[Iron Lady]

Discuss.

[Tateco]

Who's going to pay for it then? More importantly, how will people cope without Eastenders?!

[the man from space]

In all seriousness the BBC actually has some great programming which is provided without adverts, the have great shows such as Sherlock, Hustle and many more on bbc 3 such as pramface and white van man. If it means that we all pay money towards great entertainment then i say dont scrap it as its useful, scrap something else such as MP's expenses

[chefdave]

Just don't pay it, job done!

[FinalMH]

I quite like the horizon series :P

[FrogInABog]

I voted disagree, but on reflection, I'm not so sure...

On the one hand, the BBC provides excellent quality with no adverts and (usually) impartial broadcasting.

On the other, if I didn't use the BBC, but was forced to pay the TV License all the same (if I just watched ITV, Channel 4 etc.), I guess I would see that as unfair.

Having said that, I can't imagine never using the BBC, and I think £140 a year is pretty good value for what it produces, so I'm sticking to my original opinion!

[Yellow_Watermelon]

I don't watch live tv

[cgraham15]

I can just watch tv on my laptop anyway... so there is no point

[Skarm]

Generally I'm all for the TV license. BBC 1 and 2 have some great programs on, and it's nice to be able to watch programs without any adverts.
The only time I get really annoyed about it is when I go to BBC 3 to find the entire schedule for the day is don't tell the bride, two pints of lager reruns, family guy reruns, american dad reruns, doctor who reruns and russell howards good news reruns. If I'm going to be paying for an "experimental" channel, I at least want some new stuff on there, not just repeated episodes of rubbish.

[WelshBluebird]

Disagree.
However I do think there needs to a serious look at the BBC and where its costs go (considering how much it pays some of the presenters and such), and the fee could probably be lowered a bit after that.

[A Mysterious Lord]

It's not the programming that I have a problem with, it's the wastage at the BBC - crews/presenters enjoying VIP receptions at events, sending a crew of 400 to Glastonbury, Gary Lineker being chauffeured to and from Salford every Saturday, the enormous salaries/bonuses and the middle managers and support jobs that wouldn't dare exist in the private sector but because it's someone else's money it doesn't matter.

Then there's the fact that the BBC is ALLOWED to have a political opinion on matters. This should be a huge no-no if the BBC is unbiased. Don't say it doesn't happen because it does - the heavy reporting of events that conform to their own agenda while not reporting things that go against it i.e. immigration and Europe.

I think the BBC needs to be looked at; if it was a private company it would simply not survive in its current form. An initial solution could be to cut the license fee but to allow limited advertising - just because a broadcaster shows adverts does not mean it can't be unbiased.

[:)ella]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)

Then there's the fact that the BBC is ALLOWED to have a political opinion on matters. This should be a huge no-no if the BBC is unbiased. Don't say it doesn't happen because it does - the heavy reporting of events that conform to their own agenda while not reporting things that go against it i.e. immigration and Europe.

I think the BBC needs to be looked at; if it was a private company it would simply not survive in its current form. An initial solution could be to cut the license fee but to allow limited advertising - just because a broadcaster shows adverts does not mean it can't be unbiased.

You sound like the kind of person who believes the Daily Mail is unbiased

[TGH1]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Discuss.

It depends.

[internetguru]

(Original post by the man from space)
In all seriousness the BBC actually has some great programming which is provided without adverts, the have great shows such as Sherlock, Hustle and many more on bbc 3 such as pramface and white van man. If it means that we all pay money towards great entertainment then i say dont scrap it as its useful, scrap something else such as MP's expenses

Those programmes are terrible.

[the man from space]

(Original post by internetguru)
Those programmes are terrible.

Really even Sherlock or Hustle?

[internetguru]

(Original post by the man from space)
Really even Sherlock or Hustle?

Yes I would much rather watch Game of Thrones or Dexter.

[the man from space]

(Original post by internetguru)
Yes I would much rather watch Game of Thrones or Dexter.

Well i guess we have to agree to disagree then

[internetguru]

(Original post by the man from space)
Well i guess we have to agree to disagree then

Either way a tax on having a television in order to fund a state owned media company is ridiculous.

[inksplodge]

I've just voted disagree but again on reflection maybe I was a bit quick to judge after reflecting on what I actually watch. Like everyone else has suggested I'd like to see changes though, as there is a lot of wastage of money & resources.

[AeroLB]

I wouldn't mind paying for the BBC alone if it was less money, but considering about £50 a month is spent on Sky, then it just seems that it should either be cheaper, or included in the Sky deal.