BBC licence fee poll.

[technodup]

threespires said:

I'm really happy to pay the license fee and fund the BBC. Superb value.

That's fine. But a growing number of people aren't interested in BBC output but still want to watch other TV.

Why should we pay for you to get superb value?

[chrispmartha]

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

C70R said:

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

15 posts a day, every day, for 15yrs. Half of those about the evil BBC.

Not quite, and it's not about me anyway - but thanks for considering me worthy of your esteemed attention, it's most flattering.

As my former RAF colleagues once said, the closer you are to the target the thicker the flak. so I'm hitting bullseyes obviously with little else beyond infantile personal angles by way of reply.

Max PH time is hardly ever more than 20 mins per day, and most enjoyable it is.

Max BBC time by choice is 0 mins per day, also most enjoyable.

So you spend 20minutes a day on here with a lot of that time moaning about something that takes up 0minutes of your day.

Each to their own and all that but that seems like a futile waste if time to me.

[Hayek]

technodup said:

threespires said:

I'm really happy to pay the license fee and fund the BBC. Superb value.

That's fine. But a growing number of people aren't interested in BBC output but still want to watch other TV.

Why should we pay for you to get superb value?

I'm not happy to pay and only do because others in the house 'must' watch a handful of programmes. I'd like to see the BBC licence fee become optional and tiered so the dross they produce can sink. They only produce one programme I'm interested in, and it's only on once a week for only half the year.

[Cotty]

Funk said:

I'm one of them - no live broadcasts at all for years now. What do you find difficult to believe about it?

Speaking to a friend who has a licence he say the only reason he has it is for football as it is one thing you can't really watch after it happens. Its not like a film that you can watch weeks or months later.

[Funk]

Cotty said:

Funk said:

I'm one of them - no live broadcasts at all for years now. What do you find difficult to believe about it?

Speaking to a friend who has a licence he say the only reason he has it is for football as it is one thing you can't really watch after it happens. Its not like a film that you can watch weeks or months later.

Not sure where my post went... Probably helps that I have zero interest in football.

[C70R]

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

C70R said:

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

15 posts a day, every day, for 15yrs. Half of those about the evil BBC.

Not quite, and it's not about me anyway - but thanks for considering me worthy of your esteemed attention, it's most flattering.

As my former RAF colleagues once said, the closer you are to the target the thicker the flak. so I'm hitting bullseyes obviously with little else beyond infantile personal angles by way of reply.

Max PH time is hardly ever more than 20 mins per day, and most enjoyable it is.

Max BBC time by choice is 0 mins per day, also most enjoyable.

So, you're saying that the more times you're told that you're being excessively confrontational/provocative and unnecessarily argumentative for the sake of it, the 'more right' you are?

That's one way of saying that you lack self-awareness, I suppose...

[Hayek]

[redacted]

[turbobloke]

C70R said:

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

C70R said:

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

15 posts a day, every day, for 15yrs. Half of those about the evil BBC.

Not quite, and it's not about me anyway - but thanks for considering me worthy of your esteemed attention, it's most flattering.

As my former RAF colleagues once said, the closer you are to the target the thicker the flak. so I'm hitting bullseyes obviously with little else beyond infantile personal angles by way of reply.

Max PH time is hardly ever more than 20 mins per day, and most enjoyable it is.

Max BBC time by choice is 0 mins per day, also most enjoyable.

So, you're saying that the more times you're told that you're being excessively confrontational/provocative and unnecessarily argumentative for the sake of it, the 'more right' you are?

That's one way of saying that you lack self-awareness, I suppose...

What you should suppose is that complaints can be vexatious and tactical as per your baseless claim regarding confrontational nature, which is also deeply hypocritical on your part as you supported the debate going off-topic with that personal jibe aimed at me in terms of post count and so on - which is iindeed provocative - but also childish and worthy only of pity and humour, which is what you got.

If you have nothing substantive and on-topic to post, try not posting.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 21st July 11:32

[turbobloke]

[redacted]

[TTwiggy]

turbobloke said:

The BBC should wash its own face and survive on merit not a captive source of largesse.

This seems a popular view (on here at least), but surely it fails to acknowledge that without the licence fee the BBC would have to rely on adverts or some other form of corporate sponsorship? What would happen to their scientific programming (and other niche areas) if ratings were suddenly the main driver? What would a 'Top Gear sponsored by Peugeot' look like?

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

turbobloke said:

The BBC should wash its own face and survive on merit not a captive source of largesse.

This seems a popular view (on here at least), but surely it fails to acknowledge that without the licence fee the BBC would have to rely on adverts or some other form of corporate sponsorship? What would happen to their scientific programming (and other niche areas) if ratings were suddenly the main driver? What would a 'Top Gear sponsored by Peugeot' look like?

There's an alternative, which you appear to have forgotten and omitted, namely subscriptions from those who want to watch and should therefore pay for the BBC's output.

If this income is insufficient to pay for the current menu then the BBC will need to cut its cloth accordingly. There's no absolute need to go for advertising or corporate sponsorship even though Corbyn / Momentum might want to sponsor QT and similar programming, given their penchant for getting their rentagob bums on seats regardless of legitimacy of the method used e.g. the May ambush that never was....it turned into an Amberush and was achieved via audience selection criteria unrelated to reflecting the views of the public at large in favour of replicating the Left-wing domination of the panel.

[TTwiggy]

turbobloke said:

There's an alternative, which you appear to have forgotten and omitted, namely subscriptions from those who want to watch and should therefore pay for the BBC's output.

If this income is insufficient to pay for the current menu then the BBC will need to cut its cloth accordingly. There's no absolute need to go for advertising or corporate sponsorship even though Corbyn / Momentum might want to sponsor QT and similar programming, given their penchant for getting their rentagob bums on seats regardless of legitimacy of the method used e.g. the May ambush that never was....it turned into an Amberush and was achieved via audience selection criteria unrelated to reflecting the views of the public at large in favour of replicating the Left-wing domination of the panel.

Any danger of a proper discourse or do you just want to rant about lefties? You're quick to pick others up on their non-topic ramblings but you don't seem to apply the same standards to yourself.

I was talking about adverts and corporate sponsorship (the subscription model is a non-starter - Sky charge a subscription but still rely on adverts and they produce a fraction of the original programming that the BBC do). I have no interest in your conspiracy theories regarding audience makeup. If you can't stay on topic, maybe you should consider not posting.

[GnuBee]

TTwiggy said:

Any danger of a proper discourse or do you just want to rant about lefties? You're quick to pick others up on their non-topic ramblings but you don't seem to apply the same standards to yourself.

I was talking about adverts and corporate sponsorship (the subscription model is a non-starter - Sky charge a subscription but still rely on adverts and they produce a fraction of the original programming that the BBC do). I have no interest in your conspiracy theories regarding audience makeup. If you can't stay on topic, maybe you should consider not posting.

Surely you realise that the BBC is the new Illuminati? Your hard earned tax is funding a brainwashing organisation more sinister and widespread than Lt. Run Hubbard's well know cult.

Not to forget that for those of us not as dam smart as Mr T.B we're also forming all of our opinions from a hugely biased organisation because we're not clever enough to consider other sources of information

Don't like the fee? Don't pay it - still want to watch live TV - roll the dice. There is a breadth/depth of content that's being created and put out that isn't political or (allegedly biased - hard to argue that Brian Cox discussing the Universe is biased unless you object to his belief the earth is round and not flat). The only niche they don't appear to cover is Extreme Pink Fluff Unicorn Porn...

[C70R]

Cotty said:

C70R said:

iPlayer allows you to download BBC programmes and watch online, and there is (I believe) an iPlayer app on the Xbox too (meaning you could watch live or on catchup if you chose).

If I did that I would need a licence and for the amount I would use it, its not worth it. Cheaper the buy the odd BBC DVD once a year, like Planet Earth 2 £8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Planet-Earth-DVD-David-At...

So, how many times a year would you spend £8 on a DVD?

[C70R]

turbobloke said:

C70R said:

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

C70R said:

I saw this:

turbobloke said:

It's easy not to watch or listen to BBC propaganda ... a reminder why not watching their continually partisan output

Then I saw this:

turbobloke said:

turbobloke
79,854 posts
179 months

Then I realised that debating was probably a waste of time.
Does anyone actually talk like this in the real world? Or is it just for effect on the internet?

15 posts a day, every day, for 15yrs. Half of those about the evil BBC.

Not quite, and it's not about me anyway - but thanks for considering me worthy of your esteemed attention, it's most flattering.

As my former RAF colleagues once said, the closer you are to the target the thicker the flak. so I'm hitting bullseyes obviously with little else beyond infantile personal angles by way of reply.

Max PH time is hardly ever more than 20 mins per day, and most enjoyable it is.

Max BBC time by choice is 0 mins per day, also most enjoyable.

So, you're saying that the more times you're told that you're being excessively confrontational/provocative and unnecessarily argumentative for the sake of it, the 'more right' you are?

That's one way of saying that you lack self-awareness, I suppose...

What you should suppose is that complaints can be vexatious and tactical as per your baseless claim regarding confrontational nature, which is also deeply hypocritical on your part as you supported the debate going off-topic with that personal jibe aimed at me in terms of post count and so on - which is iindeed provocative - but also childish and worthy only of pity and humour, which is what you got.

If you have nothing substantive and on-topic to post, try not posting.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 21st July 11:32

This conversation appears to be dominated by a very small number of very loud voices, who are VERY upset about spending a tenner a month for a shedload of hugely varied advertising-free content.
The vast majority of people in this thread, as out in the real world, have much more reasonable and well-rounded views.

I'll leave you to your embittered 'lefty' ranting about something you neither use nor pay for.
Argumentative? You? Nah...

(Without looking at your post history - because life is too short - I can almost guarantee that you 'rant' regularly in NP&E about anything and everything.)

[Dindoit]

turbobloke said:

The BBC should wash its own face and survive on merit not a captive source of largesse.

PARKLIFE

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

This seems a popular view (on here at least), but surely it fails to acknowledge that without the licence fee the BBC would have to rely on adverts or some other form of corporate sponsorship? What would happen to their scientific programming (and other niche areas)

They'd likely stop. Which won't be much of a problem because by definition hardly anyone watches them.

Why should the masses pay for someone else's special interest? Pay for it yourself.

But in any case special interests are well catered for elsewhere. Youtube is chock full of increasingly well made content on every niche subject anyone's ever thought of. I've seen Vice documentaries better than any BBC offering.

The world is changing, and the BBC is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[TTwiggy]

technodup said:

hey'd likely stop. Which won't be much of a problem because by definition hardly anyone watches them.

Why should the masses pay for someone else's special interest? Pay for it yourself.

But in any case special interests are well catered for elsewhere. Youtube is chock full of increasingly well made content on every niche subject anyone's ever thought of. I've seen Vice documentaries better than any BBC offering.

The world is changing, and the BBC is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Much is made (on these forums at least) of the perceived failure of the BBC to be impartial. What doesn't get so much coverage is the BBC's obligation to provide programming for as wide a range of people and tastes as possible. While many people may want to watch programs about dancing, nature, science and history also have a place. And the BBC does these better than anyone else.

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

While many people may want to watch programs about dancing, nature, science and history also have a place. And the BBC does these better than anyone else.

In your opinion. Many disagree.

[Randy Winkman]

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

While many people may want to watch programs about dancing, nature, science and history also have a place. And the BBC does these better than anyone else.

In your opinion. Many disagree.

Though I bet there are loads of people all over the world that agree.