Do You Need The BBC?

[max]

I very rarely fill my black bin, I could probably manage with a monthly collection. However, I understand that wouldn't suit everyone so am willing to pay for a bi-weekly collection for the greater good.

[A.B.Yaffle]

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

In that case you have nothing to worry about. Most people would subscribe to it and you wouldn't have to worry so much about your "fee" going up due to losing subscribers.

 

In your view, as it serves everyone, shouldn't the fee be replaced by general taxation rather than unfairly people who choose to watch other channels?

Edited January 4, 2018 by A.B.Yaffle

[Magilla]

I very rarely fill my black bin, I could probably manage with a monthly collection. However, I understand that wouldn't suit everyone so am willing to pay for a bi-weekly collection for the greater good.

 

Quite... I don't think Yaffle gets it.

[A.B.Yaffle]

Quite... I don't think Yaffle gets it.

 

But that is paid for out of taxation.

 

However, I will admit defeat and add a 3rd option which is definitely less bad than option 1.

 

3: People who argue that the BBC is invaluable to the whole county and should be treated the same as other public services. So should be funded by general taxation rather than being subsidised by people who only watch Sky Movies for example.

[Magilla]

In that case you have nothing to worry about. Most people would subscribe to it and you wouldn't have to worry so much about your "fee" going up due to losing subscribers.

 

I'm not worried about my fee going up

 

In your view, as it serves everyone, shouldn't the fee be replaced by general taxation rather than unfairly people who choose to watch other channels?

 

Fine by me, I wouldn't have a problem with that unless it allowed government interference in BBC output, particularly news and current affiars.

 

You might find those that don't have TV's are not so keen.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2018 at 21:07 ----------

 

3: People who argue that the BBC is invaluable to the whole county and should be treated the same as other public services. So should be funded by general taxation

 

Fine by me.

 

rather than being subsidised by people who only watch Sky Movies for example.

 

Yeah, they never press 1, never happen to use any BBC services, just never happens

Edited January 4, 2018 by Magilla

[area 51]

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

 

Seriously,i think id rather watch paint dry,and don't get me started on all the other reality show crap.I love my sports channels and documentary channels,it costs me but well worth it.

[A.B.Yaffle]

I'm not worried about my fee going up

 

 

 

Fine by me, I wouldn't have a problem with that unless it allowed government interference in BBC output, particularly news and current affiars.

 

You might find those that don't have TV's might not be so keen.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2018 at 21:07 ----------

 

 

Fine by me.

 

 

 

Yeah, they never press 1, never happen to use any BBC services, just never happens

 

If I was given the chance to opt out of the BBC I wouldn't watch any of their programs, wouldn't need to listen to their radio, wouldn't need to go to their website. The fairest option, for those amongst you people who insist that the BBC is on a par with the NHS etc and invaluable to the country, would be general taxation.

 

You don't need to worry about the BBC becoming non-neutral. Even as a "leftie-do-gooder" myself, I realise that the BBC is generally left-wing and already non neutral and has been during my lifetime.

[Car Boot]

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?

 

Let's NOT turn this on its head, turn it upside down in other words. All this does is deliberately confuse the BBC, a purveyer of entertainment long past its prime, with a beloved and essential national institution such as the NHS. Or the Welfare State. Or even refuse collection! The BBC is nothing like these essential services.

 

Let's not pretend that it is.

 

 

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.

 

If it had been left up to the BBC the British public would never have known that Jimmy Saville was a predatory paedophi!e who abused children on an industrial scale. How does that benefit the UK as a whole?

 

For a long time if one owned a TV then the BBC would have been watched at some point. That's not true anymore. YouTube is more popular in many households than the BBC nowadays. Despite what propaganda the BBC is pushing about how popular it is this week.

 

A BBC TV licence today makes as much sense as a nationally funded coffee chain.

[Magilla]

Let's NOT turn this on its head

 

Haahaa, not at all predicable

 

The BBC is nothing like these essential services.

 

Yes, it is. Entirely so, that you fail to see it.... well, nothing new there.

 

It's not coincidence that in nations that have followed the system you advocate, like the USA, more people trust the BBC''s news output than their own national and local providers.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2018 at 21:37 ----------

 

If I was given the chance to opt out of the BBC I wouldn't watch any of their programs, wouldn't need to listen to their radio, wouldn't need to go to their website. The fairest option, for those amongst you people who insist that the BBC is on a par with the NHS etc and invaluable to the country, would be general taxation.

 

Indeed, government aren't so keen on raising taxes though, so the License fee suits them just fine.

 

You don't need to worry about the BBC becoming non-neutral. Even as a "leftie-do-gooder" myself, I realise that the BBC is generally left-wing and already non neutral and has been during my lifetime.

 

I was talking about government interference, but hey...that's your perogative.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Magilla

[Car Boot]

I very rarely fill my black bin, I could probably manage with a monthly collection. However, I understand that wouldn't suit everyone so am willing to pay for a bi-weekly collection for the greater good.

 

You could write to your local council and lobby them to change your refuse collection to a monthly basis. If enough people do this, and vote accordingly, then your bin collection policy could change.

 

No amount of letter writing to the BBC, or lobbying of MP's, will change the BBC's hugely favoured method of funding - a compulsory tax on receiving live television broadcasts. Backed up by punitive fines, a criminal record, and even a home invasion by TV licence enforcers.

 

Democracy might change your bin collection. Unfortunately the BBC doesn't do democracy.

 

I do understand why you compare the BBC to refuse collection.

 

The BBC is clogging up the airwaves with substandard rubbish such as 'Homes Under the Hammer' and the overpaid, underworked, wealthy BBC elite are arrogantly complacent about dumping this intellectually toxic pollution on the licence fee payer.