BBC licence fee poll.

[Halb]

McTory said:

So we can sell it

Mayhaps. Out of all of the treasures i the vault, I don't see the Beeb being sold, it'd be like selling the Palace of Westminster.

[AJS-]

Halb said:

Mayhaps. Out of all of the treasures i the vault, I don't see the Beeb being sold, it'd be like selling the Palace of Westminster.

In the sense of it being large, expensive and full of left wing twerps who detest Britain, the British people and every worthwhile thing it has ever stood for, you might be right. I would like to think that the Palace of Westminster at least has been good in the past and could be redeemed.

[MarshPhantom]

Poll is a bit misleading as even if you love The BBC, nobody pays £150 with a big smile on their face.

It should be a choice between I want to keep the BBC or kill it.

[jmorgan]

MarshPhantom said:

Poll is a bit misleading as even if you love The BBC, nobody pays £150 with a big smile on their face.

It should be a choice between I want to keep the BBC or kill it.

I do not mind. I get a lot out of it.

[mygoldfishbowl]

jmorgan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Poll is a bit misleading as even if you love The BBC, nobody pays £150 with a big smile on their face.

It should be a choice between I want to keep the BBC or kill it.

I do not mind. I get a lot out of it.

So do I, money well spent.

[bad company]

mygoldfishbowl said:

So do I, money well spent.

Agree, great value.

[otolith]

jjlynn27 said:

otolith said:

Google the show or channel you are interested in and the phrases "abc1" and "c2de". There's loads of data, though it should be pretty self evident who is watching what.

I did, and what I've found doesn't support your statements, hence asking you for an alternative source. I would be even more grateful if you could provide any source that shows BBC viewers categorized as lefties or righties. Please tell me that you are not equating 'abc1' with right of centre, and c2de to the left.

I have not said anything about BBC viewers being left or right wing. Where on earth are you getting that from. Do you imagine I'm calling you a "lefty" on the basis that you like the BBC? Is that what's giving you gusset torsion?

The kind of content that we are told the BBC can provide because of "the unique way that it is funded" appeals more to ABC1 viewers than to C2DE - that's why the BBC has a larger share of the ABC1 audience's viewing than it has of the C2DE (36.21% of viewing vs 27.4%) link. So when people say that we all need to pay for the BBC so that it can provide "high quality" television which would apparently not be viable on commercial channels, they are saying "we all need to chip in because middle class TV needs subsidising".

So I find it odd that people who consider themselves to be on the left are willing to justify the BBC's regressive funding model on the basis that it subsidises middle class entertainment. I would expect them to argue that it should be funded out of (progressive) general taxation and to be very annoyed at the way that TV licence evasion prosecutions tend to be most prevalent amongst the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and single mothers.

jjlynn27 said:

otolith said:

And that's fine - you won't mind putting your hand in your pocket and paying the actual market rate for producing it then, rather than expecting someone else to pay for it for you.

That would only work if everything is based on PPV model. It's not. For a good reason. You take a time and think of why not everything, on any channel is not based on PPV, but rather than subscription model. I'll make it even easier for you; When you pay your Netflix subscription, you are paying for production of the 'House of Cards' even if you are only paying for Netflix to watch 'Jersey Shore'.

The key difference is choice - if somebody wants to buy their content from a channel which uses the revenue to cross-subsidise other content, that's their call. If they can get the content they want without the subsidy, they should do so. That's how free markets work.

jjlynn27 said:

otolith said:

You don't have to do lots of things, would you be happy being arbitrarily taxed for them?

Eh? If I don't do things that I'm 'arbitrarily taxed for', I'm not taxed for them.

Your argument justifies the imposition of any arbitrary taxation on optional activities on the grounds that you can simply give up that pleasure if you don't want to be taxed on it. It's a ridiculous position.

jjlynn27 said:

What proportion of those left of the centre are supporting and are happy with the way that BBC is funded? Where are you getting this figures from?

I have no idea what the proportion is amongst the general population, though amongst those people I know the views of it's ubiquitous. It's certainly high amongst PH's resident leftist enclave. What difference does that make to the point that it is an odd thing for a left of centre person to support?

[Mojooo]

I would prefer paying say £50 a year and having a cut down service - IMO the BBC is too bloated - the website for exmaple just has far too much content.

[jjlynn27]

otolith said:

The kind of content that we are told the BBC can provide because of "the unique way that it is funded" appeals more to ABC1 viewers than to C2DE - that's why the BBC has a larger share of the ABC1 audience's viewing than it has of the C2DE (36.21% of viewing vs 27.4%) link. So when people say that we all need to pay for the BBC so that it can provide "high quality" television which would apparently not be viable on commercial channels, they are saying "we all need to chip in because middle class TV needs subsidising".

Who are 'we'? Whose views are you representing? Who are those people that say that all need to pay for BBC? If you don't watch live TV you don't have to pay. If you do watch live TV you have to pay license fee. What is confusing you? Some people are happy to pay for license as they think it's a good value for money. You came out with idiotic 'left of centre' bullst as if they are monolithic group when it comes to their view on BBC funding. Do you not see how stupid that is? From the document that you've linked, the figures that you've pulled out shows BBC as a whole. If you look at the figure you'll find that C2DE spend more time watching programmes. For this discussion completely irrelevant.

You seem to have a need to put everything into neat boxes; 'we are told', 'people say we need to pay', 'they are saying'.

otolith said:

So I find it odd that people who consider themselves to be on the left are willing to justify the BBC's regressive funding model on the basis that it subsidises middle class entertainment. I would expect them to argue that it should be funded out of (progressive) general taxation.

You find that odd because, to you, all lefties are the same. In my view, that view is rather idiotic. Don't you worry, quite a few posters share your view. Not the brightest ones, but they are usually quite vocal. And mostly old.

otolith said:

TV licence evasion prosecutions tend to be most prevalent amongst the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and single mothers.

Source. Or is this another quality research conducted among people you know?

otolith said:

The key difference is choice - if somebody wants to buy their content from a channel which uses the revenue to cross-subsidise other content, that's their call. If they can get the content they want without the subsidy, they should do so. That's how free markets work.

otolith said:

You don't have to do lots of things, would you be happy being arbitrarily taxed for them?

otolith said:

Your argument justifies the imposition of any arbitrary taxation on optional activities on the grounds that you can simply give up that pleasure if you don't want to be taxed on it. It's a ridiculous position.

Yes. When I was a smoker, I've paid taxes on that optional activity. Now that I'm not, I don't.

otolith said:

I have no idea what the proportion is amongst the general population, though amongst those people I know the views of it's ubiquitous. It's certainly high amongst PH's resident leftist enclave. What difference does that make to the point that it is an odd thing for a left of centre person to support?

Once again, all lefties are the same mantra. Do you find confusing that some people 'right of centre' think that BBC is good value for money?


ETA : Quotes

Edited by jjlynn27 on Sunday 5th July 20:34

Edited by jjlynn27 on Sunday 5th July 20:35

[turbobloke]

Osborne cutting £650m from the BBC's budget, forcing the biiased broadcasting corporation to pay to propagandise pensioners, is another step in the right direction.

[otolith]

jjlynn27 said:

Who are 'we'? Whose views are you representing? Who are those people that say that all need to pay for BBC? If you don't watch live TV you don't have to pay. If you do watch live TV you have to pay license fee. What is confusing you? Some people are happy to pay for license as they think it's a good value for money.

If people think it's good value, they will pay for it willingly. If you truly believe that, what possible objection do you have to a subscription funding model?

jjlynn27 said:

otolith said:

So I find it odd that people who consider themselves to be on the left are willing to justify the BBC's regressive funding model on the basis that it subsidises middle class entertainment. I would expect them to argue that it should be funded out of (progressive) general taxation.

You find that odd because, to you, all lefties are the same. In my view, that view is rather idiotic. Don't you worry, quite a few posters share your view. Not the brightest ones, but they are usually quite vocal. And mostly old.

Are you seriously arguing that a dislike of regressive taxation is not a core belief of the Left? That free BBC education doesn't seem to be doing you much good, maybe try your local library instead.

jjlynn27 said:

otolith said:

TV licence evasion prosecutions tend to be most prevalent amongst the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and single mothers.

Source. Or is this another quality research conducted among people you know?

It's a very long established reality and has been a concern since at least the mid 90's.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/1995-96/287

It's still raised as a concern;

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2920950/...

I'm surprised that this is news to you, have you been living in a cave?

jjlynn27 said:

otolith said:

The key difference is choice - if somebody wants to buy their content from a channel which uses the revenue to cross-subsidise other content, that's their call. If they can get the content they want without the subsidy, they should do so. That's how free markets work.

Yes. When I was a smoker, I've paid taxes on that optional activity. Now that I'm not, I don't.

I assume you are aware of the reasons for taxing tobacco. It might be a useful exercise for you to think about why receiving commercial TV should be taxed, from first principles. Do let us know your findings.

[MarshPhantom]

mygoldfishbowl said:

jmorgan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Poll is a bit misleading as even if you love The BBC, nobody pays £150 with a big smile on their face.

It should be a choice between I want to keep the BBC or kill it.

I do not mind. I get a lot out of it.

So do I, money well spent.

I agree. I'd rather pay the money than have no BBC.

[turbobloke]

There probably won't have been time for a survey of public opinion on whether the iPlayer charge should be introduced but it would be interesting to see the results of one if and when details are known.

A couple of years ago Tony Hall said that viewers who avoid the licence fee by only watching catch-up shows on iPlayer should be made to pay up. Now it looks as though every user is in the beeb's sights.

[jmorgan]

It looks like they are being forced into this by the raid to pay for free licence and that free licence was set up by the government. Whether or not you hate the BBC it sounds a shonky move to get the 12 billion in cuts sorted.

I will just use my recorder more efficiently.

[turbobloke]

No hate here, it's a rational objection to weak leadership and mismanagement, culpable waste, left-wing political bias and an archaic funding mechanism that should have been reformed years ago.

[mudflaps]

turbobloke said:

Osborne cutting £650m from the BBC's budget, forcing the biiased broadcasting corporation to pay to propagandise pensioners, is another step in the right direction.

This just shifts the burden of the cost away from the rich and onto the not-so-rich no?

When the Government pays then the higher rate taxpayers are effectively paying more towards the pensioners dispensation than are the basic rate taxpayers.

Shift it to the BBC paying the subsidy and everyone bears the same proportional cost through the licence fee.

[chris watton]

mudflaps said:

Shift it to the BBC paying the subsidy and everyone bears the same proportional cost through the licence fee.

They don't if they have no interest in watching/listening to it.

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

mudflaps said:

Shift it to the BBC paying the subsidy and everyone bears the same proportional cost through the licence fee.

They don't if they have no interest in watching/listening to it.

True enough, and there would still be a lack of commercial reality about the whole thing.

Want to watch / listen, pay for it. Don't want to watch / listen, so the ability to do so is removed if needs be, then no payment whatsoever is jusitified.

[Ali G]

If there is 'bais' in the BBC (and there does appear to be some), then is it not OFCOM who police this?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcas...

Ofcom Rule 5.1 said:

Rule 5.1
News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented
with due impartiality.

Presumably, unless Ofcom receive a flood of compliant re bias, they may consider that everything is fine and dandy.

Don't know how proactive they are - although I could hazard a guess.

[0000]

Ali G said:

If there is 'bais' in the BBC (and there does appear to be some), then is it not OFCOM who police this?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcas...

I don't think so.

Ofcom said:

If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy, bias or commercial references (with the exception of the relevant product placement rules: see Section Nine of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code) in BBC programming, please make a complaint directly to the BBC.

The BBC Trust regulates these areas rather than Ofcom.

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/complain/tv-and-radio-complaints/accuracy-or-bias-on-the-bbc/

Although that may change.