Home Home, Law & Money
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

TV License

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I put it to you that for every minute of dross shown on the BBC there are at least 5 times more dross shown everywhere else- and in the case of America, 10-20 times more.

    There are 20 times more programmes shown in the US;)
    Well done. Pick an example you don't like and pretend their whole output is like that.

    A lot of it is. Two Pints of Lager, Little Miss Jocelyn, comedy classics!
    Yes I know. It's Hat Trick Productions.

    So what was your point about out-sourcing, then?
    Judging by the ratings of some of those people I think the BBC knew what to do with them.

    Yeah, I remember Nick Berry getting literally tens of people watching his stuff.

    Great performance for someone employed to get ratings.
    Oh do fuck off and grow up Kermit for fuck's sake. You should be above that fucking shit :rolleyes:

    So Jim Davidson isn't a racist? Anne Robinson isn't a virulent anti-Welsh bigot? Right-o :thumb:
    Millions disagree with you Kermit.

    So millions of people never watch anything other than the BBC, and when they watch the BBC they only watch programmes commercial broadcasters don't carry? Boy, that's a lot of people watching the OU.

    The only thing the BBC can justify producing are programmes which are not made by commercial broadcasters- OU programmes, education programming, religioous programming. Everything else is using public funds to destroy private commercial enterprises, and that is abuse of taxation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    A lot of it is. Two Pints of Lager, Little Miss Jocelyn, comedy classics!
    A lot more is great quality comedy. You can't score 100% hits.

    When was the last time you saw a comedy on ITV or Sky 1 that raised even 1 smile?


    So what was your point about out-sourcing, then?
    My point was that the BBC produces or directly supports a great deal more comedy and other programming than any other broadcaster. Many of them produce none at all, preferring instead to wave some Dollars around and end up with the usual, predictable programmes. Some of them might be very good of course, and indeed many of the good ones are shown on the BBC as well, but the point remains only the BBC provides a platform for new and untried talanet to such extent. Don't think a ratings-driven commercial channel is going to be prepared to reserve any airtime to alternative or fringe programming, or high brow one for that matter, if there is a risk they're not going to bring viewers in large numbers.


    So Jim Davidson isn't a racist? Anne Robinson isn't a virulent anti-Welsh bigot? Right-o :thumb:
    So what? The BBC employs thousands of presenters, employees and producers. You're again going out of your way to pick up individual cases and pretending that is the norm for the corporation- it is not.


    So millions of people never watch anything other than the BBC, and when they watch the BBC they only watch programmes commercial broadcasters don't carry? Boy, that's a lot of people watching the OU.
    I didn't say that. I'm saying that millions of people largely enjoy what the BBC has to offer, as well as other programming, and recognise the high quality and variety offered can only be achieved through the financing provided by the licence fee.
    The only thing the BBC can justify producing are programmes which are not made by commercial broadcasters- OU programmes, education programming, religioous programming. Everything else is using public funds to destroy private commercial enterprises, and that is abuse of taxation.
    I though one of the wonders of capitalism was competition. I haven't seen any TV stations destroyed in any way by the BBC. But to take a leaf of your own book, if they are concerned about failling ratings perhaps they should improve their programming.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Competition should be fair, and with the BBC it is not. If the BBC produces an expensive flop (have you see Robin Hood, a programme so bad the incompetent BBC had to film it twice) it just whacks up the license fee and us muggins get to fund it. It is not competition, and it destroys variety of programmes.

    The reason why so many people watch the BBC is because there is nothing else- the BBC actively prevents competitors, and where there is competition throws bad money after bad in order to bankrupt anyone else. The BBC bars national radio competitors, and the BBC bars access to its Freeview platform to many stations. The BBC has driven children's cable channels off the air with its own children's cable channel, simply because it has the bottomless pit of money to advertise. But even with the monopoly BBC Radio One is losing listeners in droves.

    Of course you can point to some good programmes on BBC, just like I can point to many good programmes on ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and satellite television. But a slanging match about "quality" is not the point, and never was the point. The point is that I will be put in prison if I do not pay for the BBC, even if I never want to watch the BBC and never do watch the BBC. I will be jailed if I do not pay for your entertainment.

    As I said, would you be happy if Tesco charged you £135 a year for its services, even if you only ever shopped at the Co-Op? Of course you wouldn't. So why is the BBC any different?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Competition should be fair, and with the BBC it is not. If the BBC produces an expensive flop (have you see Robin Hood, a programme so bad the incompetent BBC had to film it twice) it just whacks up the license fee and us muggins get to fund it. It is not competition, and it destroys variety of programmes.

    The reason why so many people watch the BBC is because there is nothing else- the BBC actively prevents competitors, and where there is competition throws bad money after bad in order to bankrupt anyone else.
    And there was me thinking there are several hundred competing channels available, with more popping up every day.
    The BBC bars national radio competitors, and the BBC bars access to its Freeview platform to many stations.
    They learnt that trick from Sky TV then.
    The BBC has driven children's cable channels off the air with its own children's cable channel, simply because it has the bottomless pit of money to advertise. But even with the monopoly BBC Radio One is losing listeners in droves.
    What channels have the BBC driven off the air, and what makes you think it was the BBC that did it?

    If the channels are offering appealing programmes they will do well. If not, they will go out. That's capitalism for you.
    Of course you can point to some good programmes on BBC, just like I can point to many good programmes on ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and satellite television. But a slanging match about "quality" is not the point, and never was the point. The point is that I will be put in prison if I do not pay for the BBC, even if I never want to watch the BBC and never do watch the BBC. I will be jailed if I do not pay for your entertainment.

    As I said, would you be happy if Tesco charged you £135 a year for its services, even if you only ever shopped at the Co-Op? Of course you wouldn't. So why is the BBC any different?
    I agree with you that jailing people for not paying is a disgrace. But the point remains that the BBC is a unique institution offering unique services, and it is in the national interest that it is kept in the way it is.

    Nice analolgy you gave there. Let me give you another one. Would you support closing down all museums and selling our national treasures and works of art because some of your taxes are going towards their upkeep? If you don't go to museums you shouldn't have to pay a penny towards the upkeep of their contents, right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good analogy. Pay tax to keep the BBC archive open (it won't cost much, the BBC seem to wipe all their old tapes), and employ a curator or two to show people around. They can make some extra money from a gift shop and a cafe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What channels have the BBC driven off the air, and what makes you think it was the BBC that did it?
    ITV News. And I think there might have even been an ITV childrens channel too.
    Aladdin wrote:
    If the channels are offering appealing programmes they will do well. If not, they will go out. That's capitalism for you.
    For everyone except the BBC.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Nice analolgy you gave there. Let me give you another one. Would you support closing down all museums and selling our national treasures and works of art because some of your taxes are going towards their upkeep? If you don't go to museums you shouldn't have to pay a penny towards the upkeep of their contents, right?
    Right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My quick survey of evening TV viewing on terrestial summises that BBC is only channel that provides a decent evening new show (Channel 4 doesn't count, the slant on that has to be seen to be believed and could compete with The Sun for sensionalist reporting).

    It seems to me Kermit that your problem isn't with the BBC, it's with the consequences of watching TV without a license? Because that's a completely different debate to whether the BBC provides a worthwhile service.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ITV News. And I think there might have even been an ITV childrens channel too.
    So what makes you think it was BBC that caused that, and not Sky News, CNN or other news channels?

    For everyone except the BBC.
    Because the BBC provides extra services, extended channels, arguably the world's best current affairs website, an array of radio channels and a bigger number of quality programmes than any other broadcaster on earth. All this is achieved thanks to the funding TV licence provides. Without it the BBC would become just another commercial channel, and we would all be the poorer for it.

    We have a duty to preserve the BBC just as much as the museums and the national parks. To hell with the issue of taxes, to hell with free market capitalism and to hell with those who would happily sell off just about everything that can be sold, even if it is at the detriment of millions, so they can save themselves money.

    No offence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know Nickelodeon saw its advertising revenue halved after BBC launched a direct competitor which, incidentally, made a huge loss.

    The BBC only has such a vast array of radio stations because it directly acts to prevent competition. The number of prospective radio stations barred from getting a national license on FM because of the BBC is nothing short of a national disgrace, the excellent Virgin being only one example. In any other field people argue against the monopoly trader using loss-leaders to bankrupt the competition- why is it any different for the BBC?

    In any other civilised country the only programmes that are publicly funded are the programmes which serve a social function, and would not be made otherwise. Local radio should be publicly funded, as should religious and educational programming.

    As for everything else, why is it "better" because its publicly funded? Celebrity Dance Fever would be made by a commercial concern and would be no worse for it, EastEnders the same, Doctor Who the same again. MotD is done better by a commercial concern.

    My problem with the BBC is how it is funded- if I watch the BBC without paying the BBC tax, I go to prison. It matters not if I was only watching channel four, only once, I didn't hand to the BBC their pound of flesh, off to jail I go. I really don't understand how anyone can justify a system where the BBC can hand out massive fines and prison sentences to people who do not want to pay for their services. I don't want to pay Norton's obscene salary so I get to go to prison- how is that just? I want to watch ITV but get a £1000 fine- how is that morally acceptable?

    Once we have digital-only TV, get the BBC on a subscription basis, and I expect that revenue will in fact go up. The BBC should be allowed to set its own commercial fee for its commercial services, with only the public service broadcasting being free-to-air. The BBC should be allowed to be free of Governmental constraints, of public constraints, and those who find its programming to be unutterable tosh should be free to not have to buy it. It should be allowed to sink or swim in the commercial sector.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you toddle off and make your own thread in the politics and debate bit, rather than hijacking a money thing about when in the month to buy your license? :wave:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you check this thread and realise it wasn't me who brought up the moral rights and wrongs of the TV licence?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sure if you ask really nicely the mods will split the thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.