Should the BBC licence fee be scrapped

Status
Not open for further replies.


rowley2 said:
Of course it should be scrapped. It is an absurd anachronism. The BBC does little or nothing that cannot be done as well or better by others. It is complacent and completely lacking in self awareness, particularly in the vast salaries given to many of it's employees . It is also prone to ridiculous excess. For instance, the BBC took twice as many people to the Beijing Olympics - excluding technical staff- than the Olympic team itself took.

The idea that someone wants to watch say Netflix, Amazon, Sky or whatever else can only do so legally after paying a fee for something they might never use is appalling.
Click to expand...
Couple of points.

News and current affairs - tell me someone who does it as well or better
Salaries - you really think the commercial sector is cheaper?
 
chunkylover53 said:
Couple of points.

News and current affairs - tell me someone who does it as well or better
Salaries - you really think the commercial sector is cheaper?
Click to expand...

Who does it worse more like.

Apart from clearly being biased and no longer being able to claim an independent POV due to Eu funding, the news and current affairs progs focus on an extremely limited spectrum in comparison to national news channels in most other countries.
For instance I often come across reports of great interest in the U.K. which have been completely omitted from BBC reports, while watching the main Spanish news channel which is far more comprehensive than the BBC in every possible way, to give only one example.

The U.K. public have been brainwashed for far to long into believing that the BBC is the be all and end all, when in reality it has now fallen way behind the rest of the field in almost every respect.

As for the ridiculous Salaries, it is the U.K. licence payer which has to foot that bill for the BBC ,
whereas it’s irrelevant to the public how much the commercial sector pays and furthermore they have the freedom and option to take it or leave it.

The BBC, much like the Eu is a long ago outdated system or monopoly, the like of which has long ago ceased to function elsewhere in the free world.

As for quality progs, the BBC churns out as much shite as anyone else, take Mrs Browns Boys often at peak viewing times as a typical example.
The Independents offer a wide range of excellent documentaries in addition to a much broader spectrum of Sport for example, also every bit as much quality drama and investigative footage as anyone else.

The public should be allowed freedom of choice, without being on the receiving end of a constant endless stream of threatening letters which amount to little more than blackmail.

I’m happy to say that I never have paid the BBC licence fee and for sure I never will.
 
lenshack said:
Who does it worse more like.
Click to expand...
The BBC's biggest competitor, Sky with Kay Burley as their flagship presenter do a pretty good job of that.

And like it or not Mrs Brown's Boys won the Christmas Day race for ratings and 8/10 top ranked shows on that day. So...y'know. You might not like it but they did their job.
 
Last edited:
So they made a great success of dumbing down to their punters.
Nuff said.
 
Yes. We have the ABC with government funding and no licence fee. People think you're taking the piss when I tell them you need a tv licence in the UK.
 
Shame there isn't a "I'll keep paying mine if the BBC stop dumbing down their produce to compete with the commercial channels" box.

I can't remember the last time I watched real-time television other than live football or cricket. However I do watch QT and quite a few of the BBC4 documentaries on catch-up if I get time.
 
lenshack said:
Who does it worse more like.

Apart from clearly being biased and no longer being able to claim an independent POV due to Eu funding, the news and current affairs progs focus on an extremely limited spectrum in comparison to national news channels in most other countries.
For instance I often come across reports of great interest in the U.K. which have been completely omitted from BBC reports, while watching the main Spanish news channel which is far more comprehensive than the BBC in every possible way, to give only one example.

The U.K. public have been brainwashed for far to long into believing that the BBC is the be all and end all, when in reality it has now fallen way behind the rest of the field in almost every respect.

As for the ridiculous Salaries, it is the U.K. licence payer which has to foot that bill for the BBC ,
whereas it’s irrelevant to the public how much the commercial sector pays and furthermore they have the freedom and option to take it or leave it.

The BBC, much like the Eu is a long ago outdated system or monopoly, the like of which has long ago ceased to function elsewhere in the free world.

As for quality progs, the BBC churns out as much shite as anyone else, take Mrs Browns Boys often at peak viewing times as a typical example.
The Independents offer a wide range of excellent documentaries in addition to a much broader spectrum of Sport for example, also every bit as much quality drama and investigative footage as anyone else.

The public should be allowed freedom of choice, without being on the receiving end of a constant endless stream of threatening letters which amount to little more than blackmail.

I’m happy to say that I never have paid the BBC licence fee and for sure I never will.
Click to expand...


Ah the good old BBC
Harbouring pedo's since 1922.

At least you haven't been funding the bastids ;)
 
I totally get why people think it’s great value. But those same people may not subscribe to Netflix as they don’t think it’s great value. That’s the thing, we bang on about democracy but when it comes to choosing which TV you subscribe to then you are forced to pay for a provider you may never use.
 
lenshack said:
Who does it worse more like.

Apart from clearly being biased and no longer being able to claim an independent POV due to Eu funding, the news and current affairs progs focus on an extremely limited spectrum in comparison to national news channels in most other countries.
For instance I often come across reports of great interest in the U.K. which have been completely omitted from BBC reports, while watching the main Spanish news channel which is far more comprehensive than the BBC in every possible way, to give only one example.

The U.K. public have been brainwashed for far to long into believing that the BBC is the be all and end all, when in reality it has now fallen way behind the rest of the field in almost every respect.

As for the ridiculous Salaries, it is the U.K. licence payer which has to foot that bill for the BBC ,
whereas it’s irrelevant to the public how much the commercial sector pays and furthermore they have the freedom and option to take it or leave it.

The BBC, much like the Eu is a long ago outdated system or monopoly, the like of which has long ago ceased to function elsewhere in the free world.

As for quality progs, the BBC churns out as much shite as anyone else, take Mrs Browns Boys often at peak viewing times as a typical example.
The Independents offer a wide range of excellent documentaries in addition to a much broader spectrum of Sport for example, also every bit as much quality drama and investigative footage as anyone else.

The public should be allowed freedom of choice, without being on the receiving end of a constant endless stream of threatening letters which amount to little more than blackmail.

I’m happy to say that I never have paid the BBC licence fee and for sure I never will.
Click to expand...
Who does it worse? Sky News to start with. Do you really think that has less bias than the bbc?

Hulkster said:
Can we just trim it down to BBC news than? Should be able to reduce the licence fee by about 95%.
Click to expand...
I’d be open to trimming it yes. No idea where you draw the line mind, but I don’t think it needs to do entertainment etc

SydneyFan said:
Yes. We have the ABC with government funding and no licence fee. People think you're taking the piss when I tell them you need a tv licence in the UK.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t it amount to the same thing tho? You either pay it in tax or through a licence fee? Does the route really matter THAT much?
 
Last edited:
rowley2 said:
Of course it should be scrapped. It is an absurd anachronism. The BBC does little or nothing that cannot be done as well or better by others. It is complacent and completely lacking in self awareness, particularly in the vast salaries given to many of it's employees . It is also prone to ridiculous excess. For instance, the BBC took twice as many people to the Beijing Olympics - excluding technical staff- than the Olympic team itself took.

The idea that someone wants to watch say Netflix, Amazon, Sky or whatever else can only do so legally after paying a fee for something they might never use is appalling.
Click to expand...
No-one would suggest that others couldn’t do what the BBC. does. But they won’t, that’s the whole point of the BBC. If you only want to watch the kind of shite programmes that will sell cars and toothpaste carry on. Yes they go overboard here and there and some of their output is cringeworthy but the good stuff which no-one else would produce is worth it.

And look at Sky, they take your money in a subscription covering a bundle of stuff you might never watch then make you sit through endless moronic adverts so they get yet more money and on top of all that for some things like big boxing bouts you have to pay extra on a one-off basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top