andygardener Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The BBC is a public service organisation, no matter how you dress it up to avoid answering a simple question. It's not the case, but it is the case? Yet all those channels/services that are subscription only, can and are ripped off everyday? Anyone who would choose Sky over the BBC is clearly too daft to know what's good for 'em But.. to turn your question around:- If someone who has no interest in using the NHS and just wants their own private care, why should they pay for the NHS? Thanks for not bothering to quote or address the majority of my post that related to the BBC. Clearly the most important issue is not how is the BBC funded it's lets compare the BBC to the NHS. OK, to indulge. If lord snootsworth decides he has more money than he knows what to do with and wants nothing to do with the vulgar NHS and will make his own healthcare arrangements then let him. Work out the percentage of his taxes that fund the NHS and let him keep them. Get run over - call a taxi to harley street. Oh, you're in Scotland for a grouse shoot. There's probably a chap in Edinburgh who does private trauma work..oh wait, no there isn't. In fact there isn't one on Harley street either. But your proctologist could probably have a stab at splinting your broken leg. Going to be a painful taxi ride though, still at least you'll have a chirpy cabby to keep you entertained through the pain instead of boring old medical professionals. The NHS is an essential public service. Anyone stupid enough to opt out of it could at any moment find themselves in mortal peril as a result of that decision. It seems unlikely in the least that anyones life will be endangered by an inability to watch Vince Cable doing a jig on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 still think it stinks that if I dont want to watch or listen to anything currently made by the BBC, I still have to pay for it. I should be able to decide what service I want to pay for rather than have this cost forced upon me. Also dont agree that BBC programmes are better quality,how do people come to this conclusion:confused: Why are you continuing with this boring 'BBC haters crawl out of the woodwork' argument? You still haven't answered my earlier question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Read it on Guido Fawkes - there for all to see That idiot, exposed by Michael White on The Guardian, pathetic. I wondered where useless Interviewer had gone. Clearly barred for boring everyone with your hobby horse rubbish you then turn up right now on cue. Why do you expect to be taken seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Thanks for not bothering to quote or address the majority of my post that related to the BBC. I am addressing it by using a comparison with another public service. That you're so desperate to avoid answering the question shows your original assertion regarding the BBC doesn't hold water. Your desperate attempts at picking an extreme example "lord snootsworth", while ignoring the "have other provisions in place" is telling. It's the same question you asked me, with the same criteria, but with a different public service replaced for the BBC. The answer you come up with, and it's justification, will answer your own question! The question regarding whether one is essential and one isn't is irrelevant. The ideals and goals under which they operate are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 To scrap the BBC sign the e-petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40667 What a dumb petition. The £145 licence fee is worth paying for BBC Radio alone, never mind TV. Look at the state of American TV to see what happens when there is no public service broadcaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I am addressing it by using a comparison with another public service. That you're so desperate to avoid answering the question shows your original assertion regarding the BBC doesn't hold water. Your desperate attempts at picking an extreme example "lord snootsworth", while ignoring the "have other provisions in place" is telling. It's the same question you asked me, with the same criteria, but with a different public service replaced for the BBC. The answer you come up with, and it's justification, will answer your own question! The question regarding whether one is essential and one isn't is irrelevant. The ideals and goals under which they operate are the same. Its been explained repeatedly to you exactly why its relevant thats ones essential and one is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 No idea and its not especially relevant whether the BBC would last without the licence fee. Except that it's the crux of the point I'm making! If they can't convince people to buy their service, it's not right to effectively compel people to pay for it given it hardly comes under the essentials in life. The vast majority don't need any convincing and realise what excellent value for money the BBC is. However, changes to the way the service is funded, allowing those who choose not to use it to not pay, would mean that the service would have to change accordingly, just like any other public service. Hence my comparison with another one! They should take their chances like other broadcasters have to. The other broadcasters don't want them to either, because they know they'd find their revenues severely squeezed. They can't compete on quality or breadth of programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Its been explained repeatedly to you exactly why its relevant thats ones essential and one is not. Why is the one you think is essential, essential to people who don't want to use it and have other provisions in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I am addressing it by using a comparison with another public service. That you're so desperate to avoid answering the question shows your original assertion regarding the BBC doesn't hold water. Your desperate attempts at picking an extreme example "lord snootsworth", while ignoring the "have other provisions in place" is telling. It's the same question you asked me, with the same criteria, but with a different public service replaced for the BBC. The answer you come up with, and it's justification, will answer your own question! The question regarding whether one is essential and one isn't is irrelevant. The ideals and goals under which they operate are the same. Nobody sane, even given the option, would voluntarily withdraw from the NHS even if they got to keep the proportion of taxes which they pay to fund it. So it's a pointless comparison. You cannot have "other provisions in place" to replace the NHS, however much money you have. The person who contributes millions in tax to keep the NHS running and with every private healthcare insurance known to man in place may depend on it to save their life just as much as the person who doesn't pay tax. I know if I followed your version of logic I'd be claiming that if you made contributions to the NHS voluntary then people would just download the surgical instructions from the web and get their mate to do it for free but I'm a little more realistic than that. The reason people would not withdraw funding from the NHS is because it IS an essential public service. The reason some people may withdraw funding from the BBC is because it is NOT an essential public service. The goal of the BBC should therefore be to ensure that it is sufficiently popular as a public entertainment service that people are happy to pay for the service it provides. I don't see how that is controversial in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Nobody sane, even given the option, would voluntarily withdraw from the NHS even if they got to keep the proportion of taxes which they pay to fund it. They might, if they were allowed the option of paying for their own care from the NHS as and when they need it. That seems to be what you're proposing for the BBC, so it's a valid comparison. So it's a pointless comparison. See above. You cannot have "other provisions in place" to replace the NHS, however much money you have. The person who contributes millions in tax to keep the NHS running and with every private healthcare insurance known to man in place may depend on it to save their life just as much as the person who doesn't pay tax. The rules would change in the same fashion that you propose for the BBC, so you will be able to have other provisions, or at the very least, pay for what you use. I know if I followed your version of logic I'd be claiming that if you made contributions to the NHS voluntary then people would just download the surgical instructions from the web and get their mate to do it for free but I'm a little more realistic than that. That bears no relation to anything I've said whatsoever. The comparison can only be valid IF your mate IS a qualified surgeon! The problem seems to be that I'm comparing oranges to oranges, while you're comparing oranges to sausages... or something. You do realise this discussion is a "what if" scenario, I'm not actually proposing any of it, just using it to compare how the BBC might fare under the same conditions? It doesn't seem like you've grasped that bit. The reason people would not withdraw funding from the NHS is because it IS an essential public service. The reason some people may withdraw funding from the BBC is because it is NOT an essential public service. It is still public service, I defend it and the license fee for exactly the same reasons I would defend the NHS and the way its funded, the ideals for which they both exist and the charters under which they operate. The goal of the BBC should therefore be to ensure that it is sufficiently popular as a public entertainment service that people are happy to pay for the service it provides. I don't see how that is controversial in any way. I think you're avoiding the question because you can't answer it without undermining your original assertions. Regardless, with regards to the BBC, I believe it would survive and thrive if the shackles of public service were removed. That's what they are, shackles, but they exist for a very good reason. You only have to see TV in nations where there is no public service broadcaster to see exactly why the BBC and it's funding should remain as they are. Fortunately, the majority agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.