Will the Tories do Murdoch's bidding and kill off the BBC?

I amy be selfish but as someone that watches no bbc content and my wife watches eastenders only yes i resent paying a chrage of £142 a year. So do millions of others and we never get a say on it no choice in this at al. We get told each year how much extra we have to pay and only recently have the bbc even condescended enough to tell us how some of it is spent.

Also for those constantly telling me about how the bbc makes things no one else does or would can you tell me one type of show on the bbc i cannot watch on another channel that isn't bbc. fact is there is nothing unique about the content on the bbc and what there is on there you can find on other channels.

How about they cut back the number of radio stations and tv channels they have and manage with less because thats what the rest of us are going to have to do for some years to come but not the bbc oh no they have a protected no choice income.

My cousin recently had to choose between taxing his van for work or paying his licence fee as he is a builder and has not had a lot of work for a while and he is now getting the sort of threatening letters you would normally associate with loansharks.

It isn't democratic (something that is of upmost importance to some on here in other threads when it suits them) it isn't fair and while some of you may feel it provides value for money a hell of a lot of other people do not share that view and surely should have an alternative.

Because it is part of being a society.

I have Private Health, why am I paying taxes towards the NHS (I don't object, btw).

Why do those people who send their kids to Private Schools still have to pay a portion of their taxes to pay for state schools.

Why do all of those of us who didn't go to University have to pay a portion of our taxes to support Universities (the fees don't cover much of the costs).

Why does a portion of my taxes go towards unemployment benefit, when in the last 35 years I have probably claimed about £1000 pounds in dole money.

I thought it was because, as a society, we try and contribute to do what's best for most, rather than what's best for some.

[Angua]

The problem is the seemingly inextricable link between the licence fee and the BBC. If the BBC were funded solely through tax and it's own earnings would there still be the same argument. Then they would have the problem of having to keep sweet whoever is in government. Chances are you would still need to have a licence to receive broadcast TV, BBC or no BBC.

I have to pay car tax to drive on the public highway. Judging by the amount of potholes and the state of the roads in general the money is not well spent. At least the TV licensing allow breathing space for late/non payment. You would not get the same leniency from DVLA.

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

That's interesting. I've always thought it was an offence if you had equipment capable of receiving a transmission.

According to TVL, it is.

(Has anyone noticed they've dropped the 'Authority' bit? So they bloody well should, too - they are NOT an authority and never have been, and had no right to call themselves such)

They're at it again with me. They have opened an official investigation (yes, the statement was in red!). I'm soooo scared - especially as it isn't me they're after...they're addressing The Legal Occupier. Can't they be bothered to find out who's living there, or do they -quite rightly - have no legal authority to find out?).

I still don't have a TV. I don't have a VCR or DVD recorder. All I have is a portable DVD player. They've opened their official investigation because I haven't contacted them - forgetting that I am under no legal obligation to do so. I'd be quite happy if they got a warrant or whatever and sent the police around - I will then sue for wrongful arrest, and the cops can bloody well send them the bill. I fully intend to allow them to waste their time and money, because I do not intend to cooperate with them in any way whatsoever.

I hate bullies. I sorted one out once by cracking him a good 'un. He never came near me again. I wish I could do the same with these morons, or that Her Majesty's Government would kick 'em into touch.

Actually, I do have plans to get a TV, and subscribe to Sky - but there's something slightly more important I need to do first, viz. get a job. TV is very low on my list of priorities.

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

According to TVL, it is.

Their wording is deliberately ambiguous, however you only need a licence to use receiving equipment for the purpose of receiving. You don't need a licence to use a TV as a monitor for your DVD player, even if the TV is capable of receiving broadcasts. You don't need a licence to use a VCR to watch your old video collection, even if the VCR is capable of receiving broadcasts. And you don't need a licence to use a computer, just because a website exists where you could, if you wanted to, go and watch broadcast TV.

The moment you use any of the above equipment, whilst attached to mains electricity, to watch broadcast TV, then you need to hold a valid TV licence in order for your activity to be legal. But not a moment before.

(Has anyone noticed they've dropped the 'Authority' bit? So they bloody well should, too - they are NOT an authority and never have been, and had no right to call themselves such)

Well, yes and no. The BBC is a public authority with respect to its licencing functions. It delegates some of those functions to various other organisations. It may not be strictly correct for TVL itself to claim it is an authority, but it is acting on the direct instructions of, and on behalf of, a legal Authority, so the point is purely technical.

Yes, if you look hard enough, you can find a clear statement of the law with regards to when you do not need a licence - but notice how they link it with the following sentence, which suggests you should fill in a declaration form and submit to a visit by an enforcement officer.

You are not under any obligation to declare anything. You are not under any obligation to submit to any inspection, unless the officer has a warrant. However, presenting the information in the way they do allows people to form the impression that these obligations do exist.

The paper licence itself always used to specify internal batteries - I may dig mine out later and double check that.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Chris

The paper licence itself always used to specify internal batteries - I may dig mine out later and double check that.

I seem to recall that - it mentions being able to use your tv in a caravan if you're not also using at home at the samet time. But I can't see anything about internal batteries.

Mind you I can't read the bugger properly

edit - no I found it....

'Use of TV equipment powered by internal batteries anywhere'
'by you and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place'

well that's what it says on my license

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Because it is part of being a society.

I have Private Health, why am I paying taxes towards the NHS (I don't object, btw).

Why do those people who send their kids to Private Schools still have to pay a portion of their taxes to pay for state schools.

Why do all of those of us who didn't go to University have to pay a portion of our taxes to support Universities (the fees don't cover much of the costs).

Why does a portion of my taxes go towards unemployment benefit, when in the last 35 years I have probably claimed about £1000 pounds in dole money.

I thought it was because, as a society, we try and contribute to do what's best for most, rather than what's best for some.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[Hiroki]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you're going to be disappointed Hiroki - remember, Rupert was a pretty big fan of NuLiebour back in the late 1990s, yet Tony Bliar failed to destroy the BBC after he won the election. And the biggest Beeb-hater in the Commons is on the Liebour benches - one Gerald Kaufmann MP.

Ah your right, damn.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Why?What is so bad about BBC programmes that you hate so much.

Their News?

Their nature programmes?

Their historical dramas and docudramsa.

Are you honestly saying that they have never produced anything that you like.

do you hate Monty Python?

I HATE MONTY PYTHON

People can have their own opinions and I respect that and I know some people really enjoy the BBC but for me I want it abolished and quickly.

Last thing that I enjoyed on the BBC was Bottom and that was years ago and now I just think they are a drain on my recourses and I cringe every time someone flicks onto their channels it makes my skin crawl.

It's an outdated and it need to be abolished starting with the news as I despise that the most.

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Because it is part of being a society.

I have Private Health, why am I paying taxes towards the NHS (I don't object, btw).

Why do those people who send their kids to Private Schools still have to pay a portion of their taxes to pay for state schools.

Why do all of those of us who didn't go to University have to pay a portion of our taxes to support Universities (the fees don't cover much of the costs).

Why does a portion of my taxes go towards unemployment benefit, when in the last 35 years I have probably claimed about £1000 pounds in dole money.

I thought it was because, as a society, we try and contribute to do what's best for most, rather than what's best for some.

You really can't compare a TV channel with socialised medicine, education and benefits.

I'm rather surprised you actually tried

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Because it is part of being a society.

I have Private Health, why am I paying taxes towards the NHS (I don't object, btw).

Why do those people who send their kids to Private Schools still have to pay a portion of their taxes to pay for state schools.

Why do all of those of us who didn't go to University have to pay a portion of our taxes to support Universities (the fees don't cover much of the costs).

Why does a portion of my taxes go towards unemployment benefit, when in the last 35 years I have probably claimed about £1000 pounds in dole money.

I thought it was because, as a society, we try and contribute to do what's best for most, rather than what's best for some.

These all seem to be necessities that society would find it hard to cope with if they disappeared. I don't think anybody would find it hard to cope if the TV licence were to be abolished or at least be PPV.

Can I ask why you despise the news, Hiroki?

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

Originally Posted by punky

You really can't compare a TV channel with socialised medicine, education and benefits.

I'm rather surprised you actually tried

They weren't comparisons, they were examples of where we, as a society, contribute to benefit others, even if we don't directly benefit ourselves.

I personally think the BBC educates and informs, mostly without bias, and so is worth keeping - ymmv.

Originally Posted by punky

You really can't compare a TV channel with socialised medicine, education and benefits.

I'm rather surprised you actually tried

Why can't you?

The BBC isn't 'a TV channel' by the way - a fact I'm sure you're well aware of. But if you genuinely don't understand the full reach and significance of the BBC's operations in the UK and worldwide, just say the word, I'm sure I or one or two others on here could lay it out for you.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by punky

Are you deliberately obtuse?

There is no need to be rude.

For some decades now we have had the ability to restrict channels on the basis of payment. It isn't rocket science. Have BBC Free with commercials or BBC commercial free on VM, Sky, Top-up TV for the extra £12 a month extra.

And what happens to transmissions when the adverts are on? Do they show a blank screen for five minutes, every quarter of an hour?

It wouldn't be sustainable anyway. If say twenty per cent didn't want to pay the licence fee wanted the BBC to show commercials, no company in their right mind would want to pay loads of money to access only twenty per cent of the audience.

If people had to pay £142 to a state-owned airline before they were allowed to fly anywhere (regardless if they fly or with whom), noone would stand for it. Its a poll tax. If I don't want to watch the BBC I still have to pay for it. It goes against everything that's fair and equitable in a reasonable society.

I would love to have a state owned airline that costs me only one hundred and forty two pounds a year, if it meant I could fly anywhere I wanted, without having to pay anything more. I am pretty sure everyone in the country would be cock-a-hoop with a plan like that.

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

And this from an MP:



Source

Carswell is hardly a good source for advice on the funding of the BBC. His collaboration with Hannan on the NHS plan is testament to his bias.