nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Not to mention the fact that you ARE NOT forced to pay for it by law... you only HAVE to pay it if you are receiving broadcast TV or UK based live streamed TV. If you do neither of these thing, i.e watch DVD's or Netflix, or yes even non live iplayer catch up you do not require a license. If you want to watch any non-BBC channel on a television you are compelled by law to fund the BBC television channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I still can't figure out what all the kerfuffle is about, the BBC run a story.. for which they had a witness, they don't name anybody in said story.. but because the interweb is having it's usual dose of the unsubstantiated McCarthy's about something or other they get the blame.. I can't really fathom it either. It seems libel/defamation law covers this scenario - you don't need to name someone to libel them, merely provide sufficient information for them to be identified. In the age of the world wide web its not hard to type "tory 1980's aide paedo" into google and find all sorts of websites, including ones naming the person who may now sue them. The BBC lawyers should have advised this to the program and recommended not to broadcast it? However it seems (according to ST) since one of the non-BBC people involved in the news piece had tweeted they would reveal the name, they felt they had no choice but to broadcast or get accused of covering another scandal up which everyone now knew they had information on. I fail to see how X can be liable for Y's libels, even in the context described. I didn't see the programme, but did it drop some really big hints that the abuser was Lord McAlpine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 as stated in my original post,all these programmes are available on other channels. Are you saying that the programmes made by the beeb are available to watch on other channels..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I doubt any are as well respected the world over as the BBC. For far more than the cost of the license fee, see my earlier F1 comment. They're not of comparable quality. I've yet to see any channel make programs of the type and quality of BBC4, they certainly are not available on other channels. So, Dave and Yesterday, or UK Gold if you want to pay more. Both the free channels listed are used to reduce your license fee, and without the license fee, the programs wouldn't exist in the first place. It's not all about what *you* need, it's public service, so it stands to reason it should cater for all. It's about what we all need, hence the license fee. It's a public service, much like the NHS, education and a multitude of others. It's right and proper that it's funded by the people it was set up to cater for. Long may it continue. It's interesting that virtually every poster who has nothing but praise for the irreplaceable quality of the BBC and it's output also supports keeping it funded by a tax on TV's. Assuming it's as good as it's supporters think it is, then surely a subscription like Sky is the way to go. No subscription, no access. Gets rid of evasion overnight (and all the money paid to Capita). Once it's a subscription service then it's got every incentive to give its subscribers more high quality programming and go from strength to strength. Those who want it continue to have it, those who genuinely only want competitors output are no longer forced to pay for content they don't want and those who quite liked it but were too tight to pay for a licence could now no longer get it for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 If you want to watch any non-BBC channel on a television you are compelled by law to fund the BBC television channels. Thanks for basically re-itterating what I said But my version was more accurate... if you watch any broadcast TV (as I said).. you are compelled to buy a TV licence... the clue is in the name, a Licence for a TV... that isn't solely for the funding of BBC channels. If you want to be pedantic that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 shall we all go back in time and turn our noses up at saville on top of the pops and jimll fix it? and refuse to watch em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Everyone gets BBC content for free. There is no charge levied to access thier services. Separately, the Government requires you to hold a licence if you access live broadcast television. That currently and historically, the one has mostly gone to pay for the other is a moot point. The requirement to hold a tv licence and the funding of the BBC are provided for under completely different parts of legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 It's interesting that virtually every poster who has nothing but praise for the irreplaceable quality of the BBC and it's output also supports keeping it funded by a tax on TV's. Assuming it's as good as it's supporters think it is, then surely a subscription like Sky is the way to go. No, because one of the main reasons it's as good as it is, is because of it's aimed at the broadest possible audience and because of the way it's funded. A subscription service would mean it becomes a place only for the "haves" & not the "have nots". Prices would increase for everyone, across the board. Many would not be able to afford subscription services and would be left with no other avenue beside the dire output of commercial TV (a lot of which would go "pop" if the BBC started chasing their ad revenue) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 No, because one of the main reasons it's as good as it is, is because of it's aimed at the broadest possible audience and because of the way it's funded. A subscription service would mean it becomes a place only for the "haves" & not the "have nots". Prices would increase for everyone, across the board. Many would not be able to afford subscription services and would be left with no other avenue beside the dire output of commercial TV (a lot of which would go "pop" if the BBC started chasing their ad revenue) So charging someone £150 a year to watch telly in general on pain of criminal sanction is inclusive, but charging someone £150 a year voluntarily to watch the BBC would be divisive? How's that so? Capita are on very good money unsuccessfully chasing those who flout the current system. That's all money saved. A proportion of the persistent 5% that refuse to pay may well decide that they actually did value the content and now they had to subscribe to get it they were actually willing to pay so you get new revenue there. The only factor that could increase costs per subscriber is if the number of willing subscribers to the BBC would be a lot lower than the number of compulsory licence fee payers now. Ie if the BBC content was not actually as popular as it's supporters think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Everyone gets BBC content for free. There is no charge levied to access thier services. Separately, the Government requires you to hold a licence if you access live broadcast television. That currently and historically, the one has mostly gone to pay for the other is a moot point. The requirement to hold a tv licence and the funding of the BBC are provided for under completely different parts of legislation. No BBC content is not free to the user - it is funded from the cost of a TV licence, which in practice nearly everyone has to have because they use a television to receive broadcasts. Doesn't matter whether the components are parts of different legislation or not - in practice you are forced to pay for the BBC because you have to have the licence which is used to fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.