TV Licence

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

I'm proud to pay for a channel with international respect - and I'm proud to pay for a channel that flies the British flag with integrity.

what exactly are you on?

[shillelagh]

Yes i know other documentaries are made that are good - by other people than sir david attenborough but that stuck in my mind seeing as this one is on tv at the minute.

You are saying though the bbc has to move through the times it has hasnt it - with bbc 3 and 4 i dont know i dont have digital so dont watch them.

[keetah992000]

maybe they should have bbc channels as an additional choice like sky packages problem is they know that most people wouldnt choose those channels and so instead hold us to ransom
but like has been said - we would only be charged for something else

[shillelagh]

your licence fee doesnt just cover the tv channels its also for the radio as well keetah

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

if we didn,nt have the bbc we would have cr** tv on every channel.where else would we get educational programmes not influenced by commercial companies and can be held accountable to the licence payer,you dont get that with sky or any other commercial channel they just find new ways to rip you off and put more crap on....

The BBC put crap on, they just don’t have to work at finding new ways to fund it or rip us off as you say.

[keetah992000]

Originally Posted by shillelagh

your licence fee doesnt just cover the tv channels its also for the radio as well keetah

i know its missing the point but i dont listen to the radio but i didnt know that ( although i think my eyes skimmed it further up the thread - i should take more notice eh ?)

[Retlaw]

Why should we have to pay for a licence to recieve any broadcast transmissions, in any waveband whether Radio or TV. The goverment has no control over the radio spectrum outside Gt Britain, they are broadcast from every country in the world. Could they stop these transmissions reaching us, jamming would be too expensive, and broadcasters would object, anyway it would interfere with the governments secret listening stations.
Again its rip off Britain, the govenment of any denomination's main objective is to ensure the working man leaves this world as he came into it. NAKED and PENNYLESS.
Retlaw.

[blazey]

I dont watch TV other than specific programmes which I cant get because I am not a Sky customer. I would rather pay to watch TV for an hour on the internet than pay a fixed fee for fixed channels.

So I will continue to watch my programmes my own way until the cater for people like me.

[steeljack]

to my mind all those who are against the BBC have never been subjected to 100% commercial television , (ie American TV ) designed by idiots for idiots with attention spans of less than 10 minutes , (40 minutes of programing and 20 minutes of ads every hour )

[Yolanda25]

when i 1st came to england and lived here i was gobsmacked to hear that u have to pay to wacth tv, in spain we dont pay to wacth it, not even now with the digibox and other tv companies, we do pay for things like virgin or sky but not the tv licence, im surprised we dont need a licence to breath

[jaysay]

I voted no, because, its not worth, and as saying its a flag ship, it must be the Titanic. I have Sky and if I don't pay my monthly fee, they cut it of. So any one who wants the BBC the answers simple, use the sky system, if you want BBC then you pay for it and be proud to do so, if you don't then the beeb can make sure you don't get it, problem solved

[garinda]

I'm really suprised Thatcher didn't get her hands on the BBC, particularly because of the supposed left-wing bias of it's news coverage, and which to all intents and purposes is a nationalised company. After all her government privatised everything else.

Why should we have to pay to support a company which is funded by a licence fee, and which through it's World Service broadcasts programmes in Ukranian, for example? The Ukranians certainly don't have to pay to listen to it, but sadly we do.

Are Messrs Ross and Norton worth their £18 and £13 million pound respective salaries? Who knows, as this isn't an open market, it's a closed shop, using money raised by us.

It should sink or swim on it's own merits, and as for the quality of the programmes, for every Attenborough documentary there's also a Fame Accadamy, or whatever the latest thing is they've copied off ITV.

[MikeSz]

I dont have a TV and up until the last few months, have been absolutely hounded by TV licensing - mainly by post, although they have received an equally potent reply every time.

As i work in Manchester I tend to get back fairly late and I spend most of my time doing my Open Uni work on the computer if im not out. Anything I watch is either on DVD (in the main), football in the pub or if I watch online, I might watch Prime Ministers questions on Iplayer once I've got home from work.

It must have cost TV Livensing hundreds pursuing me for my fee so i just feel for the genuine license holders who have to pay for it!

[MargaretR]

When I lived in Belthorn I had two cottages knocked into one - nos 8 & 10
I had one licence for no 8 - the door to no 10 had been converted to a window. I got pestered to get a licence for no 10 for 3 years - always told them the score - the pestering eventually stopped.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Jambutty your post is rather pedantic and misguided.

If the BBC were to be made private, we wouldn't have to pay so much in licence fees. I think everyone understands that the TV licence fee is the same as paying the BBC in all but its name.

Your calculations are quite simply very theoretical. It might well be cheaper if you watch one film a day, but who does watch one film a day on the BBC? The point is you're forced to pay £130 no matter how much you watch it.

Cyfr you are spouting a load of crap as usual and you could do well to determine the meaning of pedantic and misguided before using them.

However it is comforting to know that you are privy to government thinking in that if the BBC was made private the license fee WOULD BE REDUCED. The arrogance? Sheeesh!

That is the problem with people - they have made the connection between the license fee and the BBC and just refuse to accept that it is tenuous at best. THE LICENSE MONEY GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT. IT COSTS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO RUN THE BBC AND THE GOVERNMENT MAKES A GRANT TO THE BBC TO ENABLE IT TO RUN. THERE IS NO DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LICENSE FEES AND BBC FUNDING.

Calculations theoretical eh? Now let me see dividing the license fee of £135.50 by the number of days in a normal year (365) is a fraction over 37p per day. To be really pedantic about it, it is 37.1232877p per day. No theory there, just plain FACT. But then you do seem to have difficulty from distinguishing between fact and theory. Your comments are quite simply theatrical.

Try one film per week. It would still be cheaper (£2.60) than one ticket in a cinema.

The real point is, that you cannot seem to grasp, the law of the land decrees that in order to have apparatus that can receive TV programmes installed in your house you must have a TV license. Whether you watch it or not or which channels, is completely irrelevant. If you have a working apparatus you must have a license. If you don’t want to pay the license fee then don’t have such an apparatus. It’s not rocket science.

Now toddle off to mummy and get your nappy changed.