TV licence


Status
Not open for further replies.
The BBC is just different. It's generally fantastic, often brilliant, no doubt flawed, likely inefficient but so fuck. A bit like the NHS, this country would be a damn sight worse off without either or under a private business model. Which other business would spend multi millions sending teams out all over the world for 5 years, spending most of their time sitting in a hut with a flask (and the best equipment) just to get a few pieces of magic, get a nigh on 100 year old to talk over the results and score an absolute bullseye in doing so?

The Daily Mail hates it - what better reason to love it than that?
 
Never watch it, it's shows ain't aimed at me, I dislike near enough every show that it airs, bargain hunt, doctors, home under the hammer, escape to the country, pointless, the one show, EastEnders you name it only shows I watched were motd and the championship one and I haven't watched them in years but I'm still forced to pay it a subscription fee by law because it's geet mint
 
Heres a couple of scenarios......both true.
1. I have a caravan in Brighouse Bay (dg6 5ts) near Kircudbright. According to freeview coverage there is only limited channels available, none of which are bbc channels. Do i need a license? According to tv licensing i do! They tried to say as long as i watch live tv, i need a license. Bullshit.

2. I live in Crookhall, just outside Consett, and can see the Pontop Pike transmitter from my living room window. I can get full freeview coverage without an aerial, i dont even have anything going into the signal in input on the back of the tv. Do i need a license? Again, according to tv licensing i do. They said even if i dont watch bbc, as long as i can receive the channels i need a license. Again, Bullshit.

I dont have a license, and wont get one, because I DONT NEED ONE.
 
Heres a couple of scenarios......both true.
1. I have a caravan in Brighouse Bay (dg6 5ts) near Kircudbright. According to freeview coverage there is only limited channels available, none of which are bbc channels. Do i need a license? According to tv licensing i do! They tried to say as long as i watch live tv, i need a license. Bullshit.

2. I live in Crookhall, just outside Consett, and can see the Pontop Pike transmitter from my living room window. I can get full freeview coverage without an aerial, i dont even have anything going into the signal in input on the back of the tv. Do i need a license? Again, according to tv licensing i do. They said even if i dont watch bbc, as long as i can receive the channels i need a license. Again, Bullshit.

I dont have a license, and wont get one, because I DONT NEED ONE.
You just gave two scenarios where the law said you need a licence then ended with "I DON'T NEED ONE".

Are you Donald Trump?
 
Sorry but the argument for the BBC weakens every year. The proliferation of other subscription services leaves the BBC less relevant to the nation every year. IMHO.

As I said earlier in the thread, subscription is the way to go but it has to be hardline subscription. No pay, no BBC services at all: no TV channels, no website, no radio, no iPlayer. Options to subscribe to one, some or all of their services, of course.

I still think that the BBC is by far the best broadcaster we have in this country, of course.
 
I think a lot of people don't realise all the different things this country would lose without the BBC

Happy for BBC news (including world service0)to be funded from taxes. Radio 1, 2 3 are redundant with the advent of streaming services. i would miss 4 and 5

The rest of the BBC is mediocre IMHO. I would miss next to nothing. This was not the case 20 years ago. The BBC needs to be subscription only. IMHO.

Your contention that the argument has been won, is incorrect.
 
Heres a couple of scenarios......both true.
1. I have a caravan in Brighouse Bay (dg6 5ts) near Kircudbright. According to freeview coverage there is only limited channels available, none of which are bbc channels. Do i need a license? According to tv licensing i do! They tried to say as long as i watch live tv, i need a license. Bullshit.

2. I live in Crookhall, just outside Consett, and can see the Pontop Pike transmitter from my living room window. I can get full freeview coverage without an aerial, i dont even have anything going into the signal in input on the back of the tv. Do i need a license? Again, according to tv licensing i do. They said even if i dont watch bbc, as long as i can receive the channels i need a license. Again, Bullshit.

I dont have a license, and wont get one, because I DONT NEED ONE.
You don't need one for a caravan if the telly at home is not being used. Your home licence covers you.
 
As I said earlier in the thread, subscription is the way to go but it has to be hardline subscription. No pay, no BBC services at all: no TV channels, no website, no radio, no iPlayer. Options to subscribe to one, some or all of their services, of course.

I still think that the BBC is by far the best broadcaster we have in this country, of course.

It's relevance to most people gets less and less as the years go by.

The licence fee is a regressive tax on the poor.
 
It's relevance to most people gets less and less as the years go by.

The licence fee is a regressive tax on the poor.

Yet Blue Planet II (a nature documentary) had the highest viewing figures of any TV show broadcast in the UK last year, Strictly (not something I'm a fan of) trounces ITV's reality talent shows. They're still (along with channel 4) the best source of TV news and current affairs. They've lost out on sport and their mainstream sitcoms are, by and large, poor (although they still make some cracking comedy, shown on BBC4, the online service that was BBC3 etc.), they make dramas which are mostly of a reasonably high quality etc.

I'd agree with you about the radio BTW - can't remember the last time I listened to music radio other than in someone else's car.
 
It's relevance to most people gets less and less as the years go by.

The licence fee is a regressive tax on the poor.
This, most people I know watch Netflix, Amazon or other services and for me personally the only thing I used to watch on the BBC was bbc3, when they moved that to an online service my personal thoughts at the time was "why would I bother" more than likely will cancel it next year cut a few wires and let them come round.
 
It's relevance to most people gets less and less as the years go by.

The licence fee is a regressive tax on the poor.

The funding issue, as with the debate about what content they produce and who it's for, is a product of too much meddling and outright attacks on it by people and groups with an agenda. If the need for a state broadcaster was accepted, and it was protected from attacks by groups who do not have the best interests of the country at heart, all the problems people might have with its output and arrangements could be solved.
 
Yet Blue Planet II (a nature documentary) had the highest viewing figures of any TV show broadcast in the UK last year, Strictly (not something I'm a fan of) trounces ITV's reality talent shows. They're still (along with channel 4) the best source of TV news and current affairs. They've lost out on sport and their mainstream sitcoms are, by and large, poor (although they still make some cracking comedy, shown on BBC4, the online service that was BBC3 etc.), they make dramas which are mostly of a reasonably high quality etc.

I'd agree with you about the radio BTW - can't remember the last time I listened to music radio other than in someone else's car.

I'm not saying they don't have a few successes. I just think they are in the main mediocre. There is no reason why BBC need to do mainstream light entertainment any more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top