Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,530
- Location
- Around Town
Bruv Handled it like a pro 
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
That's why they are so desperate to keep it how it is. If the BBC had to compete fairly they would be done. Its stupid how a company is legally allowed to basically run an extortion racket to fund themselves.
Either way more people are cancelling now than they can keep up with.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,906
To be fair the BBC does have some decent content and the UHD quality is good. Netflix is mostly junk with the odd gem here and there.
They'd still lose millions though if they ever did scrap the licence fee.
They'd still lose millions though if they ever did scrap the licence fee.
Is there something stopping it working this way? I could understand not if you pay the license fee in 1 go, but we pay ours monthly so afaik we could cancel at any time - it's not a fixed term contract as far as I'm aware. Then rejoin in a few months - or would they look to backdate the missing months.
If bbc went way of Netflix they'd die very very quickly.
They know it.
I'm still concerned that because of this when TV licence is abolished they will wrap it up into council tax or something. It will mean bbc has no accountability.
Can government really let it fail? I hope so. But I'm not confident.
They know it.
I'm still concerned that because of this when TV licence is abolished they will wrap it up into council tax or something. It will mean bbc has no accountability.
Can government really let it fail? I hope so. But I'm not confident.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2017
- Posts
- 9,916
- Location
- Beds
I think it means the BBC will be more beholden to the government than they are now. Arguably right now they're are publicly funded and owe their service/quality to the people. If it's gov funded then it's the gov who will pull the strings surely.
Edit: not saying they will get better or worse, just that the gov will have more power to influence the BBC rather than a neutral service model that's meant to serve everyone.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,362
- Location
- The South
Not at all as i haven't has disputed what the licence fee funds nor how it's shared. Rather, i have stated that the licence fee is for watching live broadcasts within the UK and that you are not forced to pay the licence fee as you are able to opt-out of it if you wish.
As said, if you want to believe it's some form of nefarious stealth "tax" then have at it
Problem is you're comparing a single UK broadcasters catch-up service to global streaming platforms whose core existence and purpose is to stream media whilst having revenues that vastly swamps it - not completely fair nor really comparable.
I would imagine if UK broadcasters catch-up services had access to the same revenue, then you would see all these features you believe are missing.
Exactly that, the BBC would go from being publicly funded to government funded and the lines of neutrality would blur very quickly. At that point, you might as well go the full hog and rename it 'BritishToday' and be done with it.
Last edited:
And you can opt out of 25% of council tax by kicking your girlfriend out the house. You can opt out of income tax by not working.Not at all as i haven't has disputed what the licence fee funds nor how it's shared. Rather, i have stated that the licence fee is for watching live broadcasts within the UK and that you are not forced to pay the licence fee as you are able to opt-out of it if you wish.
As said, if you want to believe it's some form of nefarious stealth "tax" then have at it
The fact that you can opt out, doesn't mean it's morally okay when the law is absurd. You shouldn't have to opt out of the TV licence when you're not watching the BBC. Watching a live CNN or France24 stream on Youtube has absolutely nothing to do with the BBC, yet it requires you to pay the TV Licence fee, of which the majority goes to the BBC. They might as well say you have to pay the TV Licence if you wear trousers, it's not justifiable to say you can just "opt out" when it has nothing to do with the BBC.
Or they go fully commercial. I don't see the BBC staying in its current form when funded solely by the government. I'm sure there are many loss making sectors of the BBC that would be culled/stripped down.
Similarly if they went commercial, services that cost a lot but don't attract many viewers/listeners would be culled.
I don't think wrapping it up in general taxation is a massive issue, as in theory it would mean everyone having to pay for it, which should bring the costs down.
I think the problem people have is budget wastage. When you consider 5.6 million is spent on the top 10 earners, are they worth that much? Do they add that much value to the BBC?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,642
- Location
- UK
I don't understand why this is (yet another) ball the government kick down the road.
It's very obvious that the way TV has changed over the years that the licence system is hopelessly unworkable. The BBC has already been practising running commercial channels abroad, they just have to do more of the same. They should have been told to go do that followed by a 10% cut in licence fee every year until it stops after ten years. That should have been done twenty to thirty years ago.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,362
- Location
- The South
If you want to bring morales into the debate then i would argue the tv licence is pretty far down on the list of actual things we're forced, with little choice of opting out, to pay for.....but there we are.
Either way, we just going around and around on this merry-go-around @Longbow so let's agree to disagree
The only real option would be for the BBC to go down the Channel 4 route as there's a number of areas of the BBC that couldn't easily be commercialised and/or moved to a subscription model and, even then i imagine they would end up spinning-off or shutting down entire outputs and departments, ie - radio, R&D, broadcasting services etc.
It's the age old battle of getting and retaining talent for viewership - yes you can opt for cheaper talent but, typically, you're unlikely to gain or retain the viewers.
And yes, viewership matters regardless of it being commercialised or not.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,530
- Location
- Around Town
Richard Sharp: BBC chairman resigns over report into appointment
Inquiry finds Richard Sharp breached the governance code for public appointments.
www.bbc.co.uk
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,597
- Location
- ST4
"Trust me, I'm a police officer".Bruv Handled it like a pro
**** me! That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long, long time.
Last edited:
hadn't appreciated govt had said, for his candidature, applicant couldn't be (openly/closert?) anti brexit - brexitismRichard Sharp: BBC chairman resigns over report into appointment
Inquiry finds Richard Sharp breached the governance code for public appointments.
Not sure the member of the public handle that in the best way but at the same time unless I missed it the TV "Inspectors" never showed ID to the guy who lived there. As for the warrant I think the guy made a mistake. Warrants no longer need to be signed by a judge to be valid that was changed a few years back. Still he has a strong case as like he says there is no evidence he has done anything wrong and the warrant is based on a false premises without evidence.
What planet are you on Pottsey?
What I see are some thugs from Capita with a rent a thug big bloke with folded arms in the background looking for trouble where there is clearly none. VERY VERY Intimidating.
The Cop that seems over eager to be a third party neutral person makes several attempts to try walk into the guys property, way and above his remit and a clue of the law.
There is so much wrong in this video and as for the Capita bullys sarcasm ... "oh it was Youtube" dripping with sarcasm comment
I hope he gets sacked.
The guy did the right thing and was very polite and more or less told them to go away and take him to court, he's done nothing wrong. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Its a sad state of affairs when capita resort to this, Rent a thugs like the knuckledragger and young Policeman in this video only dimlly aware of the law as regards Tv Licensing but determined to gain entry too.
Now imagine this same scenario, and probably their next port of call, because thats what these thugs do, but to some old lady, or a mentally ill person with no wits about them.
This makes me sick, seriously and also anyone that defends this outdated nonsense
What I see are some thugs from Capita with a rent a thug big bloke with folded arms in the background looking for trouble where there is clearly none. VERY VERY Intimidating.
The Cop that seems over eager to be a third party neutral person makes several attempts to try walk into the guys property, way and above his remit and a clue of the law.
There is so much wrong in this video and as for the Capita bullys sarcasm ... "oh it was Youtube" dripping with sarcasm comment
I hope he gets sacked.The guy did the right thing and was very polite and more or less told them to go away and take him to court, he's done nothing wrong. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Its a sad state of affairs when capita resort to this, Rent a thugs like the knuckledragger and young Policeman in this video only dimlly aware of the law as regards Tv Licensing but determined to gain entry too.
Now imagine this same scenario, and probably their next port of call, because thats what these thugs do, but to some old lady, or a mentally ill person with no wits about them.
This makes me sick, seriously and also anyone that defends this outdated nonsense
Last edited:
What planet are you on Pottsey?
What I see are some thugs from Capita with a rent a thug big bloke with folded arms in the background looking for trouble where there is clearly none. VERY VERY Intimidating.
The Cop that seems over eager to be a third party neutral person makes several attempts to try walk into the guys property, way and above his remit and a clue of the law.
There is so much wrong in this video and as for the Capita bullys sarcasm ... "oh it was Youtube" dripping with sarcasm comment
The guy did the right thing and was very polite and more or less told them to go away and take him to court, he's done nothing wrong. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
Its a sad state of affairs when capita resort to this, Rent a thugs like the knuckledragger and young Policeman in this video only dimlly aware of the law as regards Tv Licensing but determined to gain entry too.
Now imagine this same scenario, and probably their next port of call, because thats what these thugs do, but to some old lady, or a mentally ill person with no wits about them.
This makes me sick, seriously and also anyone that defends this outdated nonsense
The guy actually didn't do the right thing, and can easily finds him self arrested for not complying with the warrant. Go look up the black belt barrister video. The cop was there to keep the peace and ensure the warrant was executed, something he attempted to do a number of times by trying to get the guy to go inside. Outside his remit and no clue of the law? Seriously? The warrant was valid and it's only because crapita have a policy to remove them self and not cause a scene, that the guy wasn't placed under arrest! I completely hate the idea of a TV license etc, but the law is the law (it needs to change).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,831
I don't see why anyone owning a TV should (more or less) should be forced to pay for govt and tory party propaganda while also having to subsidise the BBC's sickening royal sycophancy.