TV Licence
- Thread starter andrewb
- Start date
I think the BBC gets funding or did at one time , from the foriegn office budget for its overseas broadcasts as part of the Govt. propaganda program, much like Voice of America, DW (German radio) , Radio France and Radio Moscow
The same F.O. which is funded by the British tax payer, so all these Johnny foreigners can listen to programmes we've paid for?
Last edited:
I think the BBC gets funding or did at one time , from the foriegn office budget for its overseas broadcasts as part of the Govt. propaganda program, much like Voice of America, DW (German radio) , Radio France and Radio Moscow
'BBC World Service's broadcasting costs are met by a separate Parliamentary grant-in-aid, totalling £252m in 2007/08.'
BBC - Press Office - World Service information pack Constitution and Funding
...and all for free, for everyone else around the world to listen to.
Yes and no. I have read it cost's a couple of pence to print a newspaper. They make several times the selling price on each one sold due to advertising.
...and who pays the journalists, illustrators, photographers etc., their lovely big salaries, nevermind the shareholders?
Don't argue with me, I'm always right.
reading that is very annoying. Why would I want my tax/license fee to be used to provide free TV to the people we are at war with in the middle east?
I'm sure I knew exactly what I was saying with those words.
jambutty said:
Writing it in red capital letters doesn't make it more correct you know. How can you not see. The government takes a licence fee, then the BBC gets a grant from the government, can you guess where the money for the grant comes from? This is clearly us funding the BBC and I'm sure every other person will read the post and see it for themselves whether they agree with the fee or not.
jambutty said: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.
Yes it IS theory. Your assuming people will use the 37p a day watching a film on the BBC. In practice people don't do that.
Also comparing BBC on your tv to the cinema is.. well do I even need to explain why that's a bad comparison?
jambutty said: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.
I understand the law of the land, if you read my earlier posts I'm quite aware of what is and isn't allowed, hence I only use BBC iPlayer.
The real point is that we have MP's and a parliament to amend and create laws. I'm not advocating breaking the law, I'm saying lets discuss the possibility of changing it.
15m per annum for a News/information channel for Iran....thats a bloody outrage
..but if you work out the price per day, I'm sure you'll find it's worth every penny, or rial as it is in Iran...if they were paying for it.
I can't help but feel that the journalistic and documentary integrity of the BBC would be damaged by privatization. Like someone quite correctly pointed out earlier, documentary channels want things about cuddly monkeys and giant squid fighting whales, stuff to draw the average goon away from Neighbours (I love Neighbours, ha) and onto things that are cute or fight.
Although we do have some of these now, I think stuff like Big Cat Diary or Springwatch or some of Attenborough's documentaries would get immediately scrapped. And imagine BBC news reporting Paris Hilton over something like a foreign political assassination just because they needed to ratings to stay afloat? Do we, as a country, honestly want to put our name to a travesty like that?
Although we do have some of these now, I think stuff like Big Cat Diary or Springwatch or some of Attenborough's documentaries would get immediately scrapped. And imagine BBC news reporting Paris Hilton over something like a foreign political assassination just because they needed to ratings to stay afloat? Do we, as a country, honestly want to put our name to a travesty like that?
Yes, because I don't think that would happen. I can watch TV from all over Europe, when something big happens on the news like the assassination like you mention, all the news channels cover it. They also show things on the news we dare not for the sake of upsetting us soft British.
I sometimes watch Euronews -- when BBC News 24 and Sky News are reporting loads of sports junk. Sports 'news' is not proper news.
CNN is OK when some major world catastrophe happens. but the yankee accent soon begins to grate on me. Most of their women reporters screech, not speak. The only yank woman tv journalist who is nice to hear is that News 24 woman correspondent in Pakistan
Radio 4 is nice for when there is tripe on TV - if only to have the lovely sound of their softly spoken estuary accents - even the shipping forecast is music to the ears.
Last edited:
The other side of the coin is that we can listen to foreign broadcasts. Radio waves do not recognise international boundaries.
We are not the only country in the world that pays a license fee to listen to and view broadcasts.
Whilst serving in the Royal Navy we listened to the BBC World Service for news of home. We have forces committed all over the world and they, no doubt, tune in from time to time as do ex-pats.
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder whether the BBC has entirely given up on the concept of the Empire, particularly when it comes to the World Service.
The other thing that annoys me is that when they are bleating for more money they use the public service broadcasting argument, you know the one, "we make programmes that commercial broadcasters can't afford to.", and then, when they have got the money, calmly tell us that there will be even more repeats and less of the "Public Service" programming.
And I am sorry but, giving Jonathan Ross a contract for £18,000,000 over three years shows just how irresponsible the BBC are with our money.
The other thing that annoys me is that when they are bleating for more money they use the public service broadcasting argument, you know the one, "we make programmes that commercial broadcasters can't afford to.", and then, when they have got the money, calmly tell us that there will be even more repeats and less of the "Public Service" programming.
And I am sorry but, giving Jonathan Ross a contract for £18,000,000 over three years shows just how irresponsible the BBC are with our money.
I agree - I find his speech impediment irritating -- too many announcers, presenters, commentators are employed by their looks and their voice quality (or lack of it) is ignored.
Mr Woss fulfils neither criterion
its not just me that the creep bugs then.
I bet there aren't many lads and lasses on British ships tuning in to listen to programmes in Farsi.
I'm not sure Blue Peter really counts as a show where journalistic integrity is vital to the programme