BBC licence fee poll.

[0000]

Bradgate said:

...and the BBC would continue to be impartial and unbiased.

[oyster]

stuart313 said:

Quhet said:

I think the BBC on the whole is excellent and I'm happy to pay

Thats great but you can get all the BBC stuff on iplayer without having to pay the licence fee. Its just a voluntary contribution by yourself.

Presumably you're ok with health tourists eh? I've seen your views on immigration, so you should be comfortable on this one.

[Cheese Mechanic]

Bradgate said:

and the BBC would continue to be impartial and unbiased.

Would be fine if it were true.

Its senior executives admit its leftward bias : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/...

Even some small fry called a director general fesses up. http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/le... :

Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Friday 3rd July 11:14

[rohrl]

The BBC frustrates me sometimes but overall I think that for £140 a year it's a bargain.

The current fuss about what they ought to call ISIS is ridiculous in the extreme. David Cameron himself call them ISIL. Guess what the first two letters of ISIL stand for.

[AJS-]

It's actually a bit tragic seeing people call the BBC unbiased.

It reminds me a bit of the rather moving German film Goodbye Lenin where an East German family conspire to hide the fall of the Berlin Wall from their bed ridden mother for fear the news would upset her radically socialist ideals and finish her off.

I won't ruin the rather clever ending for anyone who hasn't seen it but the level of denial and the refusal to see what is so obvious because you don't want to are portrayed very well.

[Magog]

rohrl said:

The BBC frustrates me sometimes but overall I think that for £140 a year it's a bargain.

The current fuss about what they ought to call ISIS is ridiculous in the extreme. David Cameron himself call them ISIL. Guess what the first two letters of ISIL stand for.

Cameron doesn't want to call them ISIS because it besmirches the good name of the river that flows through the city of his alma mater, of which he no doubt has fond memories.

[Ali G]

I pay willingly.

Had SKY - cancelled because it was ste (and hugely expensive)

And the effect that SKY funding has had on Premier League football has been an utter disaster - with the consequence that certain feckless tards now demand salaries > £100k per week for being able to piss in a urinal standing up.

Of course - BBC could be improved by binning Eastenders - a vehicle apparently designed for:

(1) Political engineering
(2) Accelerating the demise of those with a self-harming wrist slashing tendency

For Radio 3, 4 and 5 Live - and certain BBC1, 2 programs - happy to pay!

[Wills2]

I don't like the left leaning that many of the presenters have especially on the news/current affairs BUT I do not want it replaced by SKY.

Plus they cannot please all of the people all of the time.

[technodup]

zarjaz1991 said:

Be careful what you wish for.

I speak from the future I wished for. It's great.

I can choose to watch/buy from Netflix, Amazon or others, ITV, C4, C5 are free online, I can get world news from Vice or local from STV, sports on Sky if I want and Youtube for anything else.

Dipping in and out of Netflix month by month means I've paid about £40 for TV in the last 4 years. What exactly have I missed out on? Labour party propaganda?

[GrumpyTwig]

tangerine_sedge said:

GrumpyTwig said:

If you don't like "crap American stuff" you can choose not to watch it, whereas with terrestrial BBC/TV broadcasts you're stuck with whatever programming suits their agenda.

Or alternatively, you can choose not to watch it?

Already doing so if you read the thread.

[Ali G]

technodup said:

speak from the future I wished for. It's great.

I can choose to watch/buy from Netflix, Amazon or others, ITV, C4, C5 are free online, I can get world news from Vice or local from STV, sports on Sky if I want and Youtube for anything else.

Dipping in and out of Netflix month by month means I've paid about £40 for TV in the last 4 years. What exactly have I missed out on? Labour party propaganda?

You choose from the selection of goodies provided.

'Goodies' funded by adverts.

Comprenez vous?

BBC is far from perfect - and in fact rather flawed (as are most ageing institutions..) - with a clique in charge which begats a culture of nepotism and all that that entails (presumably Attenborough must have produced such a program to educate in these matters. NOT)

[Munter]

Wills2 said:

I don't like the left leaning that many of the presenters have especially on the news/current affairs BUT I do not want it replaced by SKY.

Plus they cannot please all of the people all of the time.

The amusing thing there is the Left Wing were very upset about the right wing bias they felt the BBC had had during the election.
And the right wing were upset about the left wing bias. So they are probably getting it about right. But people focus more on what annoys them than the bits that they feel are "obvious".

[Wills2]

Munter said:

Wills2 said:

I don't like the left leaning that many of the presenters have especially on the news/current affairs BUT I do not want it replaced by SKY.

Plus they cannot please all of the people all of the time.

The amusing thing there is the Left Wing were very upset about the right wing bias they felt the BBC had had during the election.
And the right wing were upset about the left wing bias. So they are probably getting it about right. But people focus more on what annoys them than the bits that they feel are "obvious".

Indeed although on election night the left had plenty to be upset about, I was pleased and in a good mood but the feelings of the presenters were etched across their faces. I thought Huw was going to cry, I swear I saw his bottom lip start to tremble at one point.

[otolith]

rohrl said:

The BBC frustrates me sometimes but overall I think that for £140 a year it's a bargain.

If it's good value, it should have no trouble competing as a subscription service. Things which are good value have no problem getting people to pay for them willingly.

[dandarez]

There is nothing wrong with the BBC.

It's like Greenpeace, the RSPB, the RSPCA et al, the list is endless.

There were all good in their time, then something happened ...all were slowly infiltrated by people with agendas that have nothing to do with the institutions themselves.

Sad. But that simple.

Regards the fee, it's probably in relation to wages not much different to the late 60s. And there are perks if you reach 75 you can have it free. They are so generous. Bloody hell, if you are one of the (400,000?) registered blind you can apply for a 50% reduction in the fee. Whoopie!
Yeah, nothing wrong with the Beeb. Just the prats who run it.

[AJS-]

Munter said:

The amusing thing there is the Left Wing were very upset about the right wing bias they felt the BBC had had during the election.
And the right wing were upset about the left wing bias. So they are probably getting it about right. But people focus more on what annoys them than the bits that they feel are "obvious".

Except that isn't true. Yes a few people have complained of right wing bias but it hardly compares with the steady stream of very clear examples and admissions of left wingery

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_B...

FWIW I don't think it's an overt or conscious party political bias, as simple as Labour good Tory bad. Rather it's a culture built up over nearly 100 years, as all organisations do.

It hires the same type of people from the same sources and it is dependent on it's charter being renewed by the government of the day, so has a natural inclination towards the main parties. Both of whom I would consider left wing in this sense.

[Ali G]

dandarez said:

There is was nothing wrong with the BBC.

It's like Greenpeace, the RSPB, the RSPCA et al, the list is endless.

There were all good in their time, then something happened ...all were slowly infiltrated by people with agendas that have nothing to do with the institutions themselves.

Sad. But that simple.

Regards the fee, it's probably in relation to wages not much different to the late 60s. And there are perks if you reach 75 you can have it free. They are so generous. Bloody hell, if you are one of the (400,000?) registered blind you can apply for a 50% reduction in the fee. Whoopie!
Yeah, nothing wrong with the Beeb. Just the prats who run it.

Apologies for my amendment - and I agree.

[AJS-]

Munter said:

The amusing thing there is the Left Wing were very upset about the right wing bias they felt the BBC had had during the election.
And the right wing were upset about the left wing bias. So they are probably getting it about right. But people focus more on what annoys them than the bits that they feel are "obvious".

Except that isn't true. Yes a few people have complained of right wing bias but it hardly compares with the steady stream of very clear examples and admissions of left wingery

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_B...

FWIW I don't think it's an overt or conscious party political bias, as simple as Labour good Tory bad. Rather it's a culture built up over nearly 100 years, as all organisations do.

It hires the same type of people from the same sources and it is dependent on it's charter being renewed by the government of the day, so has a natural inclination towards the main parties. Both of whom I would consider left wing in this sense.

[qube_TA]

I pay it but if it was optional then I'd stop.

There are programmes on it (Mainly BBC4) that I enjoy from time to time, but it's rare to find something interesting. it's not that the BBC is poor at providing content it's just British TV in general seems to have lost its way.

I think though however that if the license goes away and the BBC is just another on-line service type of thing then whilst we'd all (mostly) feel satisfied that it's gone long term we'd miss it.

[Funk]

AJS- said:

I don't live in the UK now so don't need to, but I absolutely refuse to pay it and never have paid it in my life. Never will.


Also point out for anyone who is interested:

You do not need to let "TV licence inspectors" into your house, they need a warrant. They never get these warrants.

They do not have "detector vans" which can tell when you are watching TV. They have bullies and chances who will try and force or trick or threaten their way in. That is why they prey on foreign students, the elderly and the poor.

Your post is partly right, partly not.

You're 100% correct in that you are under no obligation to speak to the TV Licensing people (think of them as door-to-door salespeople after commission, for that's what they are). The recommended approach is to not even speak to them. If you open the door and they say who they are, close the door on them. Don't even tell them your name. A policy of absolute silence is the best way because....


...they DO get warrants. Normally the warrants are issued because someone has said something to them that gives them just enough to think they've got something and they have a 'tame magistrate' who's sympathetic and thinks that someone without a licence MUST be breaking the law (which is categorically NOT the case 99 times out of 100). It's also been proven that TVL have lied to get warrants, falsifying their TVL178 form etc. When they get a warrant, they'll also often indulge in high-pressure tactics to get people to plead guilty in court, too. It's a disgusting situation.

Even worse, there are videos on Youtube where people have filmed a warrant being executed at their home and done everything 100% by the book. You're not obliged to identify yourself to the executor of the warrant, however you MUST allow them in. You're under no obligation to say anything, nor to assist them with their investigation. You can stay quiet and say and do nothing (they even tell you that when they 'caution' you!) - however TVL have then threatened the person with 'obstructing the warrant' when they've found no evidence of wrong-doing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QnFwLqCQ24

You're also right about the 'detector' vans (they're empty - and basing a court case on 'detector evidence' has never happened as they would be forced in court to reveal how it works - at which point they'd have to admit it's all a con trick) and I agree they also target women, single parents and foreigners as they're typically easier to bully.

What doesn't help is that some of those who choose not to pay the licence also subscribe to the whole 'Freeman on the Land' guff and they're the ones who don't do the rest of us any favours. Some people also choose to issue a 'withdrawal of implied right of access' (WOIRA) which, in theory, should prevent TVL from setting foot on your property. In most cases, they ignore it anyway and all it does is put you on their radar.

100% silence and zero response to their threatograms is the only way to ensure you have no problem with them. Say nothing, sign nothing.

I've been legally licence-free for about 4 years now and don't miss having live TV in the slightest. I will never have it again either and would not miss the BBC if it were turned off tomorrow. The only things I used to watch were Top Gear and occasionally PMQs on iPlayer but both of those I can do without.

Some fantastic advice can be found at http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/

Edited by Funk on Friday 3rd July 14:25