of people who won't pay the telly tax. Trouble is, lots of them seem still willing to watch the phlegm COMbbc keeps gobbing on the screen.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 11:05:01 GMT
Yangonite says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 11:08:20 GMT
Yangonite says:
Spin said

"One should not be legally obligated to pay for a service one does not want"

He should have added the caveat "...and does not use."

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 11:28:03 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Feb 2012 11:30:02 GMT
Molly Brown says:
If I didn't have to pay the £144.50 per annum that would give me more than enough money to afford Cable TV. I would then have a much greater choice in News Channels, I very rarely listen to the radio, BBC or any other, (sometimes a little Classic FM), don't use BBC iPlayer, sometimes look at BBC Website, only because it's usually listed above the Guardian or Independent sites. So no great loss there. If I could afford this Cable TV thing with this money I don't want to pay, I could watch many, many more documentary channels, film channels, there would be more than enough to keep me far from bored. This indeed would stop me whinging, as I would be much happier that I would have so much television to chose from. Needless to say, I do not rate the BBC very highly, and do not see that I would miss it.

It could of course set itself up as an private company, although it would have to re-imburse the taxpayer for all that it has now that has been funded by the British people with a TV Tax. Then, you could chose to add any of the BBC channels offered to you on cable. Wouldn't that be better and cheaper all round.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 11:47:46 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
People don't mind paying for decent telly, they do mind paying for crappy telly and vast salaries to absentee landlords. Try to address the ball and not the man next time eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 11:52:37 GMT
Sou'Wester says:
Yangonite: You totally miss the point. What so many of us object to is being FORCED to pay the fee. Having forked out all that money, are you expecting us to cut off our nose to spite our face and not ever use the very thing we've had to pay for? That would be adding insult to injury.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 13:24:23 GMT
Yangonite says:
Sou'Wester

But if you don't watch BBC then you have a strong case for not paying the LF, as detailed under the earlier web-link.

To watch and to whinge - hypocrisy!

Posted on 12 Feb 2012 13:28:30 GMT
A. P. Suri says:
No don't abolish the Licence Fee, reform it, is the silly situation where those struggling to feed their children are taken to cour and fined money they cannot afford! integrate it into the taxation system so only those who are working have to pay for it! The BBC is an important "social institution",it has produced some of the best dramas, Documentaries, News, Commodities etc. TV cost and has to be paid for one way or another, but while this country keeps those on benefit in a near poverty state, let all taxation be fair

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Feb 2012 13:36:49 GMT
K. N. Crosby says:
"Let all taxation be fair" Quite so, yet unfair taxation is the foundation of the British state. We unemployed people are feckless for wanting a bit more than Unemployment Benefit while dying of cancer and bankers are worthy causes when evading their gambling debts by passing off trillions of obligations onto the backs of poor people. Things like this don't happen in democracies.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  132
Total posts:  1590
Initial post:  22 Dec 2010
Latest post:  18 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions