Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Yet more licence fee rises on the way

The BBC is a fiancial institution that, as we know, produces the very finest high-quality programmes on its numerous media outlets, and spends money in a very careful and responsible way. So, I'm sure that everyone, when they've read this, will be happy to hand over yet more of their money to the lovely cuddly BBC from April.

After all, their income last year was only a measly £13billion. Could Britain's best-loved institution last on such a derisory sum of money? No, let us all put some money in the poor old BBC's begging bowl!

And yes, I'm being sarcastic. Greedy fuckers. :mad:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its still very little for what you actually get in terms of 24 hours of news and entertainment 24 hours a day across a wide range of mediums like TV, Radio and the Internet. Would you rather the British media being run by Rupert Murdoch?

    *looks for Kermit to appear*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thank fuck I don't pay it.

    Grasping bastards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    Would you rather the British media being run by Rupert Murdoch?

    I would.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And when they have cunts like Graham Norton on seven-figure salaries, is it any wonder they need to beg more money off us?

    I was watching a programme where they were vilifying "benefits cheats" for nicking five grand. They nick that every minute from you, me and every bugger else in this country.

    BBC = thieves. The leaders of the organisation should be punished as such.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    Its still very little for what you actually get in terms of 24 hours of news and entertainment 24 hours a day across a wide range of mediums like TV, Radio and the Internet.

    YOu on smack.

    Fair dos if you find "Britain's Worst Toilet" entertaining. I'd rather be raped a gang of angry Jeremy Beadles, but hey.

    I'll grant them Life on Mars is good. But its nothing ITV didn't do better with Wire in the Blood.
    Would you rather the British media being run by Rupert Murdoch?

    At least he does it properly.

    And doesn't make me pay him by threat of imprisonment.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I'd rather pay for it than have to put up with more like ITV, 4, and 5. And as long as World Service keeps going. Its so good, I love it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    YOu on smack.

    Fair dos if you find "Britain's Worst Toilet" entertaining. I'd rather be raped a gang of angry Jeremy Beadles, but hey.

    I'll grant them Life on Mars is good. But its nothing ITV didn't do better with Wire in the Blood.



    At least he does it properly.

    And doesn't make me pay him by threat of imprisonment.

    Doctor Who is one of the most enjoyable series I have seen in years, theres been various interest nature things, Have I Got News For You, QI, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, now Family Guy and American Dad too. The list could go on.

    And no I'm not on smack. :rolleyes:

    And no I dont find programs like you suggest entertaining. You really come accross as an arrogrant person you know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't like having to pay it, but its far better than the alternatives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    Doctor Who is one of the most enjoyable series I have seen in years, theres been various interest nature things, Have I Got News For You, QI, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, now Family Guy and American Dad too. The list could go on.

    Family Guy is an import. Wasting my money on imported tat.

    I have no problem with the BBC's output per se. It's not my taste a lot of it, but hey ho. Someone must find Graham Norton amusing.

    Nobody has yet been able to explain why I should have to pay the Beeb a huge fortune just to be allowed to watch their competitors. As I've asked before, would you be happy if Tesco charged you £130 a year to be allowed to shop at Asda? And then could jail you if you didn't pay them?

    If the Beeb was simply news, local radio and community and religious output I could see the argument. But why should I have to pay £130 a year for something I don't like and don't want to watch, and has no social value?

    Unless you want to tell me how the world would collapse if EastEnders was produced commercially, by an organisation that has to fund itself? If you would care to establish what social function Ross Kemp has, I'm all ears.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are certain aspects of the BBC I despise and I think it is very flawed although my opinion has changed somewhat. I don’t think we should scrap the license fee.

    While in terms of say television news I don’t think the BBC’s service is particularly superior to commercial competitors; there isn’t much in it between BBC News 24 and Sky News imo. However, look at radio and there’s a big difference between the beeb and commercial providers. Compare Radio 4, Radio 5 or BBC London to crap like LBC and TalkSport. And the stuff that the BBC is really good at – its radio and website they’re extremely good value for money and provide a definitely better service to commercial competitors.

    However, where the BBC fails imo is BBC1. Game shows, soaps, the odd US import, tacky overpaid celebrity hosted programmes like Graham Norton – this stuff is already catered for by commercial providers and I don’t see why this arm of the BBC can’t be commercialised/privatised. Ditto with BBC3.

    I don’t have any problem with BBC2/BBC4 since they do offer something different and support programming that commercial providers don’t cater for or where they do offer an inferior service to the BBC. So keep the BBC entirely as it is except for BBC1 which can be separated from the rest of the BBC and is commercialised and shows adverts, etc. This would surely vastly reduce the license fee and make no difference in the quality of programming.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Family guy is one of america's finest exports!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there are two issues here: whether the licence fee system is good and fair, and whether the BBC is good value for money and offers good quality programming.

    With regard to the former, I don't think it's terribly fair (some people should perhaps pay less than others) but I think it is good overall and has allowed the BBC to become and continue to be the best broadcaster in the world. Though I sympathise with people like Kermit. If they don't believe in the licence fee and hardly watch the BBC it must be painful for them to having fork out or face the consequences.

    Still, the botton line remains that lose the licence and the BBC will become just another boring, predictable, lowbrow rubbish station. Countless BBC channels on both radio and TV would be lost, the quality would sink like a lead balloon to ITV or- god forbid- Sky levels, and the entire country and indeed the world will be the poorer as a result.

    With regard to the output quality/value for money, I think the BBC does overall an excellent job. It is going to be impossible to please everyone and the BBC has to perform a very careful balancing act. You and me might despise the Saturday evening bland programming, but Doris and Rose out there love it. Doris and Rose however are unlikely to have any time for risque comedy or football.

    The fact remains that the BBC has to cater for everyone. But it has produced and continues to produce absolute jewels.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    You and me might despise the Saturday evening bland programming, but Doris and Rose out there love it. Doris and Rose however are unlikely to have any time for risque comedy or football.

    The fact remains that the BBC has to cater for everyone. But it has produced and continues to produce absolute jewels.

    You've a point there..If as I suggested the BBC license fee was less but BBC1 was commercialised and the rest left as it is it would be meaning a lot of people pay for things that they don't use and be quite unfair. You're right though the BBC does have to perform a balancing act, it can't please everyone but I agree overall it does an excellent job.

    Although I unfortunately cannot understand a word of Italian flicking through Italian television a few weeks ago in Italy (which does not have a BBC equivalent) you realise how really tacky some European television is.

    Indeed, that people in Belgium and Holland I believe receive some BBC channels and watch them shows that the BBC is envied abroad and comparing it to the few foreign broadcasters I’ve came across we really shouldn’t complain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    With regard to the former, I don't think it's terribly fair (some people should perhaps pay less than others) but I think it is good overall and has allowed the BBC to become and continue to be the best broadcaster in the world...
    Well, maybe there should be some sort of test here - that is, the poorest people pay less and the rich pay more. But that could bring the danger that the BBC will cater more to the rich, and less to other sections of society. I really don't know about this one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although I unfortunately cannot understand a word of Italian flicking through Italian television a few weeks ago in Italy (which does not have a BBC equivalent) you realise how really tacky some European television is.
    You can say that again. Every time I go back to Spain my jaw drops to the floor at the truly embarrasing and sordid spectacle that is Spanish TV- including the state-owned channles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, just been to Italy skiing (or rather sliding down hill on my arse) and watching some of the TV made me glad of the BBC. Ok the US does some quality shows - so why do the Italians decide to import all the crap ones.

    However the Beeb needs to be massively slimmed down. i've lost count of the number of channels it has including BBC1-4, News 24 and a couple of others for kids*. Plus 5 radio national radio stations and a host of locals. and then there's the website.

    Scrap BBC3&4 and the rest of the digital (OK with perhaps an exception for News 24), all local radio (local commercial stations are usually better), merge 4&5 and 2&3 and just leave the news website, with perhaps a few smaller ones on current popular progs.

    * as an aside like most of the population I haven't got digital and it galls me that I'm paying for channels I can't even watch. if Sky started charging all its subscribers for sky sports whether they watch it or not they'd be done for fraud.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I'd rather pay for it than have to put up with more like ITV, 4, and 5. And as long as World Service keeps going. Its so good, I love it.

    World Service is funded by the FCO, not the licence payer
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think we should be able to make a declaration, like with SORN for car tax, that we aren't going to watch the BBC. That way, we oculd watch other channels without having to buy a BBC license.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest the digital issue is a bit of a foregone gone conclusion - you're all getting it in a few years or your going back to just listening to the radio. Oh and the license is a broadcast license - in law you're paying to recieve any television, not just the BBC.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think BBC provide a good enough service...there is plenty of shite but it's not all bad.

    My mum had to go to court a few weeks ago for not paying it though lol...oh the shame of it all!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It makes me glad that I don't have a television.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While I don't pay it, as I don't have a TV, I think it's worth while. After all, I get to pay for ITV and BskyB everytime I go shopping.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I share a television set in university with five people and to be fair, personally it wouldn't kill me not to watch it. The BBC do make some fantastic documentaries (which makes it worth the £25 I chipped in), but mot of what's on is shit... Especially on a Saturday night... I mean has television always been this intellectually stimulating or has it gone down hill?

    I don't think the idea of a license is fair, I think you should get the rest of television and have the option of whether you want to pay for the BBC or not.

    The BBC also has a pretty good website.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think the idea of a license is fair, I think you should get the rest of television and have the option of whether you want to pay for the BBC or not.
    But you don't get the option to not pay for ITV, unless you spend a lot of time shopping for goods without tv advertising at non-chain shops
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i refuse to pay my liscence on the basis that bbc adverts between shows last just as long as any commercial channles adverts so the whole idea of paying money to them so they can mass produce shit (grantd some of thier stuff is good but other commercial channels also produce good shows!) is a load of wank in my opinion!

    there is no reason why the BBC should get my money when I dont watch the bbc that much and i would gladly accept bbc introducing breaks to compensate for scraping the TV liscence
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Gavman wrote:
    i refuse to pay my liscence on the basis that bbc adverts between shows last just as long as any commercial channles adverts so the whole idea of paying money to them so they can mass produce shit (grantd some of thier stuff is good but other commercial channels also produce good shows!) is a load of wank in my opinion!

    there is no reason why the BBC should get my money when I dont watch the bbc that much and i would gladly accept bbc introducing breaks to compensate for scraping the TV liscence

    BBC only advertise BBC-related programs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    BBC only advertise BBC-related programs.

    Plus you don't get the adverts in the middle of shows.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I love how the BBC always give their programmes a chance in the way that commercial channels can't. If things like Red Dwarf and Blackadder were on ITV, then they all would have been cancelled after one series, before they became popular. Also, programmes would be made to suit the advertisers rather than the audience. Every programme would be aimed at whoever the advertisers would make the most money out of. Also any programmes which criticise companies (Watchdog, Top Gear etc) would be compromised.

    I agree that the BBC should be slimmed down though. For every new channel, you've got to produce enough programmes to fill it, which means your going to end up with a lot of crap just to fill up the schedule.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Another thought regarding whether the BBC is value for money: compare the the cost of an annual fee (£131.50) with that of Sky (around £504 I believe?).

    And other than films, Sky still shows hundreds of ads a day and puts commercial breaks everywhere- even more so than the likes of ITV, which don't have the benefit of subscription charges. If that is not taking the piss, you tell me what is.

    And then compare the quality of the BBC's main channel, BBC1, with Sky's equivalent. Sky 1 has to be without a doubt the very worst channel in the history of broadcasting. An embarrasing endless sequence of repeats and own-house productions that wouldn't be fit to show to sheep.

    Well, this is all the TV we would have if the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the nay-sayers have their way and the licence is scapped.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As Jim rightly points out this debate is somewhat pointless because when digital comes round fully then there will be the option to choose the channels you get and those you dont.

    So, potentially the BBC will have to compete with the others. Whether this will be a good thing or not I dont know, I suspect it wont be.

    The licence fee is unfair, that is fairly obvious, but other options have been investigated and it would cost WAY more to try and collect it on an income basis. And any closer ties with government would mean its independance would be lost.

    Yes there is some crap, as there is on all the channels, but in terms of comedy, news and current affairs programmes it easily pisses on the others.
Sign In or Register to comment.