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
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
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:
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.
0
Comments
*looks for Kermit to appear*
Grasping bastards.
I would.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
World Service is funded by the FCO, not the licence payer
My mum had to go to court a few weeks ago for not paying it though lol...oh the shame of it all!
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.
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.
Plus you don't get the adverts in the middle of shows.
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.
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.
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.