Stu - in 2006 the ONS reclassified the TV Licence as a tax and for all intents and purposes it is classed as a tax by the government just like vehicle excise duty.
Pretty sure the licence fee is collected by Capita. In my view it is a tax, which is why the government use money from it to fund things like Channel 4 and subsidise local newspapers and punish the Beeb for not being sufficiently pro-Tory.
I'm not a fan of the supposed neutrality either. It's not surprising that many people think the BBC is some dangerous left wing conspiracy because they don't show the Black and White Minstrel Show anymore, but that's clearly defensible: we have laws against discrimination. What irks me is the pretend balance on things like climate - we've got a scientist on to talk about how bad things are, let's get Nigel Lawson or some other clueless right winger on to tell us science is wrong on this because "balance". They never extend this to inviting on a contrary opinion on everything else. The Flat Earth Society don't turn up on a panel discussion about round the world sailing to say it's impossible, the balance is spurious and only enforced when the rich and powerful insist on it. And if they insisted on it, I suspect we'd see the Return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.
Pretty sure it was the BBC that edited footage of the miners strike to make it look like the miners attacked the police rather than the other way round.
I get frustrated with the way the BBC wastes licence payer's money. BBC South East News often send out reporters to stand in the pouring rain just because there is some tenuous link to the place they are reporting from. They could report from the studio just as easily. The late evening broadcast is particularly bad for doing this, as it is often so dark you can't see where they are.
In my view the licence fee is an absolute bargain, if only because of the lack of adverts, which does not happen (I believe) if you have SKY, but netflicks seems to be advertisement free. To use a cliche, Killing Eve was worth the licence fee on it's own, as @Chizz writes above, you get a hell of a lot for your £3 a week, and in my opinion the BBC is an institution that softens the harsh reality of living in this increasingly alienating country.
In my view the licence fee is an absolute bargain, if only because of the lack of adverts, which does not happen (I believe) if you have SKY, but netflicks seems to be advertisement free. To use a cliche, Killing Eve was worth the licence fee on it's own, as @Chizz writes above, you get a hell of a lot for your £3 a week, and in my opinion the BBC is an institution that softens the harsh reality of living in this increasingly alienating country.
There's absolutely no reason for anyone to watch adverts anymore, on any channel. If you're smart that is.
The BBC can always continue to be this fluffy institution that doesn't alienate anyone. It just doesn't need to try and hold the public responsible for its funding.
As with every news organisation, there's bias in every story ('news item', just so we don't go down that unnecessary rabbit hole again) it covers. It's no different to any other corporation in that respect. It just boils down to whether or not their style and reporting bias dovetails with your particular fancy.
So if I put ITV on the telly I am too stupid to avoid the adverts because I don't know how to close my eyes and put my fingers in my ears? Even if I figure that out, the adverts come on and break the flow of whatever is being broadcast.
So if I put ITV on the telly I am too stupid to avoid the adverts because I don't know how to close my eyes and put my fingers in my ears? Even if I figure that out, the adverts come on and break the flow of whatever is being broadcast.
Record programmes or pause them for 5 minutes before a programme starts....there's options to avoid them. That's all I'm saying.
Not being smart in that respect doesn't equal stupidity. It just means you're not smart when it comes to organising the television you want to watch.
I don't sit in front of the TV much unless it something I really want to watch or have recorded. If the former then I'll pause the TV for as long as is necessary to ensure I watch no adverts. If recording then you have the same option to fast forward through them in about 10 seconds. A reasonable compromise by anyone's standards.
'Reasonable'...'By anyone's standards.' Love that use of language. Could you throw in 'obviously' and 'just' for good measure?
I absolutely and unequivocally could. In fact, it's undeniable that I could.
Is there something wrong with my over emotive language? I thought it was all the rage when making a point. Dress it up in language designed to make it seem as though nobody can challenge it.
It's obviously a method that is completely flawless and without fault or a hole to be found in it
always 10 minutes late so can fast forward thru adverts.
Surely if the programme is an hour long you will be live at some point then
Only a maximum of 2 minutes and that is if they dont have break after the programme ends and new one starts (if starting on the hour) as In any one clock hour there must be no more than 12 minutes of advertising spots.
In my view the licence fee is an absolute bargain, if only because of the lack of adverts, which does not happen (I believe) if you have SKY, but netflicks seems to be advertisement free. To use a cliche, Killing Eve was worth the licence fee on it's own, as @Chizz writes above, you get a hell of a lot for your £3 a week, and in my opinion the BBC is an institution that softens the harsh reality of living in this increasingly alienating country.
Advertisements are less problematic, to me, than other forms of product placement and sponsorship, which are unavoidable.
Watch a Bond movie on ITV and you can easily skip through the ads in the breaks. But it's a whole lot harder to avoid the paid-for reverences to spirits, watches, cars...
When the editorial independence of a broadcast is compromised by filthy lucre, you have a much poorer editorial product. And, because it's both pervasive and invasive, unless you have the "clean" option (like the BBC) you don't even notice it.
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.
Since Netflix receives an income tax credit from HMRC of £177,000 as an incentive to produce UK-based films and tv shows, and since Netflix is under detailed scrutiny for paying significantly less tax in the UK than it should on revenues of £863m, it would appear that each of us IS obliged to fund Netflix, in a way in which we are not required to fund the BBC.
Whether you pay a subscription to Netflix or not, you're helping to fund it. And there's nothing, it appears, that you can do about it.
Pretty sure the licence fee is collected by Capita. In my view it is a tax, which is why the government use money from it to fund things like Channel 4 and subsidise local newspapers and punish the Beeb for not being sufficiently pro-Tory.
I'm not a fan of the supposed neutrality either. It's not surprising that many people think the BBC is some dangerous left wing conspiracy because they don't show the Black and White Minstrel Show anymore, but that's clearly defensible: we have laws against discrimination. What irks me is the pretend balance on things like climate - we've got a scientist on to talk about how bad things are, let's get Nigel Lawson or some other clueless right winger on to tell us science is wrong on this because "balance". They never extend this to inviting on a contrary opinion on everything else. The Flat Earth Society don't turn up on a panel discussion about round the world sailing to say it's impossible, the balance is spurious and only enforced when the rich and powerful insist on it. And if they insisted on it, I suspect we'd see the Return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.
Pretty sure it was the BBC that edited footage of the miners strike to make it look like the miners attacked the police rather than the other way round.
Interesting that you should use climate change and flat earthers as a comparison. There isn't any argument about climate change being 'a thing' - in the same way that there isn't any argument about the Earth being flat. It's a fallacy that every argument needs 'balance' - when there isn't any argument poatulating a specific point of view that holds water, there isn't any way to get anyone credible to argue for it (that's why you get right wing loons and shills for the energy industry talking against climate change - because the only people who will do it are those paid to do so)
Now, if you REALLY want to see bias in the media (including the BBC), try finding anyone willing to put a contrary viewpoint forward on immigration without it being inferred that they're a racist. Despite me, personally, believing that a lot of anti-immigration sentiment is racist, xenophobic and driven by people with a vested interest in pitting working and middle class people against each other, I can't remember the last time I saw a balanced discussion about immigration without one side being represented by a shrieking harridan or pompous middle class twat, and the other a frothing at the mouth 'stop em comin over ere' gammon.
I dont understand why people are complaining that the license fee is tax, of course its a tax. We pay tax whether its on a can of fanta or a stamp. The licence fee is used to fund a tv and radio service which would otherwise be funded by advertising or direct from taxes raised via PAYE / vat etc. At least this way it doesnt have to pander to advertisers looking for their target demographic shows and grabbing the largest common denominator, or alternatively subject to the beheast or influence of any government ie Corbyn. If you are too tight to pay it admit thats the reason, and not some flimsy excuse about taxation.
Yes its all your fault @up_the_valley you have caused anarchy on here.
Now any potential Buyer who will obviously use this site to gage fans opinon(like Chris Wilder did isnt that right Roland) will be instantly put off due to the anarchy.
Roland will never be able to sell now and its all your fault @up_the_valley
@admin think a permanent ban is in order now for lumbering us with Roland forever
I dont understand why people are complaining that the license fee is tax, of course its a tax. We pay tax whether its on a can of fanta or a stamp. The licence fee is used to fund a tv and radio service which would otherwise be funded by advertising or direct from taxes raised via PAYE / vat etc. At least this way it doesnt have to pander to advertisers looking for their target demographic shows and grabbing the largest common denominator, or alternatively subject to the beheast or influence of any government ie Corbyn. If you are too tight to pay it admit thats the reason, and not some flimsy excuse about taxation.
So ITV is subject to the behest of the government or Corbyn ?
What is so wrong with people disagreeing that the license fee is a good thing ?
I dont understand why people are complaining that the license fee is tax, of course its a tax. We pay tax whether its on a can of fanta or a stamp. The licence fee is used to fund a tv and radio service which would otherwise be funded by advertising or direct from taxes raised via PAYE / vat etc. At least this way it doesnt have to pander to advertisers looking for their target demographic shows and grabbing the largest common denominator, or alternatively subject to the beheast or influence of any government ie Corbyn. If you are too tight to pay it admit thats the reason, and not some flimsy excuse about taxation.
So ITV is subject to the behest of the government or Corbyn ?
What is so wrong with people disagreeing that the license fee is a good thing ?
He's just pointing out that there's no such thing as a free lunch. I guess that in biz terms you wouldn't disagree. It's certainly true that the licence fee is not a perfect way of paying of for the BBC, but it has to be paid for somehow. Some remarks here suggest people just don't like the BBC because they saw or heard something there which disturbed their worldview. But they will still all be lapping up Peaky Blinders.
Regarding your ITV point I have the feeling that you might be too young to remember "World in Action"? It was ITV's flagship for documentaries which politicians or businesspeople would rather you did not watch. Ask yourself why World in Action no longer exists and when was the last time you saw something on ITV that fitted the description i just wrote.
I said that it would either be funded from government revenue and subject to political influence OR would be subject to the drive for ratings with advertising friendly programming.
So you dont agree with the license fee tell us what your preferred option would be, I dont think advertising breaks would be at all popular on the BBC, and rates for advertising would also come down across all television, and there would then be less money for quality programming across all TV channels.
What if we all just paid for the things,we as individuals, think worthy of our hard earned? What a society we would then have to live in. Lots of things I don’t like or I have issues with on the BBC but for god sake leave it alone. Spend and evening watching channel 5, ITV or Sky, it’s daytime tv 24 hours a a day repeated on a loop. I have Sky, Netflix, Amazon can stream Google and others from my tv but none come close to what the BBC do and do well.
Nest of self aggrandising pinko's, who hate their own country and do not care who they bore with their over pontification and skewed outlook on the real world...
I have felt the same ever since The Magic Roundabout was cancelled!
Comments
I'm not a fan of the supposed neutrality either. It's not surprising that many people think the BBC is some dangerous left wing conspiracy because they don't show the Black and White Minstrel Show anymore, but that's clearly defensible: we have laws against discrimination. What irks me is the pretend balance on things like climate - we've got a scientist on to talk about how bad things are, let's get Nigel Lawson or some other clueless right winger on to tell us science is wrong on this because "balance". They never extend this to inviting on a contrary opinion on everything else. The Flat Earth Society don't turn up on a panel discussion about round the world sailing to say it's impossible, the balance is spurious and only enforced when the rich and powerful insist on it. And if they insisted on it, I suspect we'd see the Return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.
Pretty sure it was the BBC that edited footage of the miners strike to make it look like the miners attacked the police rather than the other way round.
To use a cliche, Killing Eve was worth the licence fee on it's own, as @Chizz writes above, you get a hell of a lot for your £3 a week, and in my opinion the BBC is an institution that softens the harsh reality of living in this increasingly alienating country.
The BBC can always continue to be this fluffy institution that doesn't alienate anyone. It just doesn't need to try and hold the public responsible for its funding.
As with every news organisation, there's bias in every story ('news item', just so we don't go down that unnecessary rabbit hole again) it covers. It's no different to any other corporation in that respect. It just boils down to whether or not their style and reporting bias dovetails with your particular fancy.
Even if I figure that out, the adverts come on and break the flow of whatever is being broadcast.
Not being smart in that respect doesn't equal stupidity. It just means you're not smart when it comes to organising the television you want to watch.
I don't sit in front of the TV much unless it something I really want to watch or have recorded. If the former then I'll pause the TV for as long as is necessary to ensure I watch no adverts. If recording then you have the same option to fast forward through them in about 10 seconds. A reasonable compromise by anyone's standards.
Love that use of language.
Could you throw in 'obviously' and 'just' for good measure?
always 10 minutes late so can fast forward thru adverts.
Is there something wrong with my over emotive language? I thought it was all the rage when making a point. Dress it up in language designed to make it seem as though nobody can challenge it.
It's obviously a method that is completely flawless and without fault or a hole to be found in it
Watch a Bond movie on ITV and you can easily skip through the ads in the breaks. But it's a whole lot harder to avoid the paid-for reverences to spirits, watches, cars...
When the editorial independence of a broadcast is compromised by filthy lucre, you have a much poorer editorial product. And, because it's both pervasive and invasive, unless you have the "clean" option (like the BBC) you don't even notice it.
Whether you pay a subscription to Netflix or not, you're helping to fund it. And there's nothing, it appears, that you can do about it.
Now, if you REALLY want to see bias in the media (including the BBC), try finding anyone willing to put a contrary viewpoint forward on immigration without it being inferred that they're a racist. Despite me, personally, believing that a lot of anti-immigration sentiment is racist, xenophobic and driven by people with a vested interest in pitting working and middle class people against each other, I can't remember the last time I saw a balanced discussion about immigration without one side being represented by a shrieking harridan or pompous middle class twat, and the other a frothing at the mouth 'stop em comin over ere' gammon.
Now any potential Buyer who will obviously use this site to gage fans opinon(like Chris Wilder did isnt that right Roland) will be instantly put off due to the anarchy.
Roland will never be able to sell now and its all your fault @up_the_valley
@admin think a permanent ban is in order now for lumbering us with Roland forever
What is so wrong with people disagreeing that the license fee is a good thing ?
How much is your Sky subscription per year?
Regarding your ITV point I have the feeling that you might be too young to remember "World in Action"? It was ITV's flagship for documentaries which politicians or businesspeople would rather you did not watch. Ask yourself why World in Action no longer exists and when was the last time you saw something on ITV that fitted the description i just wrote.
I said that it would either be funded from government revenue and subject to political influence OR would be subject to the drive for ratings with advertising friendly programming.
So you dont agree with the license fee tell us what your preferred option would be, I dont think advertising breaks would be at all popular on the BBC, and rates for advertising would also come down across all television, and there would then be less money for quality programming across all TV channels.
I have Sky, Netflix, Amazon can stream Google and others from my tv but none come close to what the BBC do and do well.
I have felt the same ever since The Magic Roundabout was cancelled!