tv licence rip-off or vfm ??

[melloned]

A reply in another thread by Pakmoto , just reminded me that we're now paying ?150 TV licence , in addition to any vermin / sly subs .
What do you think ? , personally i think it 's a disgrace and should have been scrapped decades ago .
If the programmes they show are that good , advertising sponsors would be queing for the priviledge of doing business , or is it that they're so sh*te , if it weren't for our ?150 hard earned every year , they'd sink without trace !
And how is it they appear to be allowed to increase the fee 5% or more each year , without any one batting an eyelid , i've not had a pay increase in 3 years !

[Meat-Head]

nah, you don't need tv, just DK

nothing but timeteam an wwii films on tv

[cgscott]

I think it should be scrapped. How many people sit with just a freeview box in there household now? Not many.

So the extra ?10 a month just for the privilage of owning a TV seems a bit harsh. That said how would the BBC survive?

Maybe they should look into commercials as well that way we can scrap the TV liscence.

[barrowmanandrew]

should have been scrapped years ago.
why should we be forced to take this subscription???
another thing that get my goat about license fee.
most of bbc's content is available online, bbci player etc.
this is paid for out of license money that british public pay, however, there is no restrictions on who can view or listen to this content.
therefore pierre in france and abdul in india can sit and watch bbc content on there pc, while joe c*nt is britain is left to pay for it....

[boomer39]

should have been scrapped years ago.
why should we be forced to take this subscription???
another thing that get my goat about license fee.
most of bbc's content is available online, bbci player etc.
this is paid for out of license money that british public pay, however, there is no restrictions on who can view or listen to this content.
therefore pierre in france and abdul in india can sit and watch bbc content on there pc, while joe c*nt is britain is left to pay for it....

abdul lives down the road from me!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cgscott]

should have been scrapped years ago.
why should we be forced to take this subscription???
another thing that get my goat about license fee.
most of bbc's content is available online, bbci player etc.
this is paid for out of license money that british public pay, however, there is no restrictions on who can view or listen to this content.
therefore pierre in france and abdul in india can sit and watch bbc content on there pc, while joe c*nt is britain is left to pay for it....

Some things can only be viewed in the UK. Mostly only guff you can view from abroad. Live footy etc cant be viewed in foreign countrys.

[boomer39]

I think it should be scrapped. How many people sit with just a freeview box in there household now? Not many.

So the extra ?10 a month just for the privilage of owning a TV seems a bit harsh. That said how would the BBC survive?

Maybe they should look into commercials as well that way we can scrap the TV liscence.

commercials!!!! ffs, cash for au, go compare, ..... would sooner pay!! btw, my missus is 75 soon, so will be free... big deal after 40 years of paying for crap...

[ManofScience]

i think we're priviledged to have an institution like the BBC whoever it does seem to waste a lot of money that could be saved.

[barrowmanandrew]

Some things can only be viewed in the UK. Mostly only guff you can view from abroad. Live footy etc cant be viewed in foreign countrys.

your probably right m8, but i enjoyed the rant anyway...
we definately need a rant section.........

[Stephenw]

you need a tv licence for more than just a tv apparantly.. bloke told me a while back any pc's or hi tec mobile phones that can view tv will need require a tv licence.. pathetic

[kingkopo]

you dont know what ya talking about tv free from ads worth ?150 a year

[SatSearching]

Sly, ITV etc, are toss.

I think the BBC are fantastic, some quality home grown content, TV, Radio and Internet.

None of the other providers can touch them for quality.

SS

[barrowmanandrew]

Sly, ITV etc, are toss.

I think the BBC are fantastic, some quality home grown content, TV, Radio and Internet.

None of the other providers can touch them for quality.

SS

fair comment i'd say..
however itv dont ask for a penny and sly dont force us to take out a subscription....
this is the diffrence...

[SatSearching]

fair comment i'd say..
however itv dont ask for a penny and sly dont force us to take out a subscription....
this is the diffrence...

But ironically, the OP's avitar and your avitar are from programs that the BBC first showed?

SS

[trampjuice]

Excellent value for money?

The public broadcasting element in the UK is not very good. In the US thanks to (privately funded) PBS documentaries on Heart Disease, a lot of the the public know how exactly how the immune system is the main cause of furred up arteries, and how massively important things which prevent infection in the bloodsteam are - like dental health.

In the UK, thanks to our crappy overpaid bloated public services most health workers, never mind the public, still don't know how heart disease - the number one killer in the US/UK - actually forms! Here - from years and years ago - find out how you and your loved ones might die suddenly by a decent public broadcaster http://www.pbs.org/previews/heartdisease/

This is the absolute direct domain of public broadcasting. Here in the UK it should be common knowledge to the public via public funded bodies like the BBC, but they fail us. I would have expected at least one program on this. If they fail us over this - what good are they? We do get a lot of sad old 1970s z-listers like June Whitfield talking to us like 3 year olds, telling us how we should be eating fruit, no doubt for millions in pay.

Don't forget of ?164.50 per year, the millions on Johnathon Ross and the BBC executives. Russell Brand anyone? (1.1m per year) Zany. The only good stuff is some science/documentary on Radio 4, WorldService, things like Blue planet etc...

Public broadcasting like public health should be limited to what people need, i.e. whats good for them. Maybe its hard to define what that is? It seems pretty easy to define BBC tv as being whats so far out of this scope it's on another planet.

It's not Chris Evans or Bruce Forsythe on 0.7m hosting Dancing with the stars and the bloated rest of the overpaid crap. Its not 90% of BBC output that is 'public service'.

I get really riled up by all this because I used to work with a bunch of people at the BBC they used to get to work 11am and then fiddle the timesheets doing naff all - with the full complicity and approval of their manager.