TV licence fee
 

This recent Brand - Ross affair only reinforces my view that
TV licences should be abolished. Whats more why should we
also have to buy one for mobile phones and computers
on which we can view the BBC?

Re: TV licence fee
 

In a poll, earlier this year, the vast majority of us thought the television licence should be scrapped.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...nce-37178.html

Re: TV licence fee
 

Bring on 15 mins of adverts per hour :confused:

Re: TV licence fee
 

As opposed to the seven minutes per broadcast hour we have to endure now, advertising their own programmes/products, and for which we have the privilege of paying £139.50 per year?

Bring on the free Beeb say I.

At least then they won't be able to pay Jonathon Ross £17 million pound contracts.

Re: TV licence fee
 

We record most thing nowadays. On Sundays Frost had 4 mins intervals We have a button that skips 2 mins. Press that twice - Hay presto A two hour programme in 1.5 hours

Re: TV licence fee
 

See, you won't even notice the adverts, once the licence fee is scrapped.;)

Re: TV licence fee
 

Here we go again – another fruitless debate about TV Licences based on an inaccuracy.

Way back in the mists of time the government of the day passed an act of parliament to launch a national radio station named 2LO, which later evolved into the British Broadcasting Corporation, known as the BBC or just plain Beeb. At the same time the government decided that anyone owning a wireless so that they could listen to this new fangled ‘wireless’ would need a licence to operate it. The government funded the operating costs of 2LO and recouped the cost from the general public by way of the wireless licence. In the early days the cost of running 2LO far outstripped the receipts from the licence.

That’s the way it is today except that the licence has changed to a TV licence. If you want to watch TV programmes from any source and by any means you need a licence to do so. Much in the same way that you need a licence to operate a HAM radio or a CB radio or to drive a motor vehicle on the public highway – that being the Road Fund Licence. Even the RNLI needs a licence to operate its radio equipment, as do taxis, ambulances, the police and fire service.

The DVLA collects the Road Fund Licence on behalf of the government but the running of the DVLA is funded from government funds. The BBC collects the TV licence fee on behalf of the government but the running of the BBC is funded from government funds. The funding of either is not directly related to the amount of the licence fees collected.

The BBC is awarded an annual fund from the government coffers – better known as our taxes. The BBC supplements the funding by selling many of its excellent programmes world wide and of course buys trash from the US and Oz to show on our screens.

If the BBC suddenly ceased to exist you, me and everyone else in the UK would still need a licence to watch TV unless there is an act of parliament to scrap the licence.

If you want to whinge about the TV licence then target the government not the BBC. If you want to whinge about the way the BBC is run then target the BBC or Ofcom.

What really amuses me is that millions of people will happily subscribe to cable or Sky with an annual/monthly fee to watch programmes that are funded by the adverts shown during them where those same people have bought the products being advertised. You are paying TWICE. Once to the company making the product as a part of their advertising budget and then again to the TV station which charges you to watch programmes and adverts that you have already paid for.:rofl38::yelrotflm

So 31 people out of the 46 that voted were in favour of the licence being scrapped, garinda.

That can hardly be called representative of the country as a whole. In fact it cannot even be said to be representative of this forum members seeing as the total stands at 14,668.

Re: TV licence fee
 

For a fruitless debate JB you seem to be the only one with loads to say on the matter, everybody else was short and sweet:D

Re: TV licence fee
 

Currently 67.39% of us think the licence fee should be scrapped.

An overwhelming majority, by any stretch of even the most blinkered imagination.;)

A trend which is representative of the findings of poll after poll, such as the 2001 Mori poll on the subject.

Campaign to Abolish the tv Licence

Re: TV licence fee
 

Perhaps certain people's views on the matter are coloured, because at 75 they will receive their free television licence, and are just bitter that in the future everyone else mightn't pay as well.

Re: TV licence fee
 

So what if 67.39% AccyWeb members who bothered to vote think that the licence fee should be scrapped. It’s not as if the rest of the UK hangs onto every word published on this forum, even if some people seem to think that it does or should.

The Mori figures add up to 101%. That fact alone invalidates it.

In any case Mori polls are usually samples of no more than 5,000 people and that can hardly be called representative of the nation. Neither is a poll some 7 years old.

The only people with blinkers are those who just refuse to accept the reality of the TV licence issue and try to twist it to back up their own incorrect view.

This guy Rob Godfrey, the founder of CAL, gets all emotive by publishing inaccuracies to back up his case. No one has ever been jailed for not having a TV licence. Those who have been jailed were put away for contempt of court by refusing to pay the fine imposed for breaking the law with regard to the TV licence fee. And that is a totally different issue.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Besides paying vast salaries to it's 'stars', such as Ross and Brand, most of whom are lured from commercial channels, as in the case of Messrs. Ross, Brand, and Norton, here are two more reasons why I think the licence fee should be scrapped, and the B.B.C. should compete in a free arena with other media companies.

The B.B.C. spend £60,000 pounds of our money on a commissioned work of 'art' by Tracey Emin.
The BBC, Emin and a bill for £60,000 | UK news | The Observer

The annual costs of taxis used by the B.B.C. rose by 60% to £14 million pounds of our money.
BBC's taxi bill soars by 60% in a year to a staggering £14million | Mail Online

Re: TV licence fee
 

That is an issue with the BBC not the licence fee. I don’t suppose that it has occurred to you to write to the BBC to make your views known has it? There is also Ofcom.

But if you are going to moan about wasting money then there is no bigger culprit than the government. When was the last time that you put your MP wise on your views?

Re: TV licence fee
 

Perhaps basic mathematics has moved on somewhat, since it was taught using slates and chalk.

It's common practice, for ease of reading, that figures above .5 are rounded up, and below that are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

Thus the findings, of this, and other more recent polls, are accurate.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Often, as I find Greg Pope very accessible, and more than helpful.:)

Re: TV licence fee
 

We've got to remember that besides the 50 journos that already work for the Beeb over the pond, they are sending over another 100 to cover the Presidential elections next week, why. don't know about anybody else but I'm fed up with the whole circus that is American politics, our system may not be to every ones liking, but I'd sooner have ours than theirs any day

Re: TV licence fee
 

Know-it-all garinda was privy to the actual figures and jumps to the conclusion that some of them have been rounded up or down.

By the way round up occurs at 0.5 and above not above 0.5.

Re: TV licence fee
 

i think the fee should be scrapped, i've never had to pay it, but i'd rather read the paper, do you have to have a license to listen to the radio?

Re: TV licence fee
 

Re: TV licence fee
 

Who receive their funding from us, the licence payers.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Now hang on a minute here, you mean I've got to the age of 62 and haven't realised that the BBC don't get their funding from the licence fee, I'm so shocked I'm going to have a stiff whiskey to calm me down:confused:

Re: TV licence fee
 

Re: TV licence fee
 

The BBC is funded directly by the licence fee. BBC World Service is funded by a government grant.

Re: TV licence fee
 

I'm sure last time a watched BBC world in Spain they showed adverts as well.:confused:

Re: TV licence fee
 

Congratulations on being made “Administrator”.

Although there is a link between the TV licence and BBC funding, BBC funding is not dependant on how many licences are sold. The funding is set by the government and is guaranteed by Royal Charter and fixed at regular and infrequent intervals. The government off-sets this expenditure by gathering the TV licence fee.

The BBC is charged with the task of issuing the TV licence, collecting the fees and keeping track of who does and does not have a TV licence when they should have one to conform with the law. A separate department under the BBC umbrella carries out this task.

The annual BBC funding is currently some £4.3 billion. The current colour TV licence is £139.50. To generate £4.3 billion by the licence fee alone, some 31 million TV licences would have to be sold.

With a population of some 60 million in the UK there are probably in the region of 15 million domestic properties, although 10 million is a more likely figure. Chuck in a few more million for pubs, clubs, hotels etc and even with 20 million domestic properties it still wouldn’t reach 31 million.

The BBC generates extra revenue by the sale of the programmes that it makes and pays tax on the proceeds.

If by some major miracle everyone decided not to renew their TV licence it would not affect the BBC funding at all until the next revue. Similarly if the BBC suddenly ceased to exist we would still be required to have a TV licence.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Why not have a red wine instead :D

Re: TV licence fee
 

In the early days, the licence fee was to pay for and maintain the numerous transmitters for both radio & TV and to fund the operation of a TV channel and several radio services.

Over the years the BBC has taken on a life of its own and the small licence fee has had to be increased substantially to pay for the many additional services it now offers. Just how they justify exhorbitant contracts to tempt 'popular' celebs on to the network is a major issue. Recent events have shown that the BBC is run by indecisive management and only public pressure forced them to act.

I always thought that making indecent phone calls was a criminal offence or have the mamby pamby PC brigade made upsetting others, acceptable too.

I quite like Jonathan Ross as a radio broadcaster but there is no place on Radio 2 for radical presenters to do their 'own thing'. Should Radio 2 stick with the likes of Wogan, Bruce, Evans and Wright? I say yes, let the weird and wacky find radio work elsewhere and leave Radio 2 to churn out good middle of the road entertainment for which they are best known.

Re: TV licence fee
 

SCRAP THE LICENCE



AND WHILE YOUR AT IT



SCRAP THE B.B.C.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Whiskey, Red Wine, White Wine, Rose theres no colour bar in my house Neil:D but I know where your coming from;)

Re: TV licence fee
 

The £4.3billion figure is from the whole of the BBC. That is licence fee, commercial revenue and world service. The BBC that we view on tv etc is fully funded by the licence fee. The BBC need government approval when setting the licence fee. However at the end of the day the licence is collected and used by the BBC, if the BBC didn't exist anymore, we would not be paying the licence fee because we don't pay it to the government, we pay it to the BBC.

Re: TV licence fee
 

I rarely hear Wogan but on the very odd occasion when I get up early enough his banter has been amenable and his Janet and John tales have been hilarious. I admired his efforts for “Children In Need” until it was revealed that he was paid to host the TV extravaganza.

Ken Bruce is good and presents an enjoyable programme. The repartee between him and the travel totty Lynn Bowles is never offensive.

Chris Evans is like a breath of fresh air at 5:00pm after taking over from Steve Wright. Especially the fox the fox bit. Foxy’s skill in finding out the answers to some very awkward questions sent in by the listeners is legendry. I cannot recall her ever being stumped. Sally “Traffic” Bosman adds to the entertainment. My only complaint is why doesn’t Chris have a man’s minute? Men drive cars too. But then he couldn’t flirt with men.

Steve Wright is just background noise for me. There seems to be a bit of tension between him and Tim Smith that almost surfaces from time to time but is disguised by “only joking”. My biggest gripe against that programme, both Steve and Tim deliberately mispronounce words and these mispronunciations could be picked up by youngsters.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Avoiding the “Administrator” point I see.

OK! I’ll ask outright. Have you been made Administrator of this forum?

As for the rest, I have no intention of repeating myself ad nausium. Go and read and more importantly understand the acts relating to the funding of the BBC.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Re: TV licence fee
 

Yes he has, thats why it says so and his name is black. Black is for Mods and up only.

There was a thread about it http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ewb-43242.html

Re: TV licence fee
 

Re: TV licence fee
 

Now you can see he's not avoiding your question, you can go and post your congratulations in the old thread, which Roy started for him.:)

Re: TV licence fee
 

Actually, only 75% of the funding provided to the BBC comes from the licence fee, the remaining funding comes via other sources, such as BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm.

Ofcom are currently looking at options regarding public service broadcasting in the UK, particularly in light of the digital switchover. One option being considered is to distribute the licence fee funds to all companies that bid for PSB services, so companies such as ITV, C4 and Sky could get a cut of it too.
The option of giving all PSB responsibilities to the BBC and so releasing C4, C5 and ITV from such duties, was disregarded a couple of weeks ago.

If you want a picture of a publicly owned provider that has to exist on advertising to exist and no public funding, just take a look at C4. Just take a look at the typical C4 schedule and you'll see what I mean.

If the licence fee ensures that the BBC continues to produce the quality of provision that it does, then I'm more than happy to pay my 38p per day. Of course many people will disagree, but then again most people would choose to pay nothing if they had a choice, even if they don't see the full implications.

Re: TV licence fee
 

I do, quite regularly, as there are more programmes on there that I find interesting to watch, than the guff they put on the B.B.C.

Re: TV licence fee
 

OK here in the US I get on BBCAmerica the Graham Norton show , not too bad, a bit 'silly' in parts but tolerable, and the locals like him , never seen this Ross/Woss person On BBCAmerica , obviously the BBC don't think he is worth exporting , so why is he being paid so much...... do the Aussies/ Kiwis /Canucks and Boers like him so much :confused: :confused:


not sure if this is the right thread ....Mods please feel free to move to the BBC Ross/ Sachs thread if felt neccessary , thanks

Re: TV licence fee
 

They probably like him because they remember him from the baths, as for many years he lived in San Francisco.;)

Re: TV licence fee
 

Maybe the over-reliance on reality formats and pseudo-documentaries appeal to some, but the overall quality of C4 has dipped significantly over the last few years.

Mind you, the channel's remit requires it to appeal to minority audiences, so perhaps it's achieving something afterall?

Re: TV licence fee
 

I agree that the quality of programmes on Channel 4 isn't as good as twenty years ago. Though I still prefer it to the dross broadcast on the B.B.C., much of it a poor copy of what they see as ratings winners on I.T.V. 1.

Re: TV licence fee
 

You should take a trip to Scotland, and watch what the B.B.C. puts on in answer to Coronation Street.

At least River City, which has cost us over £20 million pounds, would have one viewer.;)

Re: TV licence fee
 

Whilst that is true of BBC1, the same can't be said for BBC2 and BBC4. Those channels show many programmes that would never see the light of day on ITV.

You also have to remember that BBC1 and ITV1 are competing for the same target audience, so there's bound to be a crossover of provision.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Perhaps if you were a little more discerning in your viewing habbits, and not so blinkered, it would help your quiz scores.;):D

Re: TV licence fee
 

If losing in the quiz is a result of not watching soaps, then it's a small price to pay!! ;)

Re: TV licence fee
 

I don't watch any of the soaps the B.B.C. insist in broadcasting.;)

Re: TV licence fee
 

That is the point I was trying to make. The BBC have no need to compete. They don't need a big audience to charge advertising space on. They should be showing programs that will appeal to a different audience than what ITV is showing at the same time.

Re: TV licence fee
 

But The Royal Charter which governs the BBC requires them to provide programming with universal appeal, so they have to produce 'mainstream' programmes in the same way that ITV do.

They also have to produce programmes that generate decent audiences, as they have to prove that they are providing value for money. The remit requires the BBC to educate, inform and entertain, so the production of popular genres e.g. soaps, talent contests, or whatever is popular at the time, is inevitable.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Yes I agree they do, they should not put them on at the same time though.

When did someone decide that a 24 hours news channel was needed to fit in with that Royal Charter?

Re: TV licence fee
 

Lets face it, be honest how many of you watch BBC 3 and 4 on a regular basis, I know I don't

Re: TV licence fee
 

...or paying millions of pounds to Camelot to show the Lotto, which provides little entertainment, and very poor viewing figures.

Like all the old nationalised companies, who grew lazy because of lack of competition, if the B.B.C. isn't doing what it's supposed to do, as set out in it's charter, which it isn't, then it should be forced to compete with commercial media companies, in an open market.

Re: TV licence fee
 

The BBC pay Camelot to show the lottery on TV :confused:

Should it not be the other way round? Then again I don't like how contestants can win lottery money.

Re: TV licence fee
 

Yes, I.T.V. wanted the rights to show the Lotto draw, but were outbid by the B.B.C., using our money.

Very entertaining, cultural, and educational.

^ That's me, not the B.B.C.:D

Re: TV licence fee
 

Interesting article in the Independent, on all the appalling goings on at the B.B.C. of late.

'Yet the turbulence at the BBC has been unremitting. The past 18 months in particular have seen the corporation rocked by storm after storm. Programmes that were thought almost sacred such as Children in Need, Comic Relief and Blue Peter, were found to have duped their audiences.

The Queen herself was unveiled in film to an expectant press as having stomped out of a photoshoot with Annie Leibovitz, when she had done nothing of the sort. Mr Fincham, who had presented the footage as the star billing in his new schedule, ended up quitting but only after a lengthy rearguard action by the BBC and an inquiry conducted by a former senior BBC executive, Will Wyatt.'

Rocked again: BBC all at sea in another storm - TV & Radio, Media - The Independent