George Entwistle - Clueless? [Update: He's resigned]

[nightrider]

You don't need a licence to operate a television.

 

You do need one to receive non-BBC broadcasts.

[andygardener]

It's illustrating a point, andy, nothing more.

 

To be fair it's pushing the point that you and several others have made that the licence fee is merely another tax we all have to pay and the fact that the BBC is the beneficiary is neither here nor there. Which is disingenuous, the reason we have to pay for a TV licence is the need to subsidise the BBC. Remove that need and we remove the need for the licence and thus save everyone some money, which in straightened times could hardly be a bad thing.

[L00b]

To be fair it's pushing the point that you and several others have made that the licence fee is merely another tax we all have to pay and the fact that the BBC is the beneficiary is neither here nor there.

All correct.

As it is classified in law as a tax,[56] evasion is a criminal offence. (source)

Which is disingenuous, the reason we have to pay for a TV licence is the need to subsidise the BBC. Remove that need and we remove the need for the licence and thus save everyone some money, which in straightened times could hardly be a bad thing.

How can it be disingenuous, when it is factual?

 

If you want to discuss the merit or otherwise of the BBC, then that it a different debate (use made of tax receipts) to the license fee (tax itself).

 

And if you're happy getting dross on TV 24/7 à la ITV1/2/3/4/etc. for the sake of saving (most probably less than-) £140 a year, by all means try and make your case - just don't bother trying it with me. In my eyes, until too much of the total BBC output goes dross (Eastenders, Strictly and such) it's still a bargain (point belaboured).

[nightrider]

All correct.

 

How can it be disingenuous, when it is factual?

 

I think because you and others are trying to imply we would have to pay the licence fee in any case, because even without the BBC a licence would still be needed to receive broadcasts, so it would not save money if we did not have the BBC - but thats not true. Remove the BBC and the licence would cost dramatically less to the licensee.

[andygardener]

All correct.

 

How can it be disingenuous, when it is factual?

 

If you want to discuss the merit or otherwise of the BBC, then that it a different debate (use made of tax receipts) to the license fee (tax itself).

 

And if you're happy getting dross on TV 24/7 à la ITV1/2/3/4/etc. for the sake of saving (most probably less than-) £140 a year, by all means try and make your case - just don't bother trying it with me. In my eyes, until too much of the total BBC output goes dross (Eastenders, Strictly and such) it's still a bargain (point belaboured).

 

The nature of disingenuous is to be partially factual. To suggest that a self funding BBC would still leave us having to pay the licence fee but to central government instead of the BBC is disingenuous. Remove the need for this particular tax and you remove the tax.

[ECCOnoob]

You do need one to receive non-BBC broadcasts.

 

Of course you do because licence fee monies also go into commercial television, freeview, digital uk and infrastructure to actually send and recieve television signals.

 

its not just about bbc 1. Its pays for lots of things.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

I believe the topic is George Entwistle ? If you want to discuss the relative merits of sky vs terrestrial TV or whether there should be a license fee or whether music should be free please start another thread.

[L00b]

I think because you and others are trying to imply we would have to pay the licence fee in any case, because even without the BBC a licence would still be needed to receive broadcasts, so it would not save money if we did not have the BBC - but thats not true. Remove the BBC and the licence would cost dramatically less to the licensee.

The nature of disingenuous is to be partially factual. To suggest that a self funding BBC would still leave us having to pay the licence fee but to central government instead of the BBC is disingenuous. Remove the need for this particular tax and you remove the tax.

I have neither implied nor suggested anything of the sort. You have inferred/extrapolated it from my posts and conveniently built a nice strawman out of it.

 

I have simply referred to the system as it currently is: the license is a tax. The tax return is generated when a TV is bought, for practical reasons. It's a criminal offense to evade its payment. The end.

 

Re. the red bits: as I have already explained, the license can be done away with indeed, but only if relevant Act, Rules, Directives are first expunged, amended, repealed, etc. (since the BBC and the license fee both arise from UK legislation). So, start petitionning your MP.

 

In the meantime, keep dreaming about doing away with it and/or the BBC (irrespective of which comes first in your -sterile- argument).

 

Now, about George Entwistle...

[nightrider]

I have neither implied nor suggested anything of the sort. You have inferred/extrapolated it from my posts and conveniently built a nice strawman out of it.

 

I have simply referred to the system as it currently is: the license is a tax. The tax return is generated when a TV is bought, for practical reasons. It's a criminal offense to evade its payment. The end.

 

Re. the red bits: as I have already explained, the license can be done away with indeed, but only if relevant Act, Rules, Directives are first expunged, amended, repealed, etc. (since the BBC and the license fee both arise from UK legislation).

 

completely irrelevant - I am not suggesting to remove the licence, but to stop using it as a way to divert peoples money into the BBC in an involuntary way.

[andygardener]

I have neither implied nor suggested anything of the sort. You have inferred/extrapolated it from my posts and conveniently built a nice strawman out of it.

 

I have simply referred to the system as it currently is: the license is a tax. The tax return is generated when a TV is bought, for practical reasons. It's a criminal offense to evade its payment. The end.

 

Re. the red bits: as I have already explained, the license can be done away with indeed, but only if relevant Act, Rules, Directives are first expunged, amended, repealed, etc. (since the BBC and the license fee both arise from UK legislation). So, start petitionning your MP.

 

In the meantime, keep dreaming about doing away with it and/or the BBC (irrespective of which comes first in your -sterile- argument).

 

Now, about George Entwistle...

 

I think we're all aware that the acts that allow Capita to collect the tax emanate from parliament and any change to the BBC tax system would ultimately have to come from parliament. You apparently see the tax as great value for money, I see millions of people watching stuff like eastenders and strictly whose lives would not be turned upside down if they had to watch a few adverts for the privilege and in return the licence fee was at the least substantially reduced or better abolished.

 

Why's that relevant to George Entwistle? When you have a big payoff for failure in an organisation which by law you have to pay for even if you only want to use their competitors products people cannot take their business elsewhere in protest. Which of course the BBC know, hence the big payoff.