Quote:
Originally Posted by york
I am a long time disgruntled payer of the unfair, biased and quite frankly appaulling attitude of the BBC and thier 'licence'.
You know YOU have to prove to THEM that your not using your TV to recieve broadcasted channels?
If you murder someone THEY have to prove that YOU committed the murder.
|
No, you don't. Where did you get that idea? You do not have to prove that you don't need a TV licence. If you don't have one, they have to prove that you've been using a TV without one in order to get you convicted.
Quote:
You HAVE to let them into your own home so they can see for themselves that you are not using a TV to recieve broadcasted channels.
If you refuse they call the police who then MAKE you let them into your home to prove that you are not using a TV to recieve broadcasted channels.
|
No, you don't. TVL can *ask* to come into your house; you are not obliged to allow them in.
If they come back with a copper, it's because they have a warrant, which means they have gone to the trouble of persuading a magistrate to give them one, which means they were able to show evidence that it is likely you are using a TV without a licence.
Quote:
|
This attitude they have is appauling, i remember 3 years ago seeing an advert on the side of a bus in Doncaster, it said '3 people living on burton road do not own a TV licence'.
|
Simple statement of fact. If those three people don't receive TV signals, where's the problem? Were the people identified and subjected to public ridicule by the advert?
Quote:
|
And Chris T, i 'dont use' your car, should i have to pay for it?
|
If you have a car, you pay road tax, whether you drive 1,000 or 25,000 miles a year and whether you drive on congested roads at the rush hour or not. What on earth are you banging on about using my car for? Your random and pointless misquote (thoroughly out of context as well) renders it meaningless. I really can't be bothered reiterating the point here; hopefully anyone who has got this far has read it already.
Quote:
|
The BBC do not provide ANY content that interests me, NONE! You say they have set the standard? reeeallly? thats because they were the only ones setting any standard when the draconian licence fee was introduced.
|
That's just ... wrong. They didn't just set standards back in the 1930s, they still do today. If you want an example of good quality BBC telly being produced today, you might enjoy a couple of hours in front of the CBeebies channel. My son tells me Nina and the Neurons is pretty good.
Quote:
|
In a recent BBC poll (yes thats right a poll by the BBC) to find out how many licence fee payers would continue to pay for the licence if it was based upon a subscription, the result was 65% would still pay the fee, that 35% of almost this entire country that do not want the BBC service.
|
OK ... so you haven't studied statistics yet. Last time I looked in a maths text book, 65% support is (almost) 2:1 in favour. That's a pretty hefty majority. Furthermore, the question (assuming you quoted it properly) was 'would you still pay the fee', not 'do you want the service'. You can't conclude that the 35% who don't want to pay a subscription for the BBC would therefore not like to have the BBC service.
Quote:
The BBC is on borrowed time, my generation have grown up with the era of commercial TV, now ondemand is getting more popular, websites like youtube.com and other similiar providers are becoming more popular through convenience and instant choice, soon my generation will be in charge of things at the top and the BBC will find themselves without any support due to thier mightier than thou attitude.
I will be throwing a party on that day in support of choice and freedom.
|
If you think Youtube is any kind of substitute for the BBC (or any other broadcast channel) then the day you take your rightful place at the top (assuming anybody is insane enough to put you there) is the day I emigrate. Do you have no standards at all?
Incidentally, ITV started in 1955 so everybody aged 52 and under grew up in the era of commercial TV. That would include most of the people currently running the BBC.
Quote:
|
If the BBC believe they are providing a world class service then they should put it to the test and become a subscription based service and if they were responcible with the money they recieve they would not be spending millions of pounds on changing thier logo (if i remember rightly they changed thier black BBC logo to a coloured BBC logo with a line underneath, then they changed it back) or spending millions of pounds paying for taxi's for thier staff.
|
Oh why do I bother ...
Can you give me one compelling reason - just one - why the BBC should become a subscription service when its viewing figures would more than amply support it on advertising revenue? Do you see ITV thinking about going subscription-only? No. Do you see Channel 4 thinking about it? No. Quite the opposite actually, they have realised that unless you're broadcasting to quite a narrow niche audience, you are better off going free-to-air and surviving on ad revenue. That's why E4 and then FilmFour have come *off* subscription and are now free.
To suggest that the only alternative for the BBC is subscription is absolute fallacy. The preferred route would be to be a free-to-air commercial broadcaster, which would do nothing to help the rest of the industry because the BBC would be competing for a limited amount of available advertising spend. A commercial BBC would not be a subscription service, it would be a successful ad-funded service, much to the detriment of its competitors.
Or can you think of another reason why the main commercial broadcasters actually *support* the BBC's current funding model? No? Thought not. It's because they would rather compete with the Beeb for viewing figures alone and not have to worry whether Unilever is going to pay for adverts during Corrie or Eastenders.
Quote:
|
Oh and this dribble about how TV would be so much worse without the BBC ... we will never know, cos the BBC were the only service available and quite frankly if everyone was on an level playing field, us the customer would be able to CHOOSE the best of the TV services available, like Sky or Virgin who both provide services that I want, not what im MADE to have or pay for.
|
As I said earlier ... anyone who doubts the likely results of a purely commercial TV environment should spend a while in the US, trying to find the decent programmes in amongst the hours and hours of unrelenting rubbish. Don't be fooled by the line-up of quality US shows you see on British TV. It is a very small selection of the whole and nowhere near enough to fill an entire schedule.
As for choice - you do have the choice. Use your remote control to choose whichever channel you want. Just as long as you keep paying your £2.50 a week to help keep the entire industry at the top of its game.