TV Licence and iPlayer
- Thread starter Mesquite
- Start date
Because the license fee goes primarily to the BBC and the BBC collect the license fee.
I do not have a TV so no electromagnetic signal, simples. Even if I did have they would have to prove I had a set top box, because simply turning a TV set on even if it were plugged into the ariel would not allow me to recieve BBC these days.
The reason I do not pay a licence is because I have no desire to watch TV, I broke that habit a long time ago.
True, but in much the same way as radio hams need a licence it primarily is to pay for the ability to receive a broadcast signal. The fact the BBC have monopolised the situation to their advantage is part of my original gripe a few posts back, just as I resent BT charging whatever they bloody want for providing me with a wire to my house when I have absolutely no need for a house line phone.
It's just creaking old companies trying to wring whatever they can out of us before they expire. Look what happened to Kodak for not absorbing the new technology. I have an unlimited data bundle on my phone, and I have a small box by my TV that I can beam anything to, surely this is likely to be how things will go?
I truly love the Beeb and appreciate where my money has gone over the years, but a comparison has been made with Netflix. Netflix are non contract, pay when you like, and produce some superb programmes. A quick bit of intenet work and you're up and running. Phone them day or night and speak to a person immediately, it's really very good. But you're still receiving a broadcast signal and thus require a license.
if i told you you had to buy a packet of crisps everyday or you couldn't eat any other food, you would probably be upset.
That is pretty much it in a nutshell... a company from a different era, an era where there was only the BBC available, is trying to pretend like things haven't changed to a level where their old model of business is not sustainable without the use of the law and more often than not, bullying tactics.
Netflix is a choice, as is the myriad of other providers but I disagree that you're necessarily receiving a broadcast signal to watch them. My wife bought us a service that I can access anywhere and watch films... all I need is an internet connection. I can even download the films to a device for a given period if I choose to. No broadcast signal required.
And that is the kicker to the BBC model. People in general do not watch television like they used to. And consumer demand isn't for game shows, comedy duos or even documentaries at a set time on a set date. With the faster internet connections I can watch anything I want about any subject I want, when I want to watch it. Ironically the BBC has sold the rights through BBC Worldwide, so some of the old BBC shows are now available on other services... so it gets to the point where you have to ask whether the BBC fulfills its original purpose and function any more? If it truly is public broadcasting, then surely there would be a broad range of opinions on display and a wide variety of conflicting views. But there isn't. We get the same narrow politically correct view spread across a network of politically correct television and radio channels, all spouting the same message, even if that message at times is the opposite of the facts. A very odd concept in what is supposed to be a free society.
We're coming to 100 years of the BBC soon, and I think this year is the TV licenses 70th birthday... personally I hope its scrapped before it reaches it's 80th, because given the change in the way we view media in just the last 10 years, imagine what will happen in the next 10.
With regards to the iPlayer, unfortunately the BBC can't have their cake and eat it. They'd like the iPlayer to be free to use for the world to promote their programmes, making it easier to sell DVDs to the yanks through their commercial arm.... but they want the British public to foot the bill for the profits BBC Worldwide want to make. Not exactly cricket is it?
You see and hear what you choose to see and hear, I see people from all sides of the political spectrum criticising the BBC which to me means they have pretty well got it right. Stop trying to drag politics into this non political forum. As for the TV licence, if anyone needs actual legal advice regarding the threat of prosecution they should take advice from a criminal law specialist, that's what I do for a living and I have already indicated on this thread what the law is regarding the Telecommunications Act 2003 but , by all means, prefer your own rumour, conspiracy theory and bias over my law degree and 25 years of practice.
Oh, and did it never cross your mind, all those years ago when you were trying to defraud a crisp company that receiving a second request for a free box of crisps from the same address, in the same circumstances, was at the very least a little iffy?
At this point in History (and particularly at my age) I'd probably agree. It all looks like Murder and Mayhem to me. Hence more or less completely removed from my own kids upbringing.
Going back 20 years I'd say TV made the world smaller and allowed us to see a bigger world than the previous generation. It could have happened without it but at nowhere the same speed.
Paul McKenna's hypnosis shows were entertainment but also exposed me to Hypnosis and NLP which is a window into understanding consciousness and life itself.
Ray Mears' programs are, arguably, the catalyst for this forum and took the form they did (and not a sensationalist Discovery style survival program) because they were made by the BBC as non-profit venture.
I don't see much around like that now, but thanks to exposure to Robert Anton Wilson via Paul McKenna via ITV I am aware of the principle that..."What the Thinker thinks.....the Prover proves" so I might be wrong about the value of it now. People seem to get a lot of value out of Brian Cox for example.
I think you misunderstood that or I wouldn't be replying.
The staff you are rightly grateful to.........sit on the top of a pyramid, that includes engineers, delivery men, bed manufacturers, cleaners, laundry functions, the national grid, researchers, etc. etc.
.......and all of those sit on top of the people who pay tax.
By all means be grateful to those at the sharp end, but they couldn't do anything without the support everyone else
.....including yourself as a non-tax dodger.
Those that get us out of dire situations we often give buckets of gratitude. Those that KEEP us out of dire situations (or work in the background) we often take for granted.
You yourself are as much the creator of the solution to your dark situations (the continued existence of the NHS) and therefore there is nothing to pay back. The best payback is your continued support
.....and I am guessing you are the type of guy who would have continued to support even without those dark chapters.
That however is only my opinion and are under no obligation to understand, agree or like it.
P.S. Most people have experienced a nightmare first hand.
Of course! I add an answer you don't like, and I'm dragging in politics which is against the rules, therefore can be legitimately removed. Accusations of conspiracy, rumour and bias... then add in that you've practised law for 25 years to express your authority. Of course your opinion is worth more than mine... after all, I was trying to defraud a crisp company as a teenager, therefore my opinion is invalidated.
Anecdotal evidence Brambles, I've been in a long legal case for 4 years. In that time 2 solicitors have been removed for fraud, another I dismissed for incompetence... so practising law or obtaining a law degree tells me nothing about you other than there is a higher probability in my experience that I shouldn't trust anything you say. However, it would be petty for me to take that opinion based on my experience without knowing you, nor would I presume to judge you as dishonest, incompetent or a out and out crook... again, just from what I've experienced personally.
Ever do something stupid in your youth Brambles? I did... lots of things, and as I worded it above, it should have been obvious that I knew the reasons why. It was written tongue in cheek, but then humour doesn't seem to translate well when everyone appears to be slightly over-wound.
Defrauding btw, I would reserve for the time I went door to door asking for a penny for the guy, a guy I did not have. I was only 6 years old at the time, which is no excuse really... but then if I'd had any sense at the time, I wouldn't have been doing it in the middle of July. My crime was rewarded with having to return all monies collected to the people who gave a kid pennies on their doorstep for a non-existent Guy Fawkes effigy in the middle of July... thinking about it, it wasn't just me who didn't have any sense at the time.
Apologies for misunderstanding your post and your comment.
I thought you were somehow undermining both the NHS and all the hard working folk that keep it going as well as the pain involved in thinking you're going to lose your child.
I now understand the context and appreciate your reply.
They (staff) really are the glue behind it, though of course it's not voluntary , but they don't get a lot of recognition, a lot of the time just abuse from ignorant and impatient people as well as slated by the media for one mistake or isolated incidents.
I agree too that is not just the NHS that provides a great service to our society, the BBC has produced amazing moments that still enrich my life and that of our kids, David Attenborough's documentaries, Ray Mears , Brian Cox, time team , amongst all of the old grey whistle test collection and BBC radio 6music to mention a few...
I'm not disputing that, however the mainstream and majority of the TV programmes these days don't interest me, baking shows , big brothers, and celebrity nonsense just bores me and sometimes irritates me.
And they're tactics in license collection are a bit off for me.
Thanks for explaining your comment and I'm sorry I misunderstood.
Regards
I thought there were so many prosecutions they were blocking up magistrates courts and there were moves to decriminalise non-payment. I quick google suggests well over 100,000 cases in 2015 went to court.
In fairness, if that is the figure for 2015, its dropping. The number prosecuted in 2014 was around 200,000. But remember, its all conspiracy, rumour and bias.
I don't watch live TV but I do watch stuff on iplayer etc.
I love the BBC and have no problems with the license fee. When TV is paid for by adverts then the things that are made tend to be as populist as possible. I'm personally not a fan of most populist tripe that comes on TV give me BBC and Channel 4 comedies any day over X factor etc.
(Also I'm sure Channel 4 is subsidised in part by the license fee, or at least it was when it started I think.)
In my opinion the license fee is worth David Attenborough and BBC news alone.
Yes there is a bias in the BBC but it is IMHO still the least biased TV on the planet.
If you ever think it's not worth having try sitting through FOX news, or Sky news etc.
After a few hours of such self serving crud (with 3 lots of adverts every 30 mins) you'll be glad we still have the BBC.
I love the BBC and have no problems with the license fee. When TV is paid for by adverts then the things that are made tend to be as populist as possible. I'm personally not a fan of most populist tripe that comes on TV give me BBC and Channel 4 comedies any day over X factor etc.
(Also I'm sure Channel 4 is subsidised in part by the license fee, or at least it was when it started I think.)
In my opinion the license fee is worth David Attenborough and BBC news alone.
Yes there is a bias in the BBC but it is IMHO still the least biased TV on the planet.
If you ever think it's not worth having try sitting through FOX news, or Sky news etc.
After a few hours of such self serving crud (with 3 lots of adverts every 30 mins) you'll be glad we still have the BBC.
Looking through this thread over the last 24 hours, much of whats been said is familiar from other sites whenever the licence fee comes up - which is slightly depressing.
However, some things need to be corrected. Although some have come to the conclusion that unless Capita actually catches you watching TV (Aha, we've caught you!), then they can't proceed isn't true. Someone has already posted screen shots from the TV Licencing website, but the wording is (and always has) very clear:
The stuff about Iplayer is new, but the rest has been around for years. If you've a TV capable of watching programmes live (and that includes recorders attached to a TV that can't), then you need to pay.
Next, lets not demonise Capita (although they dont have a great reputation as a company) and the people that work for them. They are simply asking people to pay their licence fee, and if they have grounds to suspect they are not (which is statistically fairly likely), to check, but only after a series of letters are sent. Calling them 'goons' simply isn't true, and its doesn't help people to get into that mindset. I know its standard on some of the 'TV Licence...your not the boss of me' websites, but it simply creates an attitude thats not helpful.
Everyone makes mistakes, but there are two sides to every story, and what sounds like a terrible case of persecution might not actually be the case at all. I'm sure that man who refused to pay in 2012 because he though that the Twin Towers was a 'inside job', an idea which the BBC had not reported, and in his eyes were therefore 'guilty of terrorism' might though he was in the right, but perspective is everything.
Since there were some 150,000 cases prosecuted in one year, an extra case here or there would make no difference. In fact 39 people (insanely) went to jail for non payment of court fines. And by the look of things, the red tops seem quite happy to punch the BBC whenever possible, so its hardly a winning strategy. What Capita wants is to collect as much in the way of Licence Fee on behalf of their client - thats what they are paid for, and its much cheaper/easier for people just to pay their licence fee. Sending letters, then more letters, then inspectors, then court stuff is a hassle and a cost. Since 95% of us pay up on time with no big fuss, they just want the other 5% to do the same.
Since there were less than 10,000 B & W licences issued in March 2015, and numbers have been falling 20% every year for at least decade http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...000-homes-still-have-black-and-white-TVs.html , its doubtful if they are going to swallow what was previously a colour licence suddenly becoming a B & W one. Its a bit like pulling a sickie from work for a day by pretending you've got Ebola - people are going to notice.
Apart from the likes of Apple, few of us get to have 'voluntary taxation', or 'voluntary council tax', or a 'voluntary subscription' to Sky, Virgin, etc. We pay what we pay. If you allowed people to pick and chose whether they paid tax or not, would there actually be much tax raised? Or if you could pick and chose what your money went to, what would be the result? Would people refuse to pay for hospitals, on the grounds they hadn't been sick that year? And as someone brilliantly replied in a discussion online about the licence fee, 'I'm not getting much use out of Trident, so let someone else pay for it'. I'm sure lots of people would support the BBC, the NHS, schools and the armed forces...but not actually shell out. Thats why HMG, Sky, your local resturant and the BBC all have fixed payments, rather than 'suggestions'.
Strangely, the BBC is far more popular than you might realise from reading the papers or the internet. We evidently like it, because only about 4% of the TV owning population dont use it (and of course those without a TV can still use radio and the website). And an experiment last year showed the effect of being deprived of any BBC services only about 9 days http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015...nds-after-just-nine-days-without-bbc-services - as the song says, you dont know what you've got til its gone'.
Thats a red herring, and a dangerous one. The BBC isn't part of public taxation (at least not in a recognisable form), and its revenue stream is seperate from Governments (and the commercial channels), including the NHS. I have no desire for the Licence Fee, or anything like it, to be a slush fund for politicians to buy cheap favours. Now this has actually happened twice - once to the National Lottery, and at least once to the BBC. Blair basically sucked much of the National Lottery 'For Good Causes' money into a ministers happy fund, for tabloid friendly bits of the NHS, at the expense of very worthy, but often unpopular (with the press) charities and causes.
During the last BBC Charter Review, Jeremy Hunt got the BBC Licence Fee payer to shell out for lots of things which the BBC didn't need to do (we all paid for the local TV franchises which nobody watches, S4C, etc), stump up things that were useful for the Foriegn Office (BBC monitoring, etc), plus stuff which the government should have been paying for, like rural broadband (why? because Hunt could get away with it).
I am more than happy for more money to go to the NHS, but there is no need to pit one public good against another.
True - Netflix costs about £2 a week by itself. Now, you can watch it on a projector, a laptop, a PC monitor, or even a TV with the tuner totally ripped out, and pay no licence fee. But for £3, you get loads of original drama (a surprising amount of which ends up on Netflix), live sport, news, documentaries and kids TV (Netflix has finally commissioned a childrens drama series) from the BBC, plus all the other Freeview/Freesat channels. Its not perfect, but there is something for everyone. If you had to make a profit, would you commission a programme about baking (actually, several), ball room dancing, bushcraft, walking around the Scottish islands, a silent bus tour or a trip down a canal, the Proms, Radio 4, Springwatch, or a system so that people could stream content via the web when nobody else had even thought about it? No, but the BBC has done it anyway.
In fact, people's viewing habits often havn't changed that much. Its true that we (as an average), watch less TV than we did (an average of 3 hours, 36 minutes, down from 3 hours 52 minutes in 2013 http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ ), but most TV is still consumed live. The figures 'timeshifted' (a term that includes recorded, streamed, etc) is difficult to guage in terms of PVR/streaming split http://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BARB-Viewing-Report-2016.pdf, but I do remember a figure of a round 25% for recorded, with perhaps now just under 14% for streaming. We still watch over 61% of 'video' (which includes everything from YouTube and facebook, to 'adult' internet sites, to DVD's and cinema, to streaming via the net to a TV) 'live'
https://www.thinkbox.tv/News-and-opinion/Newsroom/10032016-New-figures-put-TV-viewing-in-perspective
Yes, young people use their mobiles, etc - but as an average, we still only watch 4 minutes a day of TV via mobile device. And young people (16-24) actually watch more TV, but probably twice as much VOD (via Iplyer, etc) as older groups. However, amoungst all that YouTube watching, they still watch live TV, etc in surprising numbers. And although their Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) viewing has grown to as much as 4% in 2015, a lot of that isn't at the expense of broadcast TV, its a replacement for DVD's - why go to the rental store when you can stream?
You can't really stream the Olympics at a later date - you want to see it now. Same for breaking news stories. And event TV - the final of Bakeoff is one you want to see live. In fact the number of TV's has also slightly declined, as smaller portables have been replaced by tablets, etc, but the main room screen is now an HD/4K screen of perhaps 48-50in (thats now the average). The kids might text others about the final of whatever, but they are not watching it on a tablet - they are watching it on the biggest and best screen they can.
And judging by the figures for X factor, Eastenders, Strictly, etc, people are not switching off in disgust. And thats fine - because their licence fee helps to pay for stuff in want to watch and listen to - for instance the 'Girl in a Band' programme on Friday on BBC4 (which was brilliant), the programme about New York (with Anita Rani!), plus the archive programme of Perpetual Motion about Concorde.
As for the BBC being 'biased' ('political correctness' is one of those phrases which kills a rational debate), look with your own eyes, not what the press says. I had a long running argument with two or three people on UKFree.TV when I asked them to come up with actual clear examples of BBC leftwing bias. They kept talking about how obvious it was (including, strangely, in 'The One Show'!), but when repeatedly asked for an example, they couldn't come up with one, only the repeated (and increasingly angry) statement 'that there was, OK?' I'd love to hear actual examples, but not of the 'they think climate change is real' type - actual evidence please.
In reality, I think the BBC often pulls its punches, but the fact that the Labour party is as unhappy with the BBC's coverage (both in and out of government) as the Tories are would suggest they are trying their best.
Totally agree - watch American TV for a couple of hours and your searching for the local PBS station/BBC World News, because otherwise you'd have no idea what was happening outside the US and the huge number of ad breaks would drive you nuts. C4 is slightly odd - its a state owned commercial channel, which therefore can take risks which the 'pure' commercial stations cannot, but at the same time deliver an audience. The government would like to privatize the whole lot. It almost got some money from the licence fee, but didn't in the end. And the BBC got dumped with the white elephant of S4C.
It would be interesting to take a poll of the total number of users of this website and ask them two questions. One is 'did you have any hassle with TV Licencing', and the second is 'do you (and the rest of your household) watch TV, and which channels and what on them? I suspect that the vast majority of us would reply to the first 'no', and the second, if everyone is honest, is a bit of everything, but probably a fair amount of BBC stuff, in one way or another. One of the problems with any discussion is that people chose to take part, we self select - if you've got a problem with something, your going to talk about it. But if your fine, why bother? Overall, we are probably fine, and frankly, we most likely all have more important things to worry about.
However, some things need to be corrected. Although some have come to the conclusion that unless Capita actually catches you watching TV (Aha, we've caught you!), then they can't proceed isn't true. Someone has already posted screen shots from the TV Licencing website, but the wording is (and always has) very clear:
The stuff about Iplayer is new, but the rest has been around for years. If you've a TV capable of watching programmes live (and that includes recorders attached to a TV that can't), then you need to pay.
Next, lets not demonise Capita (although they dont have a great reputation as a company) and the people that work for them. They are simply asking people to pay their licence fee, and if they have grounds to suspect they are not (which is statistically fairly likely), to check, but only after a series of letters are sent. Calling them 'goons' simply isn't true, and its doesn't help people to get into that mindset. I know its standard on some of the 'TV Licence...your not the boss of me' websites, but it simply creates an attitude thats not helpful.
Everyone makes mistakes, but there are two sides to every story, and what sounds like a terrible case of persecution might not actually be the case at all. I'm sure that man who refused to pay in 2012 because he though that the Twin Towers was a 'inside job', an idea which the BBC had not reported, and in his eyes were therefore 'guilty of terrorism' might though he was in the right, but perspective is everything.
Since there were some 150,000 cases prosecuted in one year, an extra case here or there would make no difference. In fact 39 people (insanely) went to jail for non payment of court fines. And by the look of things, the red tops seem quite happy to punch the BBC whenever possible, so its hardly a winning strategy. What Capita wants is to collect as much in the way of Licence Fee on behalf of their client - thats what they are paid for, and its much cheaper/easier for people just to pay their licence fee. Sending letters, then more letters, then inspectors, then court stuff is a hassle and a cost. Since 95% of us pay up on time with no big fuss, they just want the other 5% to do the same.
Since there were less than 10,000 B & W licences issued in March 2015, and numbers have been falling 20% every year for at least decade http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...000-homes-still-have-black-and-white-TVs.html , its doubtful if they are going to swallow what was previously a colour licence suddenly becoming a B & W one. Its a bit like pulling a sickie from work for a day by pretending you've got Ebola - people are going to notice.
Apart from the likes of Apple, few of us get to have 'voluntary taxation', or 'voluntary council tax', or a 'voluntary subscription' to Sky, Virgin, etc. We pay what we pay. If you allowed people to pick and chose whether they paid tax or not, would there actually be much tax raised? Or if you could pick and chose what your money went to, what would be the result? Would people refuse to pay for hospitals, on the grounds they hadn't been sick that year? And as someone brilliantly replied in a discussion online about the licence fee, 'I'm not getting much use out of Trident, so let someone else pay for it'. I'm sure lots of people would support the BBC, the NHS, schools and the armed forces...but not actually shell out. Thats why HMG, Sky, your local resturant and the BBC all have fixed payments, rather than 'suggestions'.
Strangely, the BBC is far more popular than you might realise from reading the papers or the internet. We evidently like it, because only about 4% of the TV owning population dont use it (and of course those without a TV can still use radio and the website). And an experiment last year showed the effect of being deprived of any BBC services only about 9 days http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015...nds-after-just-nine-days-without-bbc-services - as the song says, you dont know what you've got til its gone'.
Thats a red herring, and a dangerous one. The BBC isn't part of public taxation (at least not in a recognisable form), and its revenue stream is seperate from Governments (and the commercial channels), including the NHS. I have no desire for the Licence Fee, or anything like it, to be a slush fund for politicians to buy cheap favours. Now this has actually happened twice - once to the National Lottery, and at least once to the BBC. Blair basically sucked much of the National Lottery 'For Good Causes' money into a ministers happy fund, for tabloid friendly bits of the NHS, at the expense of very worthy, but often unpopular (with the press) charities and causes.
During the last BBC Charter Review, Jeremy Hunt got the BBC Licence Fee payer to shell out for lots of things which the BBC didn't need to do (we all paid for the local TV franchises which nobody watches, S4C, etc), stump up things that were useful for the Foriegn Office (BBC monitoring, etc), plus stuff which the government should have been paying for, like rural broadband (why? because Hunt could get away with it).
I am more than happy for more money to go to the NHS, but there is no need to pit one public good against another.
True! And another example of ministers making the BBC pay for a freebie which they themselves should have been paying for, in order to please the most reliable voting demographic in the UK.
True - Netflix costs about £2 a week by itself. Now, you can watch it on a projector, a laptop, a PC monitor, or even a TV with the tuner totally ripped out, and pay no licence fee. But for £3, you get loads of original drama (a surprising amount of which ends up on Netflix), live sport, news, documentaries and kids TV (Netflix has finally commissioned a childrens drama series) from the BBC, plus all the other Freeview/Freesat channels. Its not perfect, but there is something for everyone. If you had to make a profit, would you commission a programme about baking (actually, several), ball room dancing, bushcraft, walking around the Scottish islands, a silent bus tour or a trip down a canal, the Proms, Radio 4, Springwatch, or a system so that people could stream content via the web when nobody else had even thought about it? No, but the BBC has done it anyway.
In fact, people's viewing habits often havn't changed that much. Its true that we (as an average), watch less TV than we did (an average of 3 hours, 36 minutes, down from 3 hours 52 minutes in 2013 http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ ), but most TV is still consumed live. The figures 'timeshifted' (a term that includes recorded, streamed, etc) is difficult to guage in terms of PVR/streaming split http://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BARB-Viewing-Report-2016.pdf, but I do remember a figure of a round 25% for recorded, with perhaps now just under 14% for streaming. We still watch over 61% of 'video' (which includes everything from YouTube and facebook, to 'adult' internet sites, to DVD's and cinema, to streaming via the net to a TV) 'live'
https://www.thinkbox.tv/News-and-opinion/Newsroom/10032016-New-figures-put-TV-viewing-in-perspective
Yes, young people use their mobiles, etc - but as an average, we still only watch 4 minutes a day of TV via mobile device. And young people (16-24) actually watch more TV, but probably twice as much VOD (via Iplyer, etc) as older groups. However, amoungst all that YouTube watching, they still watch live TV, etc in surprising numbers. And although their Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD) viewing has grown to as much as 4% in 2015, a lot of that isn't at the expense of broadcast TV, its a replacement for DVD's - why go to the rental store when you can stream?
You can't really stream the Olympics at a later date - you want to see it now. Same for breaking news stories. And event TV - the final of Bakeoff is one you want to see live. In fact the number of TV's has also slightly declined, as smaller portables have been replaced by tablets, etc, but the main room screen is now an HD/4K screen of perhaps 48-50in (thats now the average). The kids might text others about the final of whatever, but they are not watching it on a tablet - they are watching it on the biggest and best screen they can.
And judging by the figures for X factor, Eastenders, Strictly, etc, people are not switching off in disgust. And thats fine - because their licence fee helps to pay for stuff in want to watch and listen to - for instance the 'Girl in a Band' programme on Friday on BBC4 (which was brilliant), the programme about New York (with Anita Rani!), plus the archive programme of Perpetual Motion about Concorde.
As for the BBC being 'biased' ('political correctness' is one of those phrases which kills a rational debate), look with your own eyes, not what the press says. I had a long running argument with two or three people on UKFree.TV when I asked them to come up with actual clear examples of BBC leftwing bias. They kept talking about how obvious it was (including, strangely, in 'The One Show'!), but when repeatedly asked for an example, they couldn't come up with one, only the repeated (and increasingly angry) statement 'that there was, OK?' I'd love to hear actual examples, but not of the 'they think climate change is real' type - actual evidence please.
In reality, I think the BBC often pulls its punches, but the fact that the Labour party is as unhappy with the BBC's coverage (both in and out of government) as the Tories are would suggest they are trying their best.
Totally agree - watch American TV for a couple of hours and your searching for the local PBS station/BBC World News, because otherwise you'd have no idea what was happening outside the US and the huge number of ad breaks would drive you nuts. C4 is slightly odd - its a state owned commercial channel, which therefore can take risks which the 'pure' commercial stations cannot, but at the same time deliver an audience. The government would like to privatize the whole lot. It almost got some money from the licence fee, but didn't in the end. And the BBC got dumped with the white elephant of S4C.
It would be interesting to take a poll of the total number of users of this website and ask them two questions. One is 'did you have any hassle with TV Licencing', and the second is 'do you (and the rest of your household) watch TV, and which channels and what on them? I suspect that the vast majority of us would reply to the first 'no', and the second, if everyone is honest, is a bit of everything, but probably a fair amount of BBC stuff, in one way or another. One of the problems with any discussion is that people chose to take part, we self select - if you've got a problem with something, your going to talk about it. But if your fine, why bother? Overall, we are probably fine, and frankly, we most likely all have more important things to worry about.
I'm puzzled... in one breath you say we should have no more choice regarding paying the TV license as we do paying council tax... but in the very next paragraph, the license fee isn't part of public taxation... so which is it? Either it's a tax that has to be paid like any other, or it isn't a tax.
With regards to the BBC being a public good, that is entirely open to opinion.
As far as interpreting political correctness automatically as left wing bias, that presumption shuts down any debate before it even begins. I'd be happy to offer actual evidence across all the BBC platforms, but as Brambles has pointed out... it'll be classed as political discussion whether it is or isn't. Perhaps you can point me towards the place you've been debating and I'm sure I can do better than the two or three people who obviously couldn't argue their way out of a toffee bag.
With regards to your last paragraph, could I suggest you read this and see whether your two questions would apply to those who appeared in court (more aptly, why they were there in the first instance).
The graph you show singles out 16-24 year olds, but doesn't break down those watching live TV in any other age group. Be interested to see it broken down further, because I suspect the figures are skewed somewhat by certain age groups.
With regards to the BBC being a public good, that is entirely open to opinion.
As far as interpreting political correctness automatically as left wing bias, that presumption shuts down any debate before it even begins. I'd be happy to offer actual evidence across all the BBC platforms, but as Brambles has pointed out... it'll be classed as political discussion whether it is or isn't. Perhaps you can point me towards the place you've been debating and I'm sure I can do better than the two or three people who obviously couldn't argue their way out of a toffee bag.
With regards to your last paragraph, could I suggest you read this and see whether your two questions would apply to those who appeared in court (more aptly, why they were there in the first instance).
The graph you show singles out 16-24 year olds, but doesn't break down those watching live TV in any other age group. Be interested to see it broken down further, because I suspect the figures are skewed somewhat by certain age groups.
Similar threads
