BBC licence fee poll.

[Tom Logan]

TTwiggy said:

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.

Here, for instance ??

http://www.chew-the-fat.org.uk/forum/index.php

[Randy Winkman]

TTwiggy said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.

The odd thing is that if the BBC did change substantially, the elderly readers of the right wing papers that moan the most about the BBC would form the bulk of those who would switch on the TV the next day, see what had happened and say "What the f**K!".

[TTwiggy]

Tom Logan said:

Here, for instance ??

http://www.chew-the-fat.org.uk/forum/index.php

You're clearly attracted to that site. Why not sign up and say hello?

[chow pan toon]

Cotty said:

Love the title "The £147 BBC licence fee is a tax on the poor to pay for Chris Evans’ latest Ferrari"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4089577/the-147-bbc-...

No vested interest from The Sun.

[TTwiggy]

chow pan toon said:

Cotty said:

Love the title "The £147 BBC licence fee is a tax on the poor to pay for Chris Evans’ latest Ferrari"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4089577/the-147-bbc-...

No vested interest from The Sun.

What's amazing is that nobody seems able to spot this. Murdoch would love the BBC to lose the license fee. He's been pushing for this for years, up to and including leaning on Prime Ministers to get it done. It's a huge thorn in his side that he hasn't managed it yet.

[RumbleOfThunder]

TTwiggy said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.

I don't care if Murdoch shares my sentiments or not. I'm not aware of his comments but he's probably right! It's simple Twig, if as you admit, the BBC wouldn't remain profitable in the free market with the amazingly varied output you keep mentioning, then the demand isn't there to watch it. So back to my contention, why if I only watch Sky content, should I have to pay a mafia tax to the BBC?

[chrispmartha]

RumbleOfThunder said:

TTwiggy said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.

I don't care if Murdoch shares my sentiments or not. I'm not aware of his comments but he's probably right! It's simple Twig, if as you admit, the BBC wouldn't remain profitable in the free market with the amazingly varied output you keep mentioning, then the demand isn't there to watch it. So back to my contention, why if I only watch Sky content, should I have to pay a mafia tax to the BBC?

Well for starters Sky content includes the BBC, so yes

'Mafia tax' :-)

[RumbleOfThunder]

chrispmartha said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

TTwiggy said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.

I don't care if Murdoch shares my sentiments or not. I'm not aware of his comments but he's probably right! It's simple Twig, if as you admit, the BBC wouldn't remain profitable in the free market with the amazingly varied output you keep mentioning, then the demand isn't there to watch it. So back to my contention, why if I only watch Sky content, should I have to pay a mafia tax to the BBC?

Well for starters Sky content includes the BBC, so yes

'Mafia tax' :-)

I said Sky content Chris . They can remove the channels for me if it means not coughing up their shakedown money!

[AJL308]

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

Just as I needed a licence for the VHF radio on my boat.

Completely incorrect on both points!

[chrispmartha]

RumbleOfThunder said:

chrispmartha said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

TTwiggy said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.

I don't care if Murdoch shares my sentiments or not. I'm not aware of his comments but he's probably right! It's simple Twig, if as you admit, the BBC wouldn't remain profitable in the free market with the amazingly varied output you keep mentioning, then the demand isn't there to watch it. So back to my contention, why if I only watch Sky content, should I have to pay a mafia tax to the BBC?

Well for starters Sky content includes the BBC, so yes

'Mafia tax' :-)

I said Sky content Chris . They can remove the channels for me if it means not coughing up their shakedown money!

You can't just watch sky only content with Sky anyway, you have to pay for channels you don't want to get the ones you do, a bit like the TV license

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

What's amazing is that nobody seems able to spot this. Murdoch would love the BBC to lose the license fee.

What's really amazing is that in spite of the BBC producing the most varied, highest quality programs bla bla that Sky have successfully persuaded millions of us to shell out an additional £60/m for their own 'inferior' stuff.

[chrispmartha]

AJL308 said:

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

Just as I needed a licence for the VHF radio on my boat.

Completely incorrect on both points!

He's admitted his error already

[chrispmartha]

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

What's amazing is that nobody seems able to spot this. Murdoch would love the BBC to lose the license fee.

What's really amazing is that in spite of the BBC producing the most varied, highest quality programs bla bla that Sky have successfully persuaded millions of us to shell out an additional £60/m for their own 'inferior' stuff.

Who has suggested sky stuff is inferior?

[RumbleOfThunder]

chrispmartha said:

You can't just watch sky only content with Sky anyway, you have to pay for channels you don't want to get the ones you do, a bit like the TV license

Nothing like a TV licence! For a start those other non BBC channels you're referring to are in the private sector and capable of surviving without a government subsidy, so I'm hardly irked to not be getting my monies worth from them. I can change the analogy fine though, the point is still the same. If I only want watch ITV, C4 or, fking Skirmish on UK Conquest, I shouldn't have to wet the BBC's beak with protection money. It's an indefensible racket.

[Nothingtoseehere]

technodup said:

hat's really amazing is that in spite of the BBC producing the most varied, highest quality programs bla bla that Sky have successfully persuaded millions of us to shell out an additional £60/m for their own 'inferior' stuff.

Exactly.
Surely if the BBC was variety laden,catering for everyone, sky would have gone bust by now.
Still,remember, "its the unique way the BBC is funded"....

[chrispmartha]

RumbleOfThunder said:

chrispmartha said:

You can't just watch sky only content with Sky anyway, you have to pay for channels you don't want to get the ones you do, a bit like the TV license

Nothing like a TV licence! For a start those other non BBC channels you're referring to are in the private sector and capable of surviving without a government subsidy, so I'm hardly irked to not be getting my monies worth from them. I can change the analogy fine though, the point is still the same. If I only want watch ITV, C4 or, fking Skirmish on UK Conquest, I shouldn't have to wet the BBC's beak with protection money. It's an indefensible racket.

Any other taxes get you so worked up?

[chrispmartha]

Nothingtoseehere said:

technodup said:

hat's really amazing is that in spite of the BBC producing the most varied, highest quality programs bla bla that Sky have successfully persuaded millions of us to shell out an additional £60/m for their own 'inferior' stuff.

Exactly.
Surely if the BBC was variety laden,catering for everyone, sky would have gone bust by now.
Still,remember, "its the unique way the BBC is funded"....

The point being because the BBC doesn't always have to chase ratings or advertising money it allows it to make programmes that wouldn't necessarily get made thise creating a wider variety which IMO we as a country benefit from.

I get you may not care about such things.

Just one example, BBC introducing is a fabulous resource for young musicians and for music fans, this would never exist in a commercial setting, music is one thing that the UK is universally renouned forand the BBC helping you musicians benefits the whole country culturally

Im sure the response will be if they are good enough they would make it anyway, but that is simply not true.

[Nothingtoseehere]

We're definitely miles apart on this.
More chance of me agreeing with /// on remaining.

[chrispmartha]

Nothingtoseehere said:

We're definitely miles apart on this.
More chance of me agreeing with /// on remaining.

Well that's true, shame though for your blood pressure, we've got the License Fee for a wee while yet ;-)

[Tom Logan]

TTwiggy said:

Tom Logan said:

Here, for instance ??

http://www.chew-the-fat.org.uk/forum/index.php

You're clearly attracted to that site. Why not sign up and say hello?

No thanks.

I'll leave it to the PH rejects.