I didn't mean to say i never use a TV. I said "yet i have" when i should have said "yet if i have" Perhaps i should have worded my question a little better! (my typing skills leave a little to be desired.) I just wonder why they are permited to and no one else is.
I haven't watched telly since Boxing Day - but I'm still paying my TV licence.
I'd rather do something else with my time.
So I'm paying for the 'possibility of being authorised to watch it' , rather than using it.
Maybe it helps provide the yardstick of decent programming amongst the dross, but in this day and age TV licence is nothing less than back door taxation.
It was introduced in 1946 to fund the BBC Television Service but today it's paid into Treasury funds and the BBC gets a payment from that. So where does the rest of the money go?
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]I haven't watched telly since Boxing Day - but I'm still paying my TV licence.
I'd rather do something else with my time.
So I'm paying for the 'possibility of being authorised to watch it' , rather than using it.
Maybe it helps provide the yardstick of decent programming amongst the dross, but in this day and age TV licence is nothing less thanback door taxation.
It was introduced in 1946 to fund the BBC Television Service but today it's paid into Treasury funds and the BBC gets a payment from that. So where does the rest of the money go?
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]I haven't watched telly since Boxing Day - but I'm still paying my TV licence.
I'd rather do something else with my time.
So I'm paying for the 'possibility of being authorised to watch it' , rather than using it.
Maybe it helps provide the yardstick of decent programming amongst the dross, but in this day and age TV licence is nothing less thanback door taxation.
It was introduced in 1946 to fund the BBC Television Service but today it's paid into Treasury funds and the BBC gets a payment from that. So where does the rest of the money go?
Answers on a postcard, please.
So I presume what we are really fighting for is for the whole of the license fee to go to the BBC, rather than just a portion of it? I would vote for that.
Actually Algarve, that's not what I meant at all. ;o)
Points to consider:
1) TV Licence fee is taxation.
2) The funds go to Central Government, who allocate a portion of it to the BBC.
The rest goes where?
3) Should the BBC be a commercial operation?
4) If so, would the quality of programmes decline - and would that apply to commercial stations also?
5) The BBC produce so many 'Info-mercials' and self promotion breaks, that they may as well be a commercial station.
6) If the BBC did become a commercial station - you can be sure the TV Licence would still exist.
Government wouldn't surrender such passive income lightly.
Eltham, no disrespect to you, but if thats your understanding of the 'essence of Marxism' then you need to have another look. Anyway not sure where the admins on here stand on politics, so enough of that, apologies.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]The BBC, and let's face it it's them who get our money, are too busy employing smug little grasses like Adrian Bloody Chiles who went and told Miss that naughty Carol said ........wait for it......off air.....in private...
GOLLYWOG!
And certainly not in the Big Ron way, just describing someones hair.
Ofcom recently published their public sector broadcasting review - info in the link above. I'm currently temping at Ofcom so have read/heard loads about this recently. If you're interested/outraged then I recommend having a quick nosy on their website.
Personally, I think there is some great stuff on TV, and a lot of dross. I generally hate the celebrity does anything type programmes and the ones picking someone for a West End show. However, millions watch them so they are obviously popular. I love some of the art stuff on BBC4, which would not see the light of day if that channel wasn't around. Masterchef is a fave in my house, and my seven year old nephew has recently expressed an interest in it and the food being cooked on it.
* Again is it just me but fat people and Jews appear able to be abused unmercifully without the PC Brigade uttering a word.
..................
Would that be the same BBC that has just broadcast Anne Frank's diary? And the same BBC that refused to air an appeal for the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip after the IDF trashed the place killing nearly 2,000 civilians. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of what Israel did, but the BBC caved in and refused to air the appeal claiming that viewers might confuse the appeal for BBC support of the Palestinian cause.
There has always been some good TV and some utter dross. Last week's documenary on Charles Darwin by David Attenborough was very much in the first category, but there's nothing stopping you turning the television off...
Comments
I'd rather do something else with my time.
So I'm paying for the 'possibility of being authorised to watch it' , rather than using it.
Maybe it helps provide the yardstick of decent programming amongst the dross, but in this day and age TV licence is nothing less than back door taxation.
It was introduced in 1946 to fund the BBC Television Service but today it's paid into Treasury funds and the BBC gets a payment from that. So where does the rest of the money go?
Answers on a postcard, please.
Well said that man.
So I presume what we are really fighting for is for the whole of the license fee to go to the BBC, rather than just a portion of it? I would vote for that.
Points to consider:
1) TV Licence fee is taxation.
2) The funds go to Central Government, who allocate a portion of it to the BBC.
The rest goes where?
3) Should the BBC be a commercial operation?
4) If so, would the quality of programmes decline - and would that apply to commercial stations also?
5) The BBC produce so many 'Info-mercials' and self promotion breaks, that they may as well be a commercial station.
6) If the BBC did become a commercial station - you can be sure the TV Licence would still exist.
Government wouldn't surrender such passive income lightly.
I like you ! :-)
Ah that's ok then ....
Ofcom recently published their public sector broadcasting review - info in the link above. I'm currently temping at Ofcom so have read/heard loads about this recently. If you're interested/outraged then I recommend having a quick nosy on their website.
Personally, I think there is some great stuff on TV, and a lot of dross. I generally hate the celebrity does anything type programmes and the ones picking someone for a West End show. However, millions watch them so they are obviously popular. I love some of the art stuff on BBC4, which would not see the light of day if that channel wasn't around. Masterchef is a fave in my house, and my seven year old nephew has recently expressed an interest in it and the food being cooked on it.
..................
Would that be the same BBC that has just broadcast Anne Frank's diary? And the same BBC that refused to air an appeal for the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip after the IDF trashed the place killing nearly 2,000 civilians. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of what Israel did, but the BBC caved in and refused to air the appeal claiming that viewers might confuse the appeal for BBC support of the Palestinian cause.
There has always been some good TV and some utter dross. Last week's documenary on Charles Darwin by David Attenborough was very much in the first category, but there's nothing stopping you turning the television off...
Indeed, BFR.
But most people don't, do they?
;o)