Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Isn’t it time to end the BBC’s license to extort?

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I have many questions to ask about the BBC license fee. In light of recent events isn’t it time we have the right to decide what TV services we buy and who we pay our money to? Earlier this year the BBC even made a royalty payment to Garry Glitter because they still choose to show programs with him performing in them. Why should we be forced to pay Garry Glitter just because we want to watch Television? Why can’t we just subscribe to SKY if we so choose?

    Why should we be forced to buy the BBC’s service? Why shouldn’t we be able to watch TV without been harassed into paying the BBC? Isn’t this how gangsters work? All be it using the courts rather than heavies.

    Rupert Murdoch may be scum but at least I get to choose whether to fund him or not, at least I can buy the mirror newspaper without having to buy or pay the sun for the privilege! What other product or service do we have to stand for this with and be bullied into buying in this way? I want to buy SKY but I don’t want to buy the BBC, why can’t I do this? Does anybody ever question the morality of this principle? Or have we all just been brainwashed into believing it is acceptable and morally ok? Why are the people who don’t pay made to look like the bad guys?

    Why should we have been forced to fund SaVILE? And pay to make his TV programs when people at the BBC basically seemed to know what was going on and were covering it up even until a couple of weeks back (i.e. news night)? Why should we have been forced to be his enabler and give him a position that allowed him to do this? Why should we have been forced to pay for his Rolls Royce in which he would drive around raping our children?

    Why can’t the BBC use a subscription technology like SKY? The technology has been around for decades. The BBC may keep people in work but so did the Krays, it doesn’t justify this way of operating and forcing people to support you? The value for money is not the issue at stake here! Why do people who defend it keep saying that? Is it because there is nothing else they can say to defend it? Why can’t the BBC operate like other channels and use advertising, subscription or both? Why can’t the public be allowed to choose?

    I also wonder if we should all be doing what Noel Edmunds did and refuse to pay. Enough people did it in Australia and in the end they had to abolish it. Isn’t it time to stop supporting this extortion racket for moral reasons alone? What morality justifies the BBC license fee?

    If the government want to give the economy a boost by putting money back in people’s pockets is this not a £120 a year start which should be the very top of the list? If David Cameron wants to now let the public start choosing what they spend our money on can’t we start on this? Isn’t this less important than welfare? Who else is for this tax cut? Is it me who is mad or just most the rest of the country who seem to think this is ok? Or is it the majority who support it? What’s your view?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I agree, I don't want to be forced to pay for something I might not even want to watch. I'd much rather they just put commercial adverts on instead of advertising their own shows and services and making us pick up the bill.

    And as for the BBC been independent and impartial, no one is perfect enough to be 100% impartial and no one is naive enough to believe they are.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To me it seems like one big state propaganda network, which is probably why the government forces us to fund it, it is so biased and political, I am sick of being told how I must think the Olympics was a good use of public money and how I must be excited about the royal wedding even though I am a republican.

    It’s like some sort of communist state brainwashing network. I wish they would let me decide what I want to think and which TV services I want to buy and fund. I simply cannot abide by the principle of being forced to buy a certain service or else you can’t use any of that type of product, after all I don’t have to pay Persil so that I can use Daz washing powder.

    This is £120 a year the government could give to reduce students living costs! Let the public choose what their money gets spent on just like David Cameron wants to with welfare, if people want to support the BBC then they can subscribe, if the BBC has to scale back then so be it, at least this would be a moral way of operating, every other channel has to stand on their own two feet why not the BBC? Why doesn’t ITV or Sky get public money? There isn’t one decent argument that morally justifies this gangster like way of operating! Not the value for money or the service we would lose, nothing! Let the people choose what they buy and which TV networks to fund!

    Strip SaVILE of his knighthood and the BBC of their licence fee as neither deserve to have them!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. They provide a fantastic service. Look at shows like Thick of It and Doctor Who - guess what funded those? I enjoy watching the BBC at Christmas time especially, so I can watch all the classic old movies they show without having them try to ram a new hairdryer/car/computer/lego set up my arse every fifteen minutes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    in this day and age of satellite tv and internet the bbc licence does seem like a forced subscription fee -- which i think could probably be upheld in the human rights courts if someone decided not to pay the licence.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    When someone's entire argument consists of questions you really have to wonder how well they've thought it out.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If you watch enough Fox News you gain a deep understanding of how lucky we are to have BBC News - they are accurate, accountable to the public and remarkably unbiased. The fact that they are accused of both liberal and conservative bias shows their true impartiality - when was the last time you saw Fox News slammed for being too left-wing or the Guardian accused of having a rabid right-wing agenda?

    BBC also produces a wide range of amazing broadcasting and it's important that they are accountable to us, the public, not to commercial interests and shareholders. If we strip their license fee funding then we're going to end up with a case of feeling that we didn't know what we had until it was gone.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes it is absolutely sickening that you are forced to pay for a license service even if you never watch BBC content. The BBC model is archaic and outdated and should be scrapped. At a push I'd let the news wing of the corporation stay as it is, but simply paid for by direct taxes instead of a separate license fee. Doctor Who, Eastenders, and all other lame BBC content should either be sold, paid for through adverts, or voluntary subscription.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The only thing I like about the BBC in general is the lack of adverts and how much better iplayer is than itv player. That said, I watch two BBC shows a week, if that, and it seems wrong that the joy of that is £120.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happydude)
    No. They provide a fantastic service. Look at shows like Thick of It and Doctor Who - guess what funded those? I enjoy watching the BBC at Christmas time especially, so I can watch all the classic old movies they show without having them try to ram a new hairdryer/car/computer/lego set up my arse every fifteen minutes.
    Yeah but not everyone enjoys those shows. The fact that we are forced to buy a TV license is ridiculous, especially now that a significant amount of people in the UK have Sky and Virgin Media (so BBC channels make up what.... 6/300 of the channels most people have). We should at least be able to opt out of buying it. The only things I watch on the BBC are Family Guy and American Dad, and they're on FX anyway.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SleepySheep)
    Yeah but not everyone enjoys those shows. The fact that we are forced to buy a TV license is ridiculous, especially now that a significant amount of people in the UK have Sky and Virgin Media (so BBC channels make up what.... 6/300 of the channels most people have). We should at least be able to opt out of buying it. The only things I watch on the BBC are Family Guy and American Dad, and they're on FX anyway.
    And do you want to know what's really ridiculous? BBC have to pay Sky for Sky to broadcast them. Not the other way around. How ridiculous is that?

    And don't you feel a little guilty for giving money to Emperor Palpa- I mean Rupert Murdoch?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happydude)
    No. They provide a fantastic service. Look at shows like Thick of It and Doctor Who - guess what funded those? I enjoy watching the BBC at Christmas time especially, so I can watch all the classic old movies they show without having them try to ram a new hairdryer/car/computer/lego set up my arse every fifteen minutes.
    Yes but the quality of the service is not the issue, that’s all anybody can ever say to defend it but it doesn’t change the morality of being forced to buy something that not everybody wants to buy, it’s like saying Persil is the best quality and most popular washing powder so therefore everybody has to buy it by law or else you can’t use a washing machine to wash your clothes.

    You name one other thing which we would stand for it with. Nothing can change the fact it’s a legal extortion racket no matter how good the value or quality! The Kray twins provided business in their area with fantastic protection, but they shouldn’t have been allowed to force people to have their services like they did.

    The BBC may provide both employment and a good service but so does the mafia! Just because you like their TV programs doesn’t justify this way of operating. Also maybe I do not like the kind of TV the BBC make, so why should I be forced to pay just because you like their programs, it has to be one of the worlds thinnest arguments, everybody spouts it without thinking because they have never questioned the morality of something that has always been forced upon them.

    I swear you could convince people it was a good idea for them to be hung upside down in the street every day and tarred and feathered as long as they had always been used to it. Why do so few question the morality of this?

    Incidentally most the TV I watch these days is on the sky arts channels, but there are so many other examples of superb television which isn’t funded by this type of extortion racket which just goes to show we do not need to be harassed and extorted just to have high quality TV and even if we did it wouldn't justify it anyway! Is it any surprise the BBC turned a blind eye to criminals when they behave like criminals themselves? Why are we surprised?

    If the BBC is so good then why does it have to force people to fund it? Why can’t it charge a subscription like sky? After all if everybody truly wants it they will subscribe anyway and it will hardly make any difference and then those who want it can have it and those who don’t won’t and will sleep safe in the knowledge that not one penny of their money has gone to Mr Glitter, how is that not fair?

    Why not let people choose? If people want to buy it then they will anyway and it won’t make any difference! What are they sacred of? Maybe they know many people won’t want to buy it? Maybe that’s why they have to force us like gangsters do, the only difference is the immoral law is on their side and actually helps them to extort people!
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happydude)
    And do you want to know what's really ridiculous? BBC have to pay Sky for Sky to broadcast them. Not the other way around. How ridiculous is that?

    And don't you feel a little guilty for giving money to Emperor Palpa- I mean Rupert Murdoch?
    Weird!

    Not really, rupert murdoch is a sex kitten

    Spoiler:
    Show
    he might be watching us :ninja:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As a public service broadcaster they provide many things that the market does not, 10% of all TV output and 40% of all radio output would not be provided by the market alone and for this reason I think it is great value for money. All the radio you get for free is worth £120 on it's own. None of that would happen without the licence fee even though you can still get it without a licence. You can't just rely on other people to pay. They also do a great job at the website. I think it is great and I love not having adverts. What better entertainment could you get for £120 a year?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    anything to piss off that old fart murdoch is money well spent
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomOfChoice)
    Yes but the quality of the service is not the issue, that’s all anybody can ever say to defend it but it doesn’t change the morality of being forced to buy something that not everybody wants to buy, it’s like saying Persil is the best quality and most popular washing powder so therefore everybody has to buy it by law or else you can’t use a washing machine to wash your clothes.

    You name one other thing which we would stand for it with. Nothing can change the fact it’s a legal extortion racket no matter how good the value or quality! The Kray twins provided business in their area with fantastic protection, but they shouldn’t have been allowed to force people to have their services like they did.

    The BBC may provide both employment and a good service but so does the mafia! Just because you like their TV programs doesn’t justify this way of operating. Also maybe I do not like the kind of TV the BBC make, so why should I be forced to pay just because you like their programs, it has to be one of the worlds thinnest arguments, everybody spouts it without thinking because they have never questioned the morality of something that has always been forced upon them.

    I swear you could convince people it was a good idea for them to be hung upside down in the street every day and tarred and feathered as long as they had always been used to it. Why do so few question the morality of this?

    Incidentally most the TV I watch these days is on the sky arts channels, but there are so many other examples of superb television which isn’t funded by this type of extortion racket which just goes to show we do not need to be harassed and extorted just to have high quality TV and even if we did it wouldn't justify it anyway! Is it any surprise the BBC turned a blind eye to criminals when they behave like criminals themselves? Why are we surprised?

    If the BBC is so good then why does it have to force people to fund it? Why can’t it charge a subscription like sky? After all if everybody truly wants it they will subscribe anyway and it will hardly make any difference and then those who want it can have it and those who don’t won’t and will sleep safe in the knowledge that not one penny of their money has gone to Mr Glitter, how is that not fair?

    Why not let people choose? If people want to buy it then they will anyway and it won’t make any difference! What are they sacred of? Maybe they know many people won’t want to buy it? Maybe that’s why they have to force us like gangsters do, the only difference is the immoral law is on their side and actually helps them to extort people!
    I understand your argument, but I like the BBC and I really can't muster any counter-argument. I think there would be more outrage if they didn't provide decent programming. They provide (fairly) unbiased news coverage and I am proud of the world broadcasting service
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hslt)
    When someone's entire argument consists of questions you really have to wonder how well they've thought it out.
    Are you serious? Is that the best you can do to oppose my arguments? We do indeed all make our arguments and points in our own way and my apologies if I have made mine in the form of too many questions or if you don’t like my English or whatever, but I think I have done far more to oppose the case for the TV licence than you have to defend it, what sort of defence is that? Is that it? The level to which people have been brainwashed when it comes to this issue is absurd I swear it’s worse than Stockholm syndrome. I don’t know how anyone can defend it.

    Let me make my argument clearer for you, this is an unfair and extortion like way of operating, no LTD company which the BBC is by the way should be allowed to force people to buy its products or services or else have the right to deny people from using that sort of service period, even if it is supplied from other providers and the fact that it can use the courts to harass people and enforce it is an absolute moral outrage!

    Is that clear enough, can anybody find a decent moral argument that actually justifies it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't know. I like the BBC but at the same time I understand some people don't want to pay the license fee.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happydude)
    I understand your argument, but I like the BBC and I really can't muster any counter-argument. I think there would be more outrage if they didn't provide decent programming. They provide (fairly) unbiased news coverage and I am proud of the world broadcasting service
    Well at least I appreciate your honesty and yes although I have criticised the BBC there is also a lot that is good about them too, I know it’s a national institution and all the rest of it. And issues of how they have both funded child abusers and turned a blind eye to their activities aside I just can’t justify being forced to support them.

    I know they may have to scale back a bit if they operated with a subscription, advertising or did both like sky, but at least it would be a fair way of operating both in regards to the public and their competition.

    I am sure they could still provide a very good service and still make excellent programs and fund themselves in a moral and just way. This is why I personally am going to sign the e petition to abolish it. I know it may not do much good just yet but at least it will start the ball rolling and send a message and getting people talking about the issue is always the first step. I sincerely believe the days of operating in this way are numbered and that people will at some point reject it. My apologies for getting a little hot under the collar.

    All the best,
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FreedomOfChoice)
    Well at least I appreciate your honesty and yes although I have criticised the BBC there is also a lot that is good about them too, I know it’s a national institution and all the rest of it. And issues of how they have both funded child abusers and turned a blind eye to their activities aside I just can’t justify being forced to support them.

    I know they may have to scale back a bit if they operated with a subscription, advertising or did both like sky, but at least it would be a fair way of operating both in regards to the public and their competition.

    I am sure they could still provide a very good service and still make excellent programs and fund themselves in a moral and just way. This is why I personally am going to sign the e petition to abolish it. I know it may not do much good just yet but at least it will start the ball rolling and send a message and getting people talking about the issue is always the first step. I sincerely believe the days of operating in this way are numbered and that people will at some point reject it. My apologies for getting a little hot under the collar.

    All the best,
    The British public is at best indifferent and this is a very niche view you have. Good luck, but you will fail.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: October 19, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.