Do You Need The BBC?

[Magilla]

Netflix is better value for money with more choice and diverse content.

 

Nope! Self evidently untrue. Netflix provides only a fraction of the range of content compared to the BBC. The clue's in the name, one's an entertainment company, the other isn't

 

That's why households are leaving the BBC in their droves.

 

Not according to The Sun article you posted That would seem to be more applicable to ITV.

 

Another claim not backed up by reality.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Magilla

[scottf]

It's worth the licence fee for DIY SOS alone IMHO

[vwkittie]

I'd like to see the BBC move to an optional subscription. I'd definitely still pay it as I do watch a small amount of live TV and use IPlayer and BBC news a lot.

 

It'd be nice to be able to access the content from abroad, without ads, as a subscriber as well.

[Car Boot]

Children's programming?

 

Netflix easily spends much more on children's content than the BBC does each year.

 

In fact, the BBC now spends more on licence fee collection than it does on children's programming!

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2018 at 13:28 ----------

 

It's worth the licence fee for DIY SOS alone IMHO

 

Do you feel that low income households, whose only 'crime' is that they would like to enjoy some entertainment, should be forced by law to subsidise your viewing habits? Because that's what the BBC is doing to disadvantaged people in the UK.

 

Forcing the poor to pay for the viewing habits of the wealthy.

[Magilla]

Netflix easily spends much more on children's content than the BBC does each year.

 

Cool... what about their public interest, news & regional programming (amongst others)?

 

As for Childrens TV:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/30/government-announces-60m-british-childrens-tv-amid-fears-us/

 

Not quite the rosey view you're selling

 

"In the UK, the BBC is the dominant buyer and broadcaster of children's content."

 

Oh dear.....

 

In fact, the BBC now spends more on licence fee collection than it does on children's programming!

 

Well from your claims alone it's clear they do have spongers to deal with

 

Did you know that the number of complaints to TV Licensing between 2010-11 and 2015-16 dropped by 50%, while faith in the license has inceased during the same period... Who'd have thunk it.. .they must be doing something right

Edited January 4, 2018 by Magilla

[alchresearch]

Netflix does not demand money with menaces as the BBC does from vulnerable groups.

 

71.9 per cent of all the people prosecuted by the BBC, and given a criminal record, in 2016 for not having a valid BBC TV licence were women.

 

You were queried on this pages ago, or on another thread.

 

Its dead easy to not pay the BBC, its not their fault if the people answering the door are stupid and can't answer the questions properly, or are watching the BBC and trying to get away without a licence.

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

 

As for the high percentage being women, that's because they were the ones answering the door during the day when the licence men arrived.

[Geo-atkinson]

The BBC is public service broadcasting that is independent of the government or the state and is unique in the world.

 

Television that is supported by advertising cannot be independent because of "He who pays the piper calls the tune".

 

For example, programmes such as watchdog could not be broadcast by ITV because of a conflict of interest should a featured product or service then be advertised on the same channel. There would be a dilema for the executives and pressure to cover up or tone down any wrongdoings for fear of losing advertising revenue.

 

Generally consumer programmes on ITV serve to promote or compare goods and services not criticize or challenge them.

[Car Boot]

For example, programmes such as watchdog could not be broadcast by ITV because of a conflict of interest should a featured product or service then be advertised on the same channel. There would be a dilema for the executives and pressure to cover up or tone down any wrongdoings for fear of losing advertising revenue.

 

BBC 'Watchdog' can never investigate BBC TV Licensing either, which has had many complaints upheld against it over the years for harrassment, including threatening and bullying behaviour towards innocent people.

 

The BBC was eventually forced to admit following a freedom of information request that it had paid out over £100,000 in compensation in just five years to victims. The BBC attempted to cover up this fact.

 

So 'Watchdog' could never investigate TV Licensing (a trademark of the BBC) because of a conflict of interest which might harm the BBC revenue gathering operation. There has been considerable pressure put on BBC editors not to investigate the wrongdoings of BBC TV Licensing over the years.

 

The BBC has publicly acknowledged that it has overall responsibility for all matters concerning the administration and enforcement of the TV licence, TV Licensing and the activities of all TV Licensing contractors. This is why the BBC will not report on TV Licensing.

 

So much for the BBC being 'impartial'.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2018 at 19:28 ----------

 

Its dead easy to not pay the BBC, its not their fault if the people answering the door are stupid and can't answer the questions properly, or are watching the BBC and trying to get away without a licence.

 

1 in 3 people taken to court for not having a valid BBC TV licence have their case quashed by the magistrates.

 

The majority of these prosecutions are withdrawn after it has emerged that the accused are vulnerable (such as domestic abuse victims) or are seriously unwell and unable to watch TV.

 

The 'impartial' BBC will never report anything that harms it's income stream. It cannot be trusted. It shamefully attempted to cover up the Jimmy Saville sex abuse scandal by cancelling a 'Newsnight' investigation into the abuse while still showing tributes to the former BBC man.

 

Newspapers were printing front page coverage about the abuse but still the BBC kept quiet, hoping it would all blow over. It took ITV to screen a documentary about Saville for the BBC to even admit that Saville was a predator, and not a BBC hero.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Car Boot

[A.B.Yaffle]

It's worth the licence fee for DIY SOS alone IMHO

 

Many people consider Sky Sports is worth paying for. Should you and everyone else who chooses to watch BBC or ITV or any other channel be forced to pay the Sky Sports fee just because many people consider it good value for money?

 

This thread is made up of two opinions.

 

1. The "I like the BBC and it is value for money, so everyone who watches anything on any TV channel should be forced to help me pay for it" opinion.

 

2. The "I want to watch TV channels of my choice and I shouldn't be forced to pay a subscription for channels I don't wish to watch" opinion.

 

Opinion 1 seems a very selfish opinion, whereas opinion 2 seems the fair opinion. All the people who have opinion 1 are convinced that the BBC provides such good value for money. If this is the case, why not go for making BBC subscription only... surely the vast majority for pay for such good value for money channels? The only reason I can think of is that those who love the BBC worry that most of the public would opt out and their subscriptions for their beloved BBC would rise.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2018 at 20:29 ----------

 

The BBC is public service broadcasting that is independent of the government or the state and is unique in the world.

 

Television that is supported by advertising cannot be independent because of "He who pays the piper calls the tune".

 

For example, programmes such as watchdog could not be broadcast by ITV because of a conflict of interest should a featured product or service then be advertised on the same channel. There would be a dilema for the executives and pressure to cover up or tone down any wrongdoings for fear of losing advertising revenue.

 

Generally consumer programmes on ITV serve to promote or compare goods and services not criticize or challenge them.

 

I don't watch much TV (hence my being offended at having to pay money to BBC rather than being given a choice), so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Martin Lewis's program about how to switch companies, save money etc on ITV?

Edited January 4, 2018 by A.B.Yaffle

[Magilla]

Many people consider Sky Sports is worth paying for. Should you and everyone else who chooses to watch BBC or ITV or any other channel be forced to pay the Sky Sports fee just because many people consider it good value for money?

 

Lets turn that on it's head, should anyone who makes their own provisions for anything be forced to pay into any national system that replicates that provision, but exists for the benefit of everyone and the national good?

 

This thread is made up of two opinions.

 

You missed one:

 

3. I support organisations that are for everyone, paid for by everyone, which are a benefit to the UK as a whole.

 

That covers the vast majority of people in the UK, most use BBC services in some form on a daily basis.