BBC licence fee poll.

[mudflaps]

turbobloke said:

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.

Maybe but in reality pay vs not pay is not the choice before us. What I said up-top is still valid, Osbourne is just shifting the burden.

[Ali G]

0000 said:

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/complain/tv-and-radi...

Although that may change.

Thanks!

Thought I had heard something on this - thought it was already in place.

Re Fairhead & HSBC:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11460160/...

Article said:

The chairman of the BBC Trust was told: 'You are either incredibly naive or totally incompetent.'

Sounds perfect!

[Cheese Mechanic]

Ali G said:

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.

OFCOM currently has no sway over the BBC , its (OFCOM's role) being taken up by the BBC trust.

However, there has been recent talk of the BBC trust being scrapped , and the BBC coming under the umbrella of OFCOM.

Sounds good to me.

[Ali G]

Cheese Mechanic said:

However, there has been recent talk of the BBC trust being scrapped , and the BBC coming under the umbrella of OFCOM.

Sounds good to me.

+1

[RobinBanks]

I pay in order to watch television (so I pay reluctantly).

However I think the last time I watched anything on a BBC channel was the final Top Gear and the last time before that was the Top Gear before. The BBC doesn't have anything that I really like.

[McTory]

And read between the lines in todays announcement and you realize that you will be paying to watch youtube

More socialism from the so called tory party

[Ali G]

RobinBanks said:

I pay in order to watch television (so I pay reluctantly).

However I think the last time I watched anything on a BBC channel was the final Top Gear and the last time before that was the Top Gear before. The BBC doesn't have anything that I really like.

And you should not be coerced into paying for things you are never going to use.

(This may not be entirely true....)

But, for services which you request 'voluntarily' you should not be coerced to pay for, unless you have already entered into a contract for provision of such services (and which services are then required to be provided under said contract) and those services are consistent with the contract to which have been entered into. 'Coercion' to purchase 'contract' which are inconsistent with 'terms of contract' or for which terms of contract 'cannot be met' may be considered to be 'invalid'

c.f 'PPI'

If contract says 'inbiased' on the lid - and that is what is specified in the contract signed - then product purchased is required to be 'unbiased' - or contract is void.

Allegedly

[lbc]

Given the choice I would not pay for the BBC as I rarely watch any of their programs.

I don't like their robotic presenters and censorship.

ITV is more in line with my lifestyle.

[Gandahar]

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.

Problem I doubt it is £650m. At £150 per pop that would mean that 4 million people over 75 would be paying for the licence. There might be 4 million over 75 but I doubt they all live alone watching the tv. A lot will be married together, living with family or in a home.

This seems like an easily got figure by multiplying number of folk by the cost of the licence.

So it's probably baloney. Probably a lot less.

The BBC should be able to charge for online services, or run advertising on it. I watch little tv but watch sport on the computer. I also listen to sport on the radio, cricket for instance. If they provide a good service they should get paid for it no matter how the delivery mechanism.

At the moment it is just encouraging people to cheat the system.

They should do it like Sky. You pay for a package then can watch it how you want, none of this "I ain't got a tv" then watch it all on the computer etc. On the other hand you shouldn't have to buy a licence.

Edited by Gandahar on Monday 6th July 20:20

[Gandahar]

lbc said:

Given the choice I would not pay for the BBC as I rarely watch any of their programs.

I don't like their robotic presenters and censorship.

ITV is more in line with my lifestyle.

You really are a sad ct then unless you have your tongue firmly in cheek lol

[Einion Yrth]

Gandahar said:

lbc said:

Given the choice I would not pay for the BBC as I rarely watch any of their programs.

I don't like their robotic presenters and censorship.

ITV is more in line with my lifestyle.

You really are a sad ct then unless you have your tongue firmly in cheek lol

I think he must be lying; there's only one spelling mistake, the grammar's O.k. and the punctuation is adequate. Nah, can't be an habitual ITV viewer.

[bexVN]

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

[turbobloke]

bexVN said:

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

Fine and fair enough, but why should others who aren't remotely interested in that or any other BBC output subsidise your enjoyment?

Pay to watch, allow others not to pay for not watching (or listening).

[bexVN]

turbobloke said:

bexVN said:

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

Fine and fair enough, but why should others who aren't remotely interested in that or any other BBC output subsidise your enjoyment?

Pay to watch, allow others not to pay for not watching (or listening).

Did I say they should?

I get the impression those that feel as strongly as you point out don't pay anyway because there are other ways to obtain your viewing these days.

[0000]

Given the DWP fund 4 million licences, I suspect he does pay.

[chris watton]

bexVN said:

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

IIRC (and admittedly, my memory is a little hazy a decade on), But I do seem to remember that immediately after the terrorist attack (in the name of Islam?), the BBC 'carpet bombed' its viewers with programmes telling us how great and peaceful Islam is - everything from the Muslim's perspective. I thought it quite sickening at the time.

Also, immediately after the 9/11 atrocity, the first BBC QT was very anti American, with some panellists actually alluding to the US deserving what it got, to claps and cheers from the (hand picked?) audience.

[turbobloke]

bexVN said:

turbobloke said:

bexVN said:

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

Fine and fair enough, but why should others who aren't remotely interested in that or any other BBC output subsidise your enjoyment?

Pay to watch, allow others not to pay for not watching (or listening).

Did I say they should?

No, that's why I was asking a question rather than accusing you of anything.

The question remains as to why anyone should pay for something they don't watch or listen to purely because they and/or their family members want to watch live broadcasts on other channels.

[bexVN]

turbobloke said:

bexVN said:

turbobloke said:

bexVN said:

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

Fine and fair enough, but why should others who aren't remotely interested in that or any other BBC output subsidise your enjoyment?

Pay to watch, allow others not to pay for not watching (or listening).

Did I say they should?

No, that's why I was asking a question rather than accusing you of anything.

The question remains as to why anyone should pay for something they don't watch or listen to purely because they and/or their family members want to watch live broadcasts on other channels.

I was just stating why I am ok with paying for it and I am not going to be made to feel bad about others paying for 'my' enjoyment, I don't see it like that. If they feel that strongly they will find a way to not pay it. Maybe the powers that be will listen to these people and why they shouldn't pay and the rules will change, fair enough but until then I will continue to watch the BBC channels and continue to pay my licence .

Edited by bexVN on Tuesday 7th July 11:52

[turbobloke]

bexVN said:

turbobloke said:

bexVN said:

turbobloke said:

bexVN said:

BBC are covering the 10th anniversary of the London bombings. Now I strongly feel that the BBC outshines its counterparts with their coverage of these sort of events (remembrance day being the obvious one to recall). This is one of the reasons why I do not begrudge the license fee.

Fine and fair enough, but why should others who aren't remotely interested in that or any other BBC output subsidise your enjoyment?

Pay to watch, allow others not to pay for not watching (or listening).

Did I say they should?

No, that's why I was asking a question rather than accusing you of anything.

The question remains as to why anyone should pay for something they don't watch or listen to purely because they and/or their family members want to watch live broadcasts on other channels.

No idea, and not one I can going to concern myself with tbh, I have other things more important to me to worry/ think about.

No idea? Really? OK if you say so.

It's not a worry to me either.

Indicating the many shortcomings and failures in and around the BBC doesn't signify worry.

[bexVN]

I've just edited my reply because I misread what you had written so answered incorrectly. That's what happens when you are rushing (due to the 7 moth old baby!!)