Brilliant. The BBC is getting pelters from a bloke who recently posted 100% made up, bullcrap, anti-EU propaganda dressed up as a "news report"...which was sourced from the alt-right one in the Pussycat Dolls. Sorry, but that's not how I want to get my news.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion and the BBC has made some serious errors of editorial judgement in the last few years IMO but when you look at the overall quality and range of its output, including its internet presence, it still remains great value for money and is the best ambassador for the UK and our creative talent we could hope for.
£150 a year, If it wasn't for my wife insisting, I wouldn't pay it. Perhaps if jug ears was booted off of MOTD, my opinion might change. Also BBC Scotland show a live top league game every Saturday. Would it be too much to ask for some live football (from any league)? Also feel their is a biased opinion of the EU vote portrayed by the BBC.
Late contender for absolute joke post of the year. For years the BBC have given a platform to Brexit supporters who are allowed to spout lies and make unfounded claims, largely unchallenged. I think the BBC do a marvellous job in other areas of programming, but their skewed interpretation of 'balance' (see Peston) has seen them give the leave camp far more credibility than it could ever deserve. "Biased opinion of the EU vote", what a sad, sick joke.
What I just don't understand is how these scammers are allowed to get away with it. Why don't the banks insist that all transactions go to named accounts with verifiable owners and addresses? There should be a full audit trail from start to finish in all transactions. All transactions need to be made reversible. The banking industry really needs to sort itself out.
There is new system coming in next year for the majority of banks which will warn people if the name of a payee account does not match the account details provided, and in some cases will stop payments going through. I suspect it will be a nightmare to start with, particularly for businesses and the charity sector, but is probably a good idea in the long run.
Reversible transactions would be a terrible idea as it would remove all certainty that a payment had been made and would basically put a stop to anyone accepting bank transfers for anything.
Thanks for your post @Jodaius . I'm glad to hear there's a new system being introduced, let's hope it's a success.
Yeah, fair point on reversible transactions. I'm not saying that customers should be able to unilaterally decide to recall their money, like Top Cat with his coin on a string, but I think in cases of fraud there should be a mechanism for making a recall. My understanding is that at the moment up to £85k is covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The money for this comes from a levy on banks and other financial businesses. But they don't produce that money out of thin air, it is passed down as charges to their customers. In effect, anyone who ever gets interest or bank charges is paying for these scams. I'd prefer that the money could be repatriated from the fraudsters account as easily as they seem to be able to take it.
What I just don't understand is how these scammers are allowed to get away with it. Why don't the banks insist that all transactions go to named accounts with verifiable owners and addresses? There should be a full audit trail from start to finish in all transactions. All transactions need to be made reversible. The banking industry really needs to sort itself out.
There is new system coming in next year for the majority of banks which will warn people if the name of a payee account does not match the account details provided, and in some cases will stop payments going through. I suspect it will be a nightmare to start with, particularly for businesses and the charity sector, but is probably a good idea in the long run.
Reversible transactions would be a terrible idea as it would remove all certainty that a payment had been made and would basically put a stop to anyone accepting bank transfers for anything.
Thanks for your post @Jodaius . I'm glad to hear there's a new system being introduced, let's hope it's a success.
Yeah, fair point on reversible transactions. I'm not saying that customers should be able to unilaterally decide to recall their money, like Top Cat with his coin on a string, but I think in cases of fraud there should be a mechanism for making a recall. My understanding is that at the moment up to £85k is covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The money for this comes from a levy on banks and other financial businesses. But they don't produce that money out of thin air, it is passed down as charges to their customers. In effect, anyone who ever gets interest or bank charges is paying for these scams. I'd prefer that the money could be repatriated from the fraudsters account as easily as they seem to be able to take it.
I assume the money is moved the second it hits their account.
Out of the country, pretty damn fast, I'd imagine.
Let's assume I'm the scammer, I can have the money in China within minutes, at which point I can send it to any number of (non-registered) phones, via a popular app here and then Western Union it anywhere in the world.
Sometimes technology can be great, but it certainly has it's disadvantages.
In my view, three quid a week isn't too expensive. Especially when shared by everyone in my household. And when it goes to fund a pretty good mix of content. Including
BBC 1, 2, 3 and 4 Radio 1, 1 Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5 Live, 5 Live Sports Extra and 6 Local radio BBC News output BBC Parliament The World Service Attenborough, Brent, Comic Relief, Doctor Who, EastEnders, Fawlty Towers, Gunpowder, Hancock, iPlayer, Jonathan Pie, Knowing Me Knowing You, League of Gentlemen, Match of the Day, Newsround, One Foot in the Grave, Parkinson, QI, Royle Family, Salamander, This Life, Upstairs Downstairs, Vicar of Dibley, Wallace and Gromit, X-Ray, Young Ones and Z-Cars.
If there's a better way to fund such an enormous, pervasive and important mix of programming, that expands on the UK's influence worldwide and sets out a balanced, impartial perspective on every aspect of British life in every domestic language (and does so without the malignancy of advertising or sponsorship), then we should adopt it. But the truth is, there simply isn't.
(And a word to anyone considering chucking stones at a behemoth of British culture: make sure you've fully surveyed your greenhouse first)
It might be 'good value' but so is netflix and we are not legally obliged to fund that. It is a tax - end of.
I've recieved an email stating im due a refund of £46. I pay by direct debit each month, so can't see why I'd be due a refund. A link asks for bank dets, name and date of birth. I'm thinking dodgy. Has anyone else received this?
Yeh phishing scam. They are doing a lot pretending to be from TV licence. I got one telling me they were going to "cancel" my licence if I didn't contact them immediately. I don't have a licence.
What I just don't understand is how these scammers are allowed to get away with it. Why don't the banks insist that all transactions go to named accounts with verifiable owners and addresses? There should be a full audit trail from start to finish in all transactions. All transactions need to be made reversible. The banking industry really needs to sort itself out.
There is new system coming in next year for the majority of banks which will warn people if the name of a payee account does not match the account details provided, and in some cases will stop payments going through. I suspect it will be a nightmare to start with, particularly for businesses and the charity sector, but is probably a good idea in the long run.
Reversible transactions would be a terrible idea as it would remove all certainty that a payment had been made and would basically put a stop to anyone accepting bank transfers for anything.
Thanks for your post @Jodaius . I'm glad to hear there's a new system being introduced, let's hope it's a success.
Yeah, fair point on reversible transactions. I'm not saying that customers should be able to unilaterally decide to recall their money, like Top Cat with his coin on a string, but I think in cases of fraud there should be a mechanism for making a recall. My understanding is that at the moment up to £85k is covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The money for this comes from a levy on banks and other financial businesses. But they don't produce that money out of thin air, it is passed down as charges to their customers. In effect, anyone who ever gets interest or bank charges is paying for these scams. I'd prefer that the money could be repatriated from the fraudsters account as easily as they seem to be able to take it.
FSCS is for covering losses to clients of banks and despositaries that go bust.
Generally if a client loses money through the fault of a bank then they need to go through the Financial Ombudsman Service (after clearing the bank's own complaints team's procedure and if they are dissatisfied with the resolution of the complaint). As long as banks have reasonable protections (and as you and others have pointed out, what consumers consider reasonable and what the industry consider reasonable are two quite different things) then generally the FOS will not rule against the bank, there will need to be some clear breach of security policy for the bank to be at fault.
As for a money clawback scheme, yes this would seem to be a bad idea for the reasons highlighted above. There are certain protections available (such as credit card law and the direct debit guarantee) but debit card and BACS transfers lack such protections.
eBay has a policy with PayPal where a seller cannot withdraw funds from sales for a certain length of time after the sale takes place to allow the buyer to lodge a refund request if the goods do not match the description. This is annoying for sellers but gives buyers a degree of protection. You'd wonder if banks could employ the same procedure, although it would require buy in from all banks and wouldn't cover international payments, although I would in no normal circumstances pay anyone from my bank account to an overseas account.
Let's not turn this into a Brexit thread, there's an entire new section of the forum for that.
Fair dos, but there's an entire thread for joke posts as well.
Pull your head out of your arse. It was an opinion, you have yours and I gave mine. Don't try and take the piss. Simply disagreeing with reason would suffice.
In my view, three quid a week isn't too expensive. Especially when shared by everyone in my household. And when it goes to fund a pretty good mix of content. Including
BBC 1, 2, 3 and 4 Radio 1, 1 Xtra, 2, 3, 4, 5 Live, 5 Live Sports Extra and 6 Local radio BBC News output BBC Parliament The World Service Attenborough, Brent, Comic Relief, Doctor Who, EastEnders, Fawlty Towers, Gunpowder, Hancock, iPlayer, Jonathan Pie, Knowing Me Knowing You, League of Gentlemen, Match of the Day, Newsround, One Foot in the Grave, Parkinson, QI, Royle Family, Salamander, This Life, Upstairs Downstairs, Vicar of Dibley, Wallace and Gromit, X-Ray, Young Ones and Z-Cars.
If there's a better way to fund such an enormous, pervasive and important mix of programming, that expands on the UK's influence worldwide and sets out a balanced, impartial perspective on every aspect of British life in every domestic language (and does so without the malignancy of advertising or sponsorship), then we should adopt it. But the truth is, there simply isn't.
(And a word to anyone considering chucking stones at a behemoth of British culture: make sure you've fully surveyed your greenhouse first)
It might be 'good value' but so is netflix and we are not legally obliged to fund that. It is a tax - end of.
You're not obliged to fund The BBC, no one makes you watch live TV.
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
My take on why we fund the BBC is to preserve an independent broadcaster. While it comes under pressure from political entities it does a fair job of negotiating the difficulties in my opinion - I appreciate we all perceive bias against our particular allegiances. It is free from the kind of gross manipulation that we have in other forms of the media - just look at the influence a particular small cohort of people wield in the print news. The other channels are kept honest despite being funded by commercial agencies by the existence of the BBC.
I appreciate that this position will probably attract accusations of naivety or "liberal bias", but while not being perfect I do think it works.
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
Bang on.
Don't pay it and remove the rights of implied access of the BBC, and of any scumbag agencies they use to try and scare and bully you, to your property. They'll send you threatening letters, people will knock on your door to try the old intimidation tactics but without their rights of implied access, and your permission to enter your property, there's nothing they can do.
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
You're paying to watch live tv, not just the BBC, otherwise, it'd be called a BBC license.
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
My take on why we fund the BBC is to preserve an independent broadcaster. While it comes under pressure from political entities it does a fair job of negotiating the difficulties in my opinion - I appreciate we all perceive bias against our particular allegiances. It is free from the kind of gross manipulation that we have in other forms of the media - just look at the influence a particular small cohort of people wield in the print news. The other channels are kept honest despite being funded by commercial agencies by the existence of the BBC.
I appreciate that this position will probably attract accusations of naivety or "liberal bias", but while not being perfect I do think it works.
Oh, and David Attenborough.
Have you ever watched ITV's News at Ten and thought 'Hang on a minute, I am sure their editorial piece on Indigenous protests in Rwanda has been influenced by CompareThe Market.com '
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
My take on why we fund the BBC is to preserve an independent broadcaster. While it comes under pressure from political entities it does a fair job of negotiating the difficulties in my opinion - I appreciate we all perceive bias against our particular allegiances. It is free from the kind of gross manipulation that we have in other forms of the media - just look at the influence a particular small cohort of people wield in the print news. The other channels are kept honest despite being funded by commercial agencies by the existence of the BBC.
I appreciate that this position will probably attract accusations of naivety or "liberal bias", but while not being perfect I do think it works.
Oh, and David Attenborough.
Have you ever watched ITV's News at Ten and thought 'Hang on a minute, I am sure their editorial piece on Indigenous protests in Rwanda has been influenced by CompareThe Market.com '
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
My take on why we fund the BBC is to preserve an independent broadcaster. While it comes under pressure from political entities it does a fair job of negotiating the difficulties in my opinion - I appreciate we all perceive bias against our particular allegiances. It is free from the kind of gross manipulation that we have in other forms of the media - just look at the influence a particular small cohort of people wield in the print news. The other channels are kept honest despite being funded by commercial agencies by the existence of the BBC.
I appreciate that this position will probably attract accusations of naivety or "liberal bias", but while not being perfect I do think it works.
Oh, and David Attenborough.
Have you ever watched ITV's News at Ten and thought 'Hang on a minute, I am sure their editorial piece on Indigenous protests in Rwanda has been influenced by CompareThe Market.com '
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
You're paying to watch live tv, not just the BBC, otherwise, it'd be called a BBC license.
To be fair, mate, the BBC doesn't really do live TV other than the indoor bowls and/or BDO darts
1) the constant use of offering two differing opinions, giving them equal weight and calling the debate "balanced", even though invariably one opinion will be from a qualified leader in that particular field and one will be from someone unqualified who is pushing an agenda and who is allowed to say completely false statements unchallenged whilst Marr or Maitlis nod along going "Yes, how interesting, what a good point you are making, I'm certainly not going to challenge you because you are a rich man from a public school who clearly has a vested interest in the field you claim to be an expert in."
2) the BBC board who set the editorial team and agenda are appointed by the government of the day and are currently made up almost entirely of CCHQ and other Tory party PR bods who currently use their influence to give undue weight/emphasis to anti-Corbyn/anti-Labour/pro-Brexit views and spike stories damaging to the agenda. Source: several friends who work at the Beeb, including one who is leaving next year due to the constant spiking of stories that reveal what a clusterfuck the current plan for March is.
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
You're paying to watch live tv, not just the BBC, otherwise, it'd be called a BBC license.
To be fair, mate, the BBC doesn't really do live TV other than the indoor bowls and/or BDO darts
It's a falacy.
I happen to be a big fan of indoor bowls.
*Previous club champion of City of London Bowls Club*
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
You're paying to watch live tv, not just the BBC, otherwise, it'd be called a BBC license.
To be fair, mate, the BBC doesn't really do live TV other than the indoor bowls and/or BDO darts
It's a falacy.
I happen to be a big fan of indoor bowls.
*Previous club champion of City of London Bowls Club*
I don't mind it myself, but not for 150 notes a year.
I may not ever want to watch the BBC yet still have to pay to watch other channels.
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
You're paying to watch live tv, not just the BBC, otherwise, it'd be called a BBC license.
Yeah, I should probably point out I don't actually pay for a TV license and use illegal streams to watch the BBC from China, so I am somewhat of a dirty thievin' hypocrite.
Edit: But I wish the Beeb would offer a way for me to pay and watch legally, as I genuinely love the bbc and think Attenborough alone would be worth my money.
Comments
Everyone's entitled to their opinion and the BBC has made some serious errors of editorial judgement in the last few years IMO but when you look at the overall quality and range of its output, including its internet presence, it still remains great value for money and is the best ambassador for the UK and our creative talent we could hope for.
Yeah, fair point on reversible transactions. I'm not saying that customers should be able to unilaterally decide to recall their money, like Top Cat with his coin on a string, but I think in cases of fraud there should be a mechanism for making a recall. My understanding is that at the moment up to £85k is covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). The money for this comes from a levy on banks and other financial businesses. But they don't produce that money out of thin air, it is passed down as charges to their customers. In effect, anyone who ever gets interest or bank charges is paying for these scams. I'd prefer that the money could be repatriated from the fraudsters account as easily as they seem to be able to take it.
Let's assume I'm the scammer, I can have the money in China within minutes, at which point I can send it to any number of (non-registered) phones, via a popular app here and then Western Union it anywhere in the world.
Sometimes technology can be great, but it certainly has it's disadvantages.
It is a tax - end of.
Generally if a client loses money through the fault of a bank then they need to go through the Financial Ombudsman Service (after clearing the bank's own complaints team's procedure and if they are dissatisfied with the resolution of the complaint). As long as banks have reasonable protections (and as you and others have pointed out, what consumers consider reasonable and what the industry consider reasonable are two quite different things) then generally the FOS will not rule against the bank, there will need to be some clear breach of security policy for the bank to be at fault.
As for a money clawback scheme, yes this would seem to be a bad idea for the reasons highlighted above. There are certain protections available (such as credit card law and the direct debit guarantee) but debit card and BACS transfers lack such protections.
eBay has a policy with PayPal where a seller cannot withdraw funds from sales for a certain length of time after the sale takes place to allow the buyer to lodge a refund request if the goods do not match the description. This is annoying for sellers but gives buyers a degree of protection. You'd wonder if banks could employ the same procedure, although it would require buy in from all banks and wouldn't cover international payments, although I would in no normal circumstances pay anyone from my bank account to an overseas account.
It was an opinion, you have yours and I gave mine.
Don't try and take the piss.
Simply disagreeing with reason would suffice.
It's a license
To me that is a tax - I have yet to come across a compelling argument as to why we must fund the BBC other than ' look at what you get for X pence a day'
I appreciate that this position will probably attract accusations of naivety or "liberal bias", but while not being perfect I do think it works.
Oh, and David Attenborough.
Don't pay it and remove the rights of implied access of the BBC, and of any scumbag agencies they use to try and scare and bully you, to your property. They'll send you threatening letters, people will knock on your door to try the old intimidation tactics but without their rights of implied access, and your permission to enter your property, there's nothing they can do.
You're right, it's nothing but a tax.
Have you ever watched ITV's News at Ten and thought 'Hang on a minute, I am sure their editorial piece on Indigenous protests in Rwanda has been influenced by CompareThe Market.com '
They start off as comical talking stuffed toys, then boom, genocide all around.
It's a falacy.
1) the constant use of offering two differing opinions, giving them equal weight and calling the debate "balanced", even though invariably one opinion will be from a qualified leader in that particular field and one will be from someone unqualified who is pushing an agenda and who is allowed to say completely false statements unchallenged whilst Marr or Maitlis nod along going "Yes, how interesting, what a good point you are making, I'm certainly not going to challenge you because you are a rich man from a public school who clearly has a vested interest in the field you claim to be an expert in."
2) the BBC board who set the editorial team and agenda are appointed by the government of the day and are currently made up almost entirely of CCHQ and other Tory party PR bods who currently use their influence to give undue weight/emphasis to anti-Corbyn/anti-Labour/pro-Brexit views and spike stories damaging to the agenda. Source: several friends who work at the Beeb, including one who is leaving next year due to the constant spiking of stories that reveal what a clusterfuck the current plan for March is.
*Previous club champion of City of London Bowls Club*
Edit: But I wish the Beeb would offer a way for me to pay and watch legally, as I genuinely love the bbc and think Attenborough alone would be worth my money.