If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
BBC demands obscene inflation-busting tax hike
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
Apparently the BBC want to force people to accept a 5% tax bill increase year-on-year for the next few years, meaning that by 2010 the TV tax will be over £150. In exchange for this obscene tax hike the BBC promises to show fewer repeats.
How kind.
How anyone can still sit here and claim that the BBC is good value for money, and is a morally acceptable organisation, is beyond me. And whilst the Director General kindly admits "it's a huge burden for households", he doesn't want to shut the whole disgusting edifice down, oddly enough. He's quite happy to keep milking the cash cow until it squeals and dies.
He's quite happy to force people to pay this disgraceful tax, whilst forcing his main competitor ITV to pay the Government over £200m a year. It's a nice little racket the Beeb have got going on- suck on the public tit until it runs dry, whilst also bleeding its competitors dry too.
And to think people are hung up on the business practices of Tesco- at least they don't bleed you dry for the privilege of shopping with a competitor.
If it was a local council doing this people would be up in arms.
What an utter disgrace.
Apparently the BBC want to force people to accept a 5% tax bill increase year-on-year for the next few years, meaning that by 2010 the TV tax will be over £150. In exchange for this obscene tax hike the BBC promises to show fewer repeats.
How kind.
How anyone can still sit here and claim that the BBC is good value for money, and is a morally acceptable organisation, is beyond me. And whilst the Director General kindly admits "it's a huge burden for households", he doesn't want to shut the whole disgusting edifice down, oddly enough. He's quite happy to keep milking the cash cow until it squeals and dies.
He's quite happy to force people to pay this disgraceful tax, whilst forcing his main competitor ITV to pay the Government over £200m a year. It's a nice little racket the Beeb have got going on- suck on the public tit until it runs dry, whilst also bleeding its competitors dry too.
And to think people are hung up on the business practices of Tesco- at least they don't bleed you dry for the privilege of shopping with a competitor.
If it was a local council doing this people would be up in arms.
What an utter disgrace.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
do i think the bbc should be funded as it is at moment, yes - they should give more details of where this money will be going instead of some vague goal nu labour style
I know your opinions on the BBC, I'm happy to pay my licence fee, but not with an increase as proposed.
Inflation is about 3%, and this is 2.3% above inflation.
Would you be willing to go to your neighbour with a gun, threaten him and steal from him to pay for eastenders?
I wouldn't, because both my neighbours are female. oops. I mean TV licence is theft and it's not even for a good cause.
As ever with the government, it's not the service they provide, but the manner in which they provide it that's the problem.
No, its not, and we don't have to have inflation forced upon us. And certainly not anything above inflation.
It's a 5% increase whichever way it is looked at.
The 'hike' is not higher (in many cases considerably smaller) than that imposed year on year by the private companies running our piss-poor train services. I don't see you that ouraged about those daylight robbery price increases.
There is an alternative, don't watch TV. Radio is free...
Well you're not paying attention then. Go and read up on what I think about Stagecoach.
All I've said on that matter is that the private companies are no worse than British Rail, who also imposed inflation-busting increases but also cut train services in rural areas drastically- something the private companies have done the exact opposite of. And that if the SRA and Network Rail are anything to go by I wouldn't trust a Government-run company to run a bath.
Anyway. To call the home of "Britain's Worst Toilet" and "Celebrity Fame Academy" the best broadcasting service in the world is quite obviously laughable.
Even if it is the best broadcasting service in the world, I should have the choice whether I pay for it or not. Unless you agree that the BBC should be allowed to drive all its competitors into the ground because it is sucking at the public teat instead of being subject to market forces.
Apropos of nothing, do you think that Jim Davidson being paid half a million pounds of your money is a good and justifiable expenditure?
there are many people who do! So it makes no difference what I think so long as the BBC are still making other programmes (Expensive ones) that I enjoy...e.g costume dramas and documentaries.
At leas the BBC does cater for a varied audience, unlike ITV who definately have more crappy entertainment shit than the BBC, and Channel 4 wh o seem intent on broadcasting repeats of American sit-coms
Why should other people be forced into paying for your entertainment?
Apart from its small (and shrinking) public service commitments, the BBC is just about completely unjustifiable.
I'll accept that the BBC is the bestest most wonderfullest broadcasting service in the universe if it helps people to understand the point that I should be able to choose whether I buy it or not.
It's something I've asked before: would you be happy if Tesco started charging everyone in the country £5 to go and shop at ASDA? If not, why the double standards when it comes to Auntie Thief?
Same reason I am happy to pay for theirs
THe BBC isn't a shop though. If you have private health or send your children to private schools do you think you should stop having to pay part of your taxes as you don't need them.
The BBC is seen as a public good and therefore the public pays, even if they don't benefit directly.
That said I think the increase is crap and will probably just go towards some digital channels which nobody watches. I suggest the BBC looks long and hard whether it needs the money or whether they could do with less and concentrate on their core business of BBC1 &2, Radios 1-4 and the BBC News website.
Is this by the public or the BBC? Oh, and how do you know?
Actually it's more like being charged a shopping bill whether you bought anything or not. How would it be if when you tried to leave tesco a large man with a bat demanded money from you "to provide a better service for everyone"?
Does it save lives? No.
Does it educate the children? Not unless they have a desire to find out which is Britain's Worst High Street it doesn't.
Does it stop people from starving? No.
It does no public good whatsoever, except keeping morons enthralled with EastEnders, football, and Dale Winton.
The BBC should be selling off its "core business" because it has no right to be using my money to drive its commercial competitors into the ground. The only things the BBC can justify keeping publicly funded is the local radio, the religious and educational programmes, and possibly the news channel.
Commercial channels are not as good because they cannot compete with the BBC. The BBC has funding of £3billion, guaranteed, no matter how many Eldorado-sized mess-ups it makes. If ITV poured that amount of money away it would go bust; if ITV shows programmes nobody likes then its advertsing revenues drop, and it goes bust. ITV also have to pay over £200m a year to the Government, whereas the BBC enjoys Government protection and can imprison people who don't pay it. Some level playing field.
The populist channels should be put into the private domain where they belong. Dale Winton, Graham "twat" Norton, and EastEnders cannot be justified in any way as a "public service".
Fewer repeats though? NO! I want the Fast Show repeated. Now.
Yes, but that's an argument for reform of the BBC, not neccesarily abolition. I don't think the BBC should be producing things like Dale Winton's celebrity bosoms. But I do think they should be producing top quality drama (such as the old Edge of Darkness with Bob Peck) or top quality comedy (the Office) which aren't neccesarily going to be ratings winners.
And to be fair they need to produce some good quality soaps suchas Eastenders to stop them becoming an elitist channel only watched by people with a PhD is Sociology.
Any valid point you may or may not have had was negated by this comment:(
Where have i said you should.
And what of the company running services into Wales that did not want to make a stop at a little-used station at weekends "because the platform is on a curve that is too great for trains to stop and let passengers on and off"? Someone had to point out that the trains didn't seem to have a problem stopping at the station on weekdays, when there were many commuters to pick up... Oops!
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
But enough derailing (no pun intended). Back to the BBC...
You fail to point out that every channel in the world without exception has similar or far worse rubbish on.
The BBC is the best in the world because as well as the odd rubbish and several mediocre programmes, it also offers and array of news, current affairs, comedy, nature, sport, politics and entertainment programmes that are simply the benchmark for others to follow. That's why the BBC is the best in the world.
That sentiment I completely understand. The issue of whether it should be funded by a compulsory licence fee will always be controversial, and I understand both sides of the argument. I just think that if the licence were removed the BBC would invariably become just another piss-poor entertainment channel a la ITV. Britain, and indeed the world would be the poorer for it.
Ah, but you are missing an important point here. One of the conditions of the licence is that the BBC has to cater for all tastes and appeal to all people in the country. Some people like Jim Davidson telling bad jokes on a Saturday night, bizarre as it sounds to you and me; some people like comedy; some people like religious programmes. The BBC has to show all of this to appeal to as many people as possible.
Believe me, if the BBC had a choice I doubt they wouldn't be showing Songs of Praise or indeed tossers like Jim Davidson on the payroll.