BBC license change to cover catchup

[General Maximus]

dude you have well and truly lost the plot. Even if I agreed with you, indirectly paying for something is of far less consequence than directly paying for it. Going back to my original argument though, you can choose whether or not you buy cornflakes or beans and if you do, which brand you also buy (or which there are many). I choose to subscribe to Sky out of choice and not Virgin Media, BT or Now TV and do not choose to pay for the BBC.

Do you think you pay more in passive sponsorship on your cornflakes than the £145/year for the license fee? If so there is a massive conspiracy we need to make everyone aware of ASAP. Don't ring Sky News though, ring BBC News.

Originally Posted by General Maximus

dude you have well and truly lost the plot. Even if I agreed with you, indirectly paying for something is of far less consequence than directly paying for it. Going back to my original argument though, you can choose whether or not you buy cornflakes or beans and if you do, which brand you also buy (or which there are many). I choose to subscribe to Sky out of choice and not Virgin Media, BT or Now TV and do not choose to pay for the BBC.

Do you think you pay more in passive sponsorship on your cornflakes than the £145/year for the license fee? If so there is a massive conspiracy we need to make everyone aware of ASAP. Don't ring Sky News though, ring BBC News.

Love the way you dismiss any argument that is not sympathetic to your own as "lost the plot" .

Who do you think paid for the boring dross you watch ?

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by martyh

Love the way you dismiss any argument that is not sympathetic to your own as "lost the plot"

not really, you aren't making any sense and I can't decided whether it is because you have misunderstood my posts or whether you are just the biggest hypocrite ever and like to contradict yourself. The general tone of your posts suggests that you disagree me yet your individual arguments and statements regarding having to pay for channels that you don't watch support my position. Just to be clear, you are complaining about "choosing" to pay for a service which has so many channels and so much variety that you cannot watch all of them. I am complaining about "having" to pay for a service that I don't watch and don't want to have. I do not have an option not to pay or to unsubscribe.

Originally Posted by martyh

Who do you think paid for the boring dross you watch ?

Me and all the other people who "choose" to pay for a quality tv service with hundreds of channels containing series I actually want to watch. There are many many channels that have content I am not interested in (e.g. Sky Living, UK Gold etc) but there are a handful of channels such as Syfy, Sky One, Sky Atlantic, CBS Reality, National Geographic, Discovery Channel, Sky News, Eden etc etc which have more quality and enjoyable content on than I physically have time to watch. I don't actually watch any terrestrial tv at all. I am happy to let everyone do their own thing and watch Coronation Street because it does not affect me at all. ITV and Channel 4 can broadcast whatever they want and people can watch it if they want to or not watch it, it doesn't bother me because I don't watch them and I don't have to pay for it. What does bother me is having to pay for 2 channels that I don't watch which costs nearly as much as the 200+ channels that I do choose to pay for.

For the n- millionth time.

The licence fee is not a subscription. It is a tax. British law regards a universally available TV and radio service to be a utility, therefore we all pay for it.

It is much the same as council tax, which is levied on homeowners and tenants, and pays for all local authority services regardless of whether you use them.

Whether you agree that a universal TV service is essential is besides the point. The law says that it is. Therefore arguments about not paying for what you don't use are also besides the point.

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by Chris

Therefore arguments about not paying for what you don't use are also besides the point.

It really doesn't make sense and to be honest it sounds so outrageous that it sounds like something you would hear about in a country run by a dictatorship. I don't know why it hasn't be raised in the European Court of Human Rights by now (seriously). You argument makes sense for 50 years ago when there wasn't anything else available but now that technology has moved on there are a multitude of other services available at a better price and value. The law needs to be changed to reflect this. I half wish I did my degree in law now and I would take this up as a personal mission.

It isn't my argument - it's legal fact.

And there are a good number of countries within the EU where TV is at least partially funded by a public levy (including Germany). I very much doubt the EU is about to ride to your rescue.

Originally Posted by General Maximus

not really, you aren't making any sense and I can't decided whether it is because you have misunderstood my posts or whether you are just the biggest hypocrite ever and like to contradict yourself. The general tone of your posts suggests that you disagree me yet your individual arguments and statements regarding having to pay for channels that you don't watch support my position. Just to be clear, you are complaining about "choosing" to pay for a service which has so many channels and so much variety that you cannot watch all of them. I am complaining about "having" to pay for a service that I don't watch and don't want to have. I do not have an option not to pay or to unsubscribe.

.

Sarcasm escapes you does it ? I am not complaining(apart from some people's constant whining about paying for the BBC) ,you are complaining about having to pay for a universal channel free of subscription and free of advertising that you don't watch ,i was sarcastically using your own argument of "why should i pay for channels i don't watch against you . You should be able to understand that everybody ,regardless of TV ownership pays for commercial channels via the products they buy in the shops ,when was the last time you heard anyone complain about having to pay for ITV

---------- Post added at 07:59 ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 ----------

Originally Posted by General Maximus

It really doesn't make sense and to be honest it sounds so outrageous that it sounds like something you would hear about in a country run by a dictatorship. I don't know why it hasn't be raised in the European Court of Human Rights by now (seriously). You argument makes sense for 50 years ago when there wasn't anything else available but now that technology has moved on there are a multitude of other services available at a better price and value. The law needs to be changed to reflect this. I half wish I did my degree in law now and I would take this up as a personal mission.

You do realise that most of Europe has a tv licence,quite often it is a surcharge on electricity bills or electrical goods

[Stephen]

The point is that you have choice in what products you buy where as you are being forced to pay the TVL. Whether you watch the BBC or not.

So by calling it a subscription service is unrealistic. If it was a subscription then you would have a choice to pay it or not.

So as he doesn't watch it then why should he pay.

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by Stephen

So as he doesn't watch it then why should he pay.

thanks dude

Originally Posted by Chris

It is much the same as council tax, which is levied on homeowners and tenants, and pays for all local authority services regardless of whether you use them.

I have come up with the perfect solution (and I am being very serious). If it is a public service which everyone should pay for regardless of whether they use it or not (remember it includes radio and not just tv) then payment for the service should be incorporated into income tax and not be a separate payment. This way when it comes round to the general elections we can see where the different parties want to spend the money and I can guarantee there will be at least one party which says they want to drop the £5 billion of pubic money we give the BBC and split it between schools, the nhs and defence. Just imagine what a £1.5 billion injection into schools could do every year!

Originally Posted by Stephen

The point is that you have choice in what products you buy where as you are being forced to pay the TVL. Whether you watch the BBC or not.

So by calling it a subscription service is unrealistic. If it was a subscription then you would have a choice to pay it or not.

So as he doesn't watch it then why should he pay.

Because, as you yourself have just said, it isn't a subscription. It is a tax, levied in the form of a fee to obtain a licence to use TV receiving equipment.

It is levied in this way because the settled will of Parliament is that there should be a publicly funded broadcaster, independent of political control, with a remit to provide a broad range of information and entertainment.

That's why you pay it even if you don't watch the BBC (incidentally, I don't believe anyone who claims never, ever to consume any BBC content). You don't send any kids to school either, but your council tax pays for the classrooms for those that do.

Originally Posted by General Maximus

thanks dude


I have come up with the perfect solution (and I am being very serious). If it is a public service which everyone should pay for regardless of whether they use it or not (remember it includes radio and not just tv) then payment for the service should be incorporated into income tax and not be a separate payment. This way when it comes round to the general elections we can see where the different parties want to spend the money and I can guarantee there will be at least one party which says they want to drop the £5 billion of pubic money we give the BBC and split it between schools, the nhs and defence. Just imagine what a £1.5 billion injection into schools could do every year!

Paying the BBC a grant out of income tax would end its independence from Government, and will not happen.

What might happen, not at the upcoming charter renewal but the one after, is that OFCOM may be told to collect fees via a precept on council tax instead, the same way the fire and police authorities do. My prediction is that from 2027, the BBC will have to apply to OFCOM for funding, and that other public service broadcasters will also be able to do so.

Originally Posted by Stephen

The point is that you have choice in what products you buy where as you are being forced to pay the TVL. Whether you watch the BBC or not.

That may be the case but you have zero influence on the use of money paid over as advertising revenue .I don't watch Hollyoaks, coronation st or Big Brother but i know that i contribute to there making in the products i buy ,i have no idea which products contribute to Hollyoaks ,Coronation st or Big Brother so therefore i have no choice ,i simply have to accept that i have no choice but to pay for stuff i don't watch.

[TheDaddy]

This is the kind of bs we're all paying for

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ckgrounds.html

They've been doing that for years. I had similar nonsense from them when trying to get into their graduate journalist training scheme 20-odd years ago.

[General Maximus]

I would sue them. The whole point of equal opportunities and discrimination laws is that if somebody is capable of doing the job then they get the jobs regardless of colour/disability/gender. By deliberately excluding white people they are actively discriminating against white people. We might laugh about it but imagine the change in tone and the reaction is they sad "sorry, no black people"?

They have a loophole - "training opportunities" are exempt from the law. They're not even salaried, they get an "allowance". Someone in Broadcasting House has gone to great lengths to get round this.