onewheeldave Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Why don't you educate yourself a little and actually find out why the license fee exists, I'm sure the history of the BBC and how it came to exist is available online. As you're so educated about it, why not give us a concise overview Perhaps also cover how it's actually relevant to this thread as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Why don't you educate yourself a little and actually find out why the license fee exists, I'm sure the history of the BBC and how it came to exist is available online. There you go,sweet-talking your adversaries again. ---------- Post added 19-03-2013 at 19:46 ---------- As you're so educated about it, why not give us a concise overview Perhaps also cover how it's actually relevant to this thread as well? Some people are cut and paste merchants-they quote chapter and verse but offer little insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 As you're so educated about it, why not give us a concise overview Perhaps also cover how it's actually relevant to this thread as well? It's relevant because you posted this. In their eyes, paying £145 just cos the BBC demand it (and somehow talked the govt into passing a law on it), is a mugs game. You obviously haven't bothered to find out why the license fee exists, you're just ranting about it. Why not actually find out the history of what you're ranting about and you'll know how they "talked the govt into passing a law on it", or indeed that it didn't happen that way around at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 It's relevant because you posted this. You obviously haven't bothered to find out why the license fee exists, you're just ranting about it. Why not actually find out the history of what you're ranting about and you'll know how they "talked the govt into passing a law on it", or indeed that it didn't happen that way around at all. Ah- so it's only relevant to that one line in one post of mine? If it's not true that the BBC "talked the govt into passing a law on it", then I'm happy to withdraw the statement. As I doubt that researching the history of why the license was brought in originally has any relevance to the main points of this thread, i'll not be wasting time 'researching it'- though, as I said before, I'll happily listen to any consise summary that you should be able to post quite easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1231593.stm They can explain it better than I can. Anyway, the government created the BBC, it's not and never was a commercial company that 'talked' the government into passing a law to collect a tax to fund it. There are good arguments both for and against the license fee today, I don't have strong feelings either way. I just don't like to see arguments based on ignorance or misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 why should those using ITV etc have to pay for a service (the BBC) that they would, given a choice, happily not receive? How do you propose giving them that choice? It's rather integral to your argument that such a choice is indeed possible. The bit in bold- not true: you're paying for one companies broadcasting service- the BBCs. The law says you need to pay the £145 if you watch any live broadcasts on TV- but, your cash goes only to the BBC. Why this blatent inconsistency persists, is an intersesting question in itself. Does anyone feel up to trying to explain it? Yes. It exists because that is the funding model chosen for a public service broadcaster which the BBC is. They are not alone in this, many other public broadcasters are funded in a similar manner, some from general taxation so you dont even get the choice to avoid funding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 How do you propose giving them that choice? It's rather integral to your argument that such a choice is indeed possible. 'License free TVs' that are incapable of recieving BBC would be one easy possibility. Yes. It exists because that is the funding model chosen for a public service broadcaster which the BBC is. They are not alone in this, many other public broadcasters are funded in a similar manner, some from general taxation so you dont even get the choice to avoid funding them. I don't see how, these days, the BBC is any more a public service broadcaster than any other station- they all carry the news and they can all be paid to transmit things like party political broadcasts and public information updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 'License free TVs' that are incapable of recieving BBC would be one easy possibility. I don't see how, these days, the BBC is any more a public service broadcaster than any other station- they all carry the news and they can all be paid to transmit things like party political broadcasts and public information updates. They have a remit to report the news impartially with no political byass, they make programs which are in the public interest, but couldn't be commercially justified. They don't sell air time to advertisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 They have a remit to report the news impartially with no political byass, they make programs which are in the public interest, but couldn't be commercially justified. They don't sell air time to advertisers. The term is bias-you are committing a Freudian error and inadvertently betraying recent internet searches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 An amusing spelling error, I had to google it to see what you were referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.