Reue finally got visited by the Tv Licence Inspectors! Watch

AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#121
Report 8 years ago
#121
(Original post by Student2806)
The sooner they force the BBC to find its own bloody money like every other broadcaster does
Meaning that the quality of the BBC's stuff drops to that of ITV?

(Original post by Student2806)
the sooner we can stop this guilty until proven innocent licencing bullcrap
The BBC are not responsible for the collection of the TV Licence. That's the responsibility of TV Licensing, a completely separate company operating on behalf of the BBC, thus the BBC have no say whatsoever in the ways the TV Licence is collected or enforced.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#122
Report 8 years ago
#122
(Original post by Milky Milk)
Tv Licenses are ridiculous - If the BBC want money to fund it's programmes then let advertisers in like the rest of the TV world. Money grabbing Eejits.

Having to pay over £100 for them to fund money into **** programmes such as Young, Dumb and Living off Mum? Pfft.

They got my mum after 10 years the other week :mmm:
Came in - rottweilers in hand; barking like mad - 50 police men - One strongly worded letter with a payment plan. Crafty *******s
1) The BBC are a public service broadcaster. Meaning they have to be funded by the public. Compare the number of **** shows on the BBC with the number of **** shows on the commercial channels and you'll see a very good reason why the TV license is paid.

2) The TV license is collected by a private company for the BBC, so the BBC has nothing to do with how it is collected.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#123
Report 8 years ago
#123
(Original post by deathbeforeimmortality)
LOL. What I don't get is why do we pay to watch TV then the money goes to BBC and when we MAY not ever watch the BBC? I don't get it.
It's because the BBC have to provide programmes for all tastes including niche audiences. Commercial channels usually do not cater to such audiences because the audience figures are so low they wouldn't attract advertisers.

Now, if the TV License was a voluntary paid scheme, there still wouldn't be anywhere near enough money to make the programmes and broadcast the service that the BBC is required, by law, to make and broadcast.

It may not seem fair, but 1) How else are they going to fund paying for programmes for niche audiences?
2) Because the BBC are everywhere in the British media, I think that even the most die-hard BBC-hater would listen or watch a BBC programme that interests them some time.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#124
Report 8 years ago
#124
(Original post by speedbird)
I think it's disgusting the BBC uses mafia tactics to get people to buy their products. I don't watch the BBC, why should I give them my money for nothing?
As stated before, the BBC don't collect the TV Licence. That's done by a private company.

And how else would the programmes that cater for a niche audience be funded? Commercial TV definetly wouldn't fund them! And there wouldn't be enough money earned to spend on making such programmes if the BBC was paid for by voluntary payments.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#125
Report 8 years ago
#125
(Original post by favh)
as the license fee would lose all public support and be abolished.
It doesn't matter if the Licence fee loses all public support or not. It depends on whether the morons inside the lunatic asylum that is the House of Commons support it or not. Stuff what us proles think.
0
quote
reply
Reue
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#126
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#126
(Original post by AidanLunn)
And how else would the programmes that cater for a niche audience be funded? Commercial TV definetly wouldn't fund them! And there wouldn't be enough money earned to spend on making such programmes if the BBC was paid for by voluntary payments.
I think the question is then begged to be asked: Should the majority be forced to pay for something niche that they wont ever want to watch?
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#127
Report 8 years ago
#127
(Original post by River85)
It's quite simple. Why pay for something you don't use or need?
As said before, how do you expect the BBC to broadcast the niche audience and mass-appeal programmes they are legally required to make? They are also required to be the testing ground and developers for new TV technology. Voluntary payments wouldn't cover the total cost for all of this, neither would commercials.
0
quote
reply
lovely_me
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#128
Report 8 years ago
#128
MATE, what is this obsession with the TV license majig?

It's the only way the Beeb will continue with their top quality programmes, unlike ITV shyt and the only way Dave will have anything to actually show for itself with its countless reruns of Live at the Apollo.


It's the circle of life :moon:
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#129
Report 8 years ago
#129
(Original post by Reue)
I think the question is then begged to be asked: Should the majority be forced to pay for something niche that they wont ever want to watch?
Well, yes. How else will it be funded?
0
quote
reply
Reue
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#130
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#130
(Original post by AidanLunn)
Well, yes. How else will it be funded?
Well, if a majority of people would never watch it.. im sure a majority would argue that it shouldnt...
0
quote
reply
Reue
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#131
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#131
(Original post by lovely_me)
MATE, what is this obsession with the TV license majig?
Its not the BBC I dislike... its the company they use for licence collection and bullying tactics used to confuse and mislead people.
0
quote
reply
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#132
Report 8 years ago
#132
(Original post by AidanLunn)
Meaning that the quality of the BBC's stuff drops to that of ITV?
ITV is as it is precisely because it has no chance of being able to compete with the BBC, which spends about 3 times more every year (considering this fact, ITV doesn't do too badly...). Put the BBC into the commercial market and yes, BBC standards may drop, but the introduction of a competitive industry would give ITV and the other commercial broadcasters the chance to catch up.

I'd rather have several broadcasters able to catch and compete with the BBC than have a state broadcaster stifling everyone, as is the case now. This notion that British TV would go down the pan if the BBC was privatised is utter nonsense.
0
quote
reply
ElNormo91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#133
Report 8 years ago
#133
(Original post by Reue)
Its not the BBC I dislike... its the company they use for licence collection and bullying tactics used to confuse and mislead people.
Crapita?
0
quote
reply
River85
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#134
Report 8 years ago
#134
(Original post by AidanLunn)
As said before, how do you expect the BBC to broadcast the niche audience and mass-appeal programmes they are legally required to make? They are also required to be the testing ground and developers for new TV technology. Voluntary payments wouldn't cover the total cost for all of this, neither would commercials.
Still doesn't explain why they should bully people into getting a licence (especially when it's not needed). It's plain immoral.

They also make a bomb from DVD sales and seling their programmes abroad (and, along with government grants, that makes about on quarter of their operating expenditure?)

They already get money from the taxpayer (in the form of government grants). So every tax payer already makes a contribution even without paying for a licence fee.

Can't be too hard up if they were able to give a tit like Jonathon Ross 20 million quid or whatever.
0
quote
reply
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#135
Report 8 years ago
#135
I find it hilarious that 4G dollar is now deleted posts and hasn't replied since realising his posts are utter rubbish lol
0
quote
reply
speedbird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#136
Report 8 years ago
#136
(Original post by AidanLunn)
As stated before, the BBC don't collect the TV Licence. That's done by a private company.

And how else would the programmes that cater for a niche audience be funded? Commercial TV definetly wouldn't fund them! And there wouldn't be enough money earned to spend on making such programmes if the BBC was paid for by voluntary payments.
The BBC is responsible for collecting licence fees and chooses to use a private company to do the dirty work for them.

Well, what makes the BBC so special? Why am I expected to fund niche programmes so few people watch but only if they're broadcast by the BBC?
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#137
Report 8 years ago
#137
(Original post by River85)
Still doesn't explain why they should bully people into getting a licence (especially when it's not needed). It's plain immoral.

They also make a bomb from DVD sales and seling their programmes abroad (and, along with government grants, that makes about on quarter of their operating expenditure?)

They already get money from the taxpayer (in the form of government grants). So every tax payer already makes a contribution even without paying for a licence fee.

Can't be too hard up if they were able to give a tit like Jonathon Ross 20 million quid or whatever.
1) They don't use bullying tactics. TV Licensing do. The BBC cannot be held responsible for TV Licensing's actions because TV Licensing is not the BBC.

2) Yes, they do make a bomb from BBC Worldwide, but there is a limit to how much of BBC Worldwide's income can be spent on BBC programmes. The only thing that the two organisations have in common is the name. BBC Worldwide is wholly privately owned.

3) And don't you think that those grants would stop under this government?

4) The figure was £18million per 3 years. Wossy is actually paid much less than that. Even though I don't work for the BBC, I've had the payment details slips explained to me by a BBC employee who is a personal friend, and they include the *total* spent on that personality. The problem is that the BBC do not publish details of what exactly that £6 million per year is spent on, when they should do to clarify the situation that they are in with the national papers.

It includes:
Total pay for the star
Total pay for the staff to make his programmes
Paying rights to play songs in his radio show
Ditto for movie clips in Film 20XX
Paying for Four Poofs on Friday night . . .
Plus various other expenses

It's obvious to me that the Daily Fail Crew just took one look at the pay slip without examining it in detail and immediately thought that Ross was paid £6million per annum for three years.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#138
Report 8 years ago
#138
(Original post by speedbird)
The BBC is responsible for collecting licence fees and chooses to use a private company to do the dirty work for them.

Well, what makes the BBC so special? Why am I expected to fund niche programmes so few people watch but only if they're broadcast by the BBC?
Because if you didn't fund them, then who would? The voluntary payment method wouldn't work because there wouldn't be enough to spend on making it if the money came purely from people who would be interested in watching it.

I don't need to explain why placing commercials on the BBC wouldn't work. That's obvious.

The next thing that makes them so special is that it's one of the last few British-based worldwide organisations that Britain can truly be proud of. the BBC contributed nearly £8 billion to the economy last year via the British film and independent production company industries.

If we had your way then the only PSB broadcaster would be Sky - which offers complete tosh and you'd have to pay more for it. This means that those on limited incomes would be forgotten because of the extortionate amount that Murdoch charges for his services. Why should we be forgotten?
0
quote
reply
Neo
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#139
Report 8 years ago
#139
(Original post by Milky Milk)
I don't really understand why someone would want to defend the TV Licence?
The BBC is paid for by the license fee. The BBC provides programs of exceptional quality compared to most if not all other TV channels. It provides jobs for thousands of British people and also produces your radio stations which are paid for by the license fee. It provides entertainment without advertisements as a result (which arguably cost many people far more than the license fee every year). It is a British institution which many people would like to preserve. It provides other exceptional services like local news and the BBC news website which is all paid for by the license fee.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#140
Report 8 years ago
#140
(Original post by Milky Milk)
Right..? But regardless of how it is collected - They still collect it and I don't think that we should have to pay for the BBC. I don't really understand why someone would want to defend the TV Licence?
Well why shouldn't we?

I repeat, how will the BBC get funding to make programmes for niche audiences that they are required by law to make, when the funding that they would get from voluntary payments or advertising wouldn't even cover the cost of hiring a crew to make that programme?

It's the licence fee that keeps the BBC supposedly acting in the public interest* and not doing what shareholders tell them to do, unlike most commercial channels.

*Unfortunately, the BBC is now staffed by management that were previously at commercial companies and they evidently don't understand the concept of being "politically unbiased". This is why the BBC is so filled with downmarket trash such as the Saturday night talent contest that they keep on renaming.

Look up what the TV licence really pays for and you'll probably it is very good value for money, although I agree that it can be cut by around a third to stop paying so much to an overpaid, over-staffed, over-beauracratic management team. The TV licence is spread across a very wide range of services.

I don't see why people find it so wierd paying for it. We've had it for 65 years (with a radio licence before that) and we are in no way the only country in the world to have one!
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (233)
27.51%
No (614)
72.49%

Watched Threads

View All