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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I have never read so much absolute shite in my entire life.
If the BBC is so amazing, you will happily stick your hands in your pockets voluntarily and pay for it anyway. All I ask is that you don't try to steal from me to fund your entertainment.
It's not as simple as that though, or the Beeb would be funded like ITV. The bottom line for the commercial channels is ratings, because they need people to watch their commercials. That means, largely, aiming at the lowest common denominator. Not topless darts and ...Millionaire?' because the viewers have to be kept from becoming jaded, but ITV is very different from BBC1 and completely different from BBC2. Until 'Supernatural' came along, I hadn't watched ITV for years (Channel 4, yes). The absense of direct commercial pressure is what makes the Beeb special. And that's without even getting started on the 'Today' programme...
Now, time for 'Small Gods'...
If anything the licence fee is fairer. At least it's only those who watch TV who have to pay for it. However all consumers, whether they watch TV or not, finance ITV, Channel 4 et al whenever they go to the supermarket.
Errr, bunnies!
The TV licence is a stick up - pay me or else. I don't give a rat's ass about the quality of the programmes, because it's secondary to the crucial issue - they are funded by extortion.
No doubt the Mafia could fund some kick ass TV as well.
There is no TV programme ever made, anywhere ever that is worth robbing someone for. Or, to put it another way -
Would you be willing to extort the cash for "Small Gods" from your neighbour personally?
I'll not even address Al's insane ramblings because I'm on ignore but christ, what a barmpot.
When, a few years back, the televising of the Jerry Springer Opera on BBC2 caused a small indignant band of licence payers to complain about what their money was being spent on, I did some sums and calculated that it would cost each licence payer about 15p. Can't remember if I based that on the total cost to the Beeb of financing the broadcast, or simply worked out that two hours out of a year's funding would amount to that, but I think 'Small Gods' would account for a very small fraction of my licence fee. Would it bother me if my neighbour, who I'm pretty sure has a TV, needs to contribute a similar amount for something he may or may not be watching, while I pay towards something he is interested in (my neighbour on the left is a muslim, and the Beeb have a very good Asian network, apparently)? I wouldn't lose sleep over it, I have to say. Famously, the BBC still cost less per day, than a decent (and not so decent) newspaper. Is there nothing on the Beeb, including current affairs programmes, that matters at least as much to you as your daily slice of printed news?
What the hell has any of this to do with the fact that it's paid for by theft?
Steal a penny, it's theft, steal a million quid it's theft.
Simply - would you be willing to threaten your neighbours with kidnap, to steal from their wages or lock them in a cage personally to pay for the BBC?
I am guessing no. If the answer is no (which i hope it is or you are a very anti-social individual) then you have no business employing other people to do those things for you either.
I’m extremely glad the BBC exists and if I was the patriotic type it’s the kind of thing that would make me proud to be British. Anybody who’s ever watched television in America must realise how lucky we are in comparison.
I think there should be some change in the way it’s funded though – since something like 99% of people have a television, the licence fee essentially amounts to a regressive tax, i.e one where millionaires pay the same as people on minimum wage – I think they’d might as well just fund it out of general tax revenue, but keep it independent by having the budget approved by some body independent of the government rather than by the government itself.
Explain this bit please, you've totally lost me.
Country - arbitary, fictional boundary. Or to put it another way, there is no such thing as a country.
How can the licence fee be both a type of tax and not be theft?
What you say is extremely garbled.
You think it isn't?
What are you basing that on?
Search function ftw!
Oh and this bit can easily be solved the pros and cons of the existence of nation-states because they never exist, it's not possible.
Not only that, but they are popular with most viewers (as opposed to sports or soaps who only attract the attentions of some). Look at Blue Planet. Look at Walking with Dinosaurs. Both groundbreaking programmes. Planet Earth is said to even better, a must-see.
I will gladly pay a licence to ensure such projects are produced. I suspect I'm not alone.
The five stages of grief are said to be: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, ACCEPTANCE :thumb: . Unfortunately,some people get really stuck in the denial stage
they tend to do one off episodes of dramas, and not things like morse like they used to, though i think they could bankrupt the bbc with a serial drama based on that £50million robbery
Actually, now that is bollocks.
People make a conscious decision to shop with companies who advertise on the TV. You can shop quite comfortably without funding advertising- the local butchers doesn't sponsor Millionaire now, does he? I even buy sun screen that is "no advertising".
Aladdin, if you want to pay for the BBC, then feel free. I would very probably choose to take out a subscription for some of the BBC's output.
The point is that I have no choice. I can either pay it or go to prison.
If Tesco's started charging you £5 to enter a supermarket, even if you shopped at the Co-Op, you would be the first to whinge. So why is the BBC any different? As this article shows, it is acting as a commercial entity, competing in the commercial sector. It is the same as Tesco's.
I just want the choice to pay for the BBC or not. But I don't have that choice. I either pay the thieving scum their extortion money, or I go to prison.
randomgirl, why should I be legally prevented from watching the BBC's direct commercial competitors because I don't want to have £130 a year stolen from my pocket? Why should I be prevented from watching Sky Sports and House because I don't want to pay for animals like Moyles, Evans, N*rt*n and the entire cast of CuntEnders?
And I love the way people continue to buy into the myth that the BBC don't have any adverts. What the fuck else do you call the seven (count em, seven) minutes of trailers between each programme?
You are being deprived of watching the BBC's competitors because you don't want to pay for the BBC.
How that is a choice is anyone's guess.
You're not, I agree completely.
The BBC produces programmes that are far superior to any other channel's output. I don't mind paying the licence fee as I can see where it pays off there, BBC is more consistent in all areas but especially current affairs and nature projects as Aladdin said. I also enjoy/get a lot of use out of their late-night language programming, but that's a personal thing I suppose.
I can't say I've ever noticed anything in the realm of seven minutes of trailers between shows, but even so it's usually trailers for other shows that I might be interested in - so it doesn't bother me and I often find it quite a useful quirk. However, Channel 4 is fast getting into the league of American TV with advert breaks practically every five minutes between some shows. Disgusting (though irrelevant to this discussion, I know).
only if you pay my license for me to be able to...
Good good, now all you need is a bit of consistency......
So you are quite happy to benefit from extortion as long as you don't have to raise a finger yourself. Very noble. Like I said, if you aren't comfortable doing it, why are you comfortable with someone else doing it?
No, not really. I have a problem with being robbed from and told it's for some mythical "greater good." especially for television. You've missed the point totally. To say that it's alright because the TV it produces is half decent is like saying the mafia should be allowed to run a protection racket because the Don throws good parties.
Nope, but let's have a closer look at this from a more middle ground perspective. You are equating making sure those elderly people who have been to witless to save up for a pension don't starve to death with the need to produce a state TV channel. The arguments for communal paying of hospitals, pensions, armed force and police etc only apply to providing eastenders if you live in la-la-land.
Yeah, and they do as well. Your last point is the most laughable. Pop down to your local nick and ask them to look after your house for you while you are on holiday. They'll tell you it's not their job to protect you, and you should go look after yourself. Or they'll laygh and say "fuck off". They may produce booklets showing how you can seal your windows or doors better. If you get hurt and a policeman stands idly by and watches it all happen, you can't sue them for not protecting you either.
Quite why you think the "state" are there to protect you I have no idea.
No. My view is that we have to find out where we really are before we decide what to do next. There is no state, or to put it another way the state is a fiction. Hence eliminating it is quite difficult because it was only ever an idea to start with. Tax is stealing. Government means to control, not protect. This kind of thing. To start arguing about solutions to something that may or may not be a problem leads us off down into "how would your proposed system deal with problem "x" or problem "y". Aside from anything else, you cannot predict free market solutions to problems.