The Impartiality Of The BBC.

[melthebell]

ok Mr Car Door, should the BBC be undercover investigating very important stuff?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42217132

 

The government has suspended a foreign aid project after a BBC Panorama investigation found taxpayers' cash was being diverted to extremists in Syria.

 

and discovering brutality metered out by the local police militias

[I1L2T3]

Apart from when they aren't..

 

Have you read the links that I posted? Evidence suggests that advertising lowers the cost to consumers, for the reasons explained.

 

It doesn’t magically pay for itself. Even the lower price will include a component of advertising costs.

 

A lower price does not result in advertising component removal from total price.

 

ITV is not free. It just isn’t.

 

---------- Post added 04-12-2017 at 16:46 ----------

 

So we agree that advertising can lower the costs to consumers, which is what I said. I didn’t say it always lowers costs, or even catergoricially state that it did actually lower costs at all. I said studies suggest that advertising can lower the cost of goods. It seems on that we agree.

 

But ITV is still not free and my analysis - however warped and inconvenient it is for you - is still correct

[Car Boot]

TV licence detractors make it sound like they have, or should have, a choice in the matter. Well, they certainly have the choice of subscribing to Sky, Netflix and such like or not. They also certainly have the choice to watch and/or listen BBC programs or not. But they don't have any choice about paying the license fee, if they choose to buy and own a TV, because it's a tax based on ownership of reception equipment, nothing to do with the content received. See here, and here for details of how it's set and spent.

 

The BBC TV licence is most certainly NOT a tax on ownership of reception equipment.

 

This is a myth peddled by the BBC and its supporters in order to deliberately scare and intimidate the public into giving the Corporation their money.

 

The licence fee is not a tax on ownership at all. It is a tax on the content received by a device. Watching or recording live television transmissions as they are being broadcast requires a licence.

 

It is perfectly legal to own a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box etc WITHOUT the need for a BBC TV licence - as long as live TV broadcasts are not displayed, recorded or listened to.

 

It is perfectly legal to own a TV and watch DVDs on it without having a TV licence.

 

This is very basic information and I'm surprised that this ownership nonsense is still being promoted. The BBC TV licence is nothing to do with ownership of reception equipment but everything to do with the content being received.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Car Boot

[Robin-H]

It doesn’t magically pay for itself. Even the lower price will include a component of advertising costs.

 

A lower price does not result in advertising component removal from total price.

 

ITV is not free. It just isn’t.

 

---------- Post added 04-12-2017 at 16:46 ----------

 

 

But ITV is still not free and my analysis - however warped and inconvenient it is for you - is still correct

 

"It doesn’t magically pay for itself." Meaning what exactly?

 

It pays for itself through the revenue it receives from advertising, the revenue it receives from sponsorship, the revenue it receives from subscription services, as well as it's oversees market. There is nothing magic about it - it is called business.

[Car Boot]

But they don't have any choice about paying the license fee, if they choose to buy and own a TV, because it's a tax based on ownership of reception equipment, nothing to do with the content received. See here, and here for details of how it's set and spent.

 

Thus, given that clear context, anyone still attacking the BBC about the TV license, just shows themselves up for what they are: either an imbecile, or an anti-democratic agitator.

 

Happy posting

 

Only an imbecile would post links to content that disproves his/her argument that the BBC licence fee is a tax on ownership and nothing to do with the content received.

 

Happy posting. ?

 

---------- Post added 04-12-2017 at 19:52 ----------

 

once upon a time............there was only 2 tv channels, and barely any radio bar the BBC.

 

cue the 21st century and theres now more sources than there ever was

 

Very well put, Mel.

 

When there were only two television channels a TV licence was the best way of funding the BBC.

 

But in today's digital world, with hundreds or even thousands of channels to watch, the BBC has lost its distinctness and has no more right to be funded by a licence fee than Netflix.

 

Actually, Netflix has more of a right to be funded in this way than the BBC as it makes programmes which are light years ahead of the BBC's dreary, tired old output.

[L00b]

Only an imbecile would post links to content that disproves his/her argument that the BBC licence fee is a tax on ownership and nothing to do with the content received.

 

Happy posting. ��[/Quote]So, the Wiki link does not paraphrase nor reference the Communications Act 2003?

 

The bit you're looking for is Section 363. Sub-sections (1) and (2), to be precise:

363 Licence required for use of TV receiver

 

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

 

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

So, the license fee is a tax on the ownership (installation or use) of a tv receiver, right there, in statutory black and white. Feel free to peruse the Act for further definitions ("fee", "receiver", etc).

 

I had you down as a bad faith poster.

 

But I didn't think you'd take bad faith all the way to outright lying, for the sake of a cheap debating shot.

 

I guess we all know better now.

Edited December 4, 2017 by L00b

[Magilla]

But in today's digital world, with hundreds or even thousands of channels to watch,

 

And thus your democracy angle is laughable. Thanks for clearing that up

 

the BBC has lost its distinctness and has no more right to be funded by a licence fee than Netflix.

 

How would you know, you claim you don't watch! Don't tell me.. some bloke down the pub said..........

 

The reality is the opposite and is recognised as such the world over.

 

Actually, Netflix has more of a right to be funded in this way than the BBC as it makes programmes which are light years ahead of the BBC's dreary, tired old output.

 

Except... Netflix recognise the world class output of the BBC and rather than being light years ahead, they're currently working in partnership:

http://deadline.com/2017/11/toni-collette-wanderlust-series-netflix-bbc-one-1202203847/

 

In fact they're filming today, in Macclesfield:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/toni-collette-filming-macclesfield-chorlton-13991654

 

So yet *another* theory bites the dust.... well done you

 

Again you demonstrate clearly that you really are clueless. Get help dude...

Edited December 4, 2017 by Magilla

[I1L2T3]

"It doesn’t magically pay for itself." Meaning what exactly?

 

It pays for itself through the revenue it receives from advertising, the revenue it receives from sponsorship, the revenue it receives from subscription services, as well as it's oversees market. There is nothing magic about it - it is called business.

 

And the costs are passed to consumers. Yeah?

[apelike]

So, the Wiki link does not paraphrase nor reference the Communications Act 2003?

 

The bit you're looking for is Section 363. Sub-sections (1) and (2), to be precise:So, the license fee is a tax on the ownership (installation or use) of a tv receiver, right there, in statutory black and white.

 

 

That's not quite the way it works. I have a TV that is installed but do not use it to watch live TV as it is being broadcast and do not pay a TV licence.

 

This:

 

(6)The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers—

(a)of such descriptions,

(b)by such persons,

©in such circumstances, and

(d)for such purposes,as may be provided for in the regulations.

(7)Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.

 

The regulation for my exemption from a licence are set out in the terms and conditions of the licensing authority and posted on their website here:

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one?&WT.mc_id=mec_Search_Brand

 

Look up don't need a TV licence and the "no licence needed policy" PDF

Edited December 4, 2017 by apelike

[Car Boot]

So, the Wiki link does not paraphrase nor reference the Communications Act 2003?

 

The bit you're looking for is Section 363. Sub-sections (1) and (2), to be precise:So, the license fee is a tax on the ownership (installation or use) of a tv receiver, right there, in statutory black and white. Feel free to peruse the Act for further definitions ("fee", "receiver", etc).

 

I had you down as a bad faith poster.

 

But I didn't think you'd take bad faith all the way to outright lying, for the sake of a cheap debating shot.

 

I guess we all know better now.

 

The Wiki link that you provided, under the section When a TV licence is not required details accurately when a TV licence is needed by law. And when it is not.

 

Perhaps you should read all of your links in future before posting them?

 

I shall include a link of my own, to the official TV licensing website, which states almost exactly what your wiki link does:

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs

 

I recommend that you pay particular attention to the section titled When a TV licence is needed/TV and how you watch it.

 

If required, I can post direct links on here to the TV licensing website that state a TV licence is not required for a TV "as long as you never watch or record live TV on any channel, or download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer."

 

You clearly do not understand what you are posting.

 

Disappointing.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Car Boot