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

[Hiroki]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Can I ask why you despise the news, Hiroki?

I don't depise the news, just BBC news and I can give many reasons but it's mainly because they can't seem to have an impartial view when it comes to the problems in the middle east and they tend to swing one way more than the other. So I stick to other news outlets.

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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.

I think you are splitting hairs there if you believe there's a difference so be it.

And whilst you think the BBC educates (as do other channels) there is a wide gulf between a couple of documentaries and a full country-wide school system.

Things like police, fire and schools need to be funded any way possible. TV radio and websites? No. Certainly not justifing a poll tax.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

See above. I said TV channel for brevity's sake and as its the most visible and costly arm of the BBC. I don't think any part of the BBC justifies a pool tax.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

There is no need to be rude.

Trust me, I wasn't being rude. Certainly no more than you was being sarcastic.

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 is a simple matter of running two schedules. They will run out of alignment but who really would care? I they do want to re-align the schedules periodically they can just ommit the less commercially-viable filler stuff. And yes, even the BBC has that. Come on, its the 21st century, these things aren't that difficult.

Sure with analogue this was more difficult but with the digital age, there is no excuse.

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.

20% of the TV market is very sizeable. And besides, if the BBC was value-for-money then everyone would pay £142/year

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.

Very clever that you've taken my analogy out of context. OK, what if you don't want to fly?

That's the trouble here. The only attitude I seem to see from BBC supporters is that "I like the BBC so everyone else has to pay for it."

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Product 13

But what if I just want to watch the channels I subscribe to and the standard commercial channels? I don't have a choice do I, I must pay or else.

All I want is that choice, why can't I have it?

Because I pay about fifty pounds a month for subscription television, that's about six hundred pounds a year. Paying just one hundred and forty-two pounds a year for television that is not commercial, or subscription, is pretty good value for money.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Because I pay about fifty pounds a month for subscription television, that's about six hundred pounds a year. Paying just one hundred and forty-two pounds a year for television that is not commercial, or subscription, is pretty good value for money.

Simple Why should i have to pay for something that if i had the choice i would not. I chose to watch the commercial channels and the subscription channels.

I would prefer not to have to pay for something that if i had the choice would then not watch. The BBC is no matter how people dress it up a tax on people who own a tv.

Paying just one hundred and forty-two pounds a year for television that is not commercial, or subscription, is pretty good value for money.

But if you don't watch it WHY should you have to pay for it, Where is this right to choice that everyone says we should be proud of.

You also fund museums and other cultural bodies with your taxes...

Originally Posted by punky

That's the trouble here. The only attitude I seem to see from BBC supporters is that "I like the BBC so everyone else has to pay for it."

A pity, because that's not what is being offered in support of the BBC here. Not by me, at any rate, and not by several of the other contributors.

I, for one, am not claiming everyone should pay for the BBC because I like it. There's plenty I don't like on the BBC, and there's output I can't even access - HD, for example - but I'm happy to see my licence fee funding it because I like the principle that underpins the way the BBC is funded and operated.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

You also fund museums and other cultural bodies with your taxes...

My question was why should i have to pay for something by law that if i don't use it i still have to pay for , however if i don't pay for that service it prevents me from using other rivals of that service who provide a similar service. ?

---------- Post added at 17:24 ---------- Previous post was at 17:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I, for one, am not claiming everyone should pay for the BBC because I like it. There's plenty I don't like on the BBC, and there's output I can't even access - HD, for example - but I'm happy to see my licence fee funding it because I like the principle that underpins the way the BBC is funded and operated.

Then should those that choice not to watch or fund it be prevented from watching the BBC's competitors ??

Originally Posted by Sirius

But if you don't watch it WHY should you have to pay for it, Where is this right to choice that everyone says we should be proud of.

Further to Damien's post, here's a list of museums your taxes pay to make free for everyone to visit:

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache...uk&hl=en&gl=uk

You may or may not even be interested in museums, but even if you are, I expect that in your lifetime you won't visit most of these.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Then should those that choice not to watch or fund it be prevented from watching the BBC's competitors ??

Yes. Because the chosen funding model is a licence on the operation of TV receivers. And that's a good thing, because simply not watching BBC output does not mean that you're not benefiting from the work of the BBC.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by punky

Trust me, I wasn't being rude. Certainly no more than you was being sarcastic.

Trust me, you were being rude, calling someone "obtuse" is rude. My remarks were to show the folly of your theory. Sarcasm, is not the same as being rude.

It is a simple matter of running two schedules. They will run out of alignment but who really would care? I they do want to re-align the schedules periodically they can just ommit the less commercially-viable filler stuff. And yes, even the BBC has that. Come on, its the 21st century, these things aren't that difficult.

It is not "a simple matter of running two schedules," What would be the point? Given the choice, who would want to watch a second tier television channel?

20% of the TV market is very sizeable. And besides, if the BBC was value-for-money then everyone would pay £142/year

Twenty per cent is not a very sizable portion of the market. The fact that it is only twenty-per cent, suggests that it is not sizable at all. No commercial business would bother investing serious money into a campaign where they have access to only one fifth of their target.

Very clever that you've taken my analogy out of context. OK, what if you don't want to fly?

It is not out of context at all. In fact it was a very accurate perspective view of how such an enterprise would be compared to the BBC.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Because I pay about fifty pounds a month for subscription television, that's about six hundred pounds a year. Paying just one hundred and forty-two pounds a year for television that is not commercial, or subscription, is pretty good value for money.

But I have a choice to subscribe to the channels I want to watch, SKY Sports etc... I don't want to to watch any BBC channels on my TV, I still have ample news and entertainment without them.

So where is my freedom of choice? I don't have one do I?

Originally Posted by Product 13

So where is my freedom of choice? I don't have one do I?

Your freedom of choice, as with all services that are funded out of a compulsory charge determined by Parliament, is at the ballot box.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Chris

Further to Damien's post, here's a list of museums your taxes pay to make free for everyone to visit:

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache...uk&hl=en&gl=uk

You may or may not even be interested in museums, but even if you are, I expect that in your lifetime you won't visit most of these.[COLOR="Silver"]

Sorry i did not answer that question as i did not want to be seen to be taking this thread off topic.

However as you asked as well i don't go to museums as i find them boring, My loss but there you are. No doubt a list will not be produced until i say Yes i do that and then it will be " well that's why the BBC need your money"

---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Your freedom of choice, as with all services that are funded out of a compulsory charge determined by Parliament, is at the ballot box.

Then in that case yes i hope the Tories kill of the tax on TVs

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your freedom of choice, as with all services that are funded out of a compulsory charge determined by Parliament, is at the ballot box.

Which brings us full circle. The BBC is at risk if a Tory government is elected.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Which brings us full circle. The BBC is at risk if a Tory government is elected.

Then good let the election begin.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Then good let the election begin.

Here, here.