Should the license fee be abolished?

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

Should the license fee be abolished?

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Should
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total votes: 16
Guests cannot vote

danG View member profile	12th November 2017, 01:34 PM Post #1
🔥🚀🔥 Joined: 30 August 2010 Posts: 74,572 User: 11,746	Abolish the license fee! Or not? Share Your opinions.


vidcapper View member profile	12th November 2017, 02:00 PM Post #2
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	I think the BBC should be funded the way other channels are - by voluntary subscription.


Suedehead2 View member profile	12th November 2017, 02:40 PM Post #3
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,673 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Nov 12 2017, 02:00 PM) I think the BBC should be funded the way other channels are - by voluntary subscription. Quel surprise. Do toy think a channel funded that way would still have shown this morning's Remembrance Day service? Or last night's Festival of Remembrance? Do you really want every single programme interrupted by adverts every ten minutes? The licence fee is imperfect. However, all other options are a good deal worse.


Popchartfreak View member profile	12th November 2017, 07:46 PM Post #4
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,832 User: 17,376	The BBC remains spectacularly good value for money compared with the huge cost of what is mostly crap or endless repeats on satellite, cable and the net. Quality shows, a wide variety, radio stations galore and a worldwide news network that rivals any in the world, and no bloody adverts and sly product placement everywhere. That's why Rupert Murdoch and his ilk loathe the BBC and have been trying to get rid of it for decades. That way they can force people to pay even more for their product and have greater political power without anyone to show the sane alternatives to propaganda (see Fox News).


crazy chris View member profile	12th November 2017, 07:49 PM Post #5
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 22,001 User: 53	No but it should only be free for over 75's who are really poor. ie means-tested.


Silas View member profile	12th November 2017, 08:04 PM Post #6
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,082 User: 3,474	The BBC is brilliant value for money and I'm happy to pay my license fee. Although I saw an advert for "Sam Smith at the BBC" earlier (on a recording of The Apprentice) and had to pause to consider my position for a moment because I can't condone that c**t getting airtime.


TheSnake View member profile	12th November 2017, 08:08 PM Post #7
Say that hiss with your chest, and... Joined: 24 May 2016 Posts: 18,467 User: 23,308	I do think the BBC is worth the license fee. Although I do think people should be allowed to watch other channels (just not BBC channels) if they choose not to pay their license fee though! Although I assume that would be hard to enforce.


Andrew. View member profile	12th November 2017, 08:10 PM Post #8
is in hibernation Joined: 24 August 2014 Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161	No but they need to urgently review their impartiality and their policy on FOI requests


vidcapper View member profile	13th November 2017, 06:37 AM Post #9
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Nov 12 2017, 08:04 PM) The BBC is brilliant value for money and I'm happy to pay my license fee. I don't disagree with the value for money part, but I thought the point of this thread was about whether paying for it should be compulsory?


Popchartfreak View member profile	13th November 2017, 08:04 AM Post #10
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,832 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Nov 13 2017, 06:37 AM) I don't disagree with the value for money part, but I thought the point of this thread was about whether paying for it should be compulsory? ...and you got your answer in the vote. Most people think it should be...


vidcapper View member profile	13th November 2017, 09:49 AM Post #11
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Nov 13 2017, 08:04 AM) ...and you got your answer in the vote. Most people think it should be... I don't think I did, as there wasn't an 'I believe it should/should not be compulsory' option.


Silas View member profile	13th November 2017, 10:12 AM Post #12
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,082 User: 3,474	It doesn’t work if it’s voluntary. Because all that would do is push up fees for those wanting to pay to cover those who don’t. As it stands it works well. I think some elements of it should be means tested but this is our state broadcaster and at least this gives it a relatively protected budget that is not open to political agendas and parties trying to destroy it because of their f***ed up ideology through vicious budget cuts. It also allows it to maintain an element of independence from the government which is more conductive to its mission of being neutral


vidcapper View member profile	13th November 2017, 10:43 AM Post #13
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Nov 13 2017, 10:12 AM) It doesn’t work if it’s voluntary. Because all that would do is push up fees for those wanting to pay to cover those who don’t. As it stands it works well. I think some elements of it should be means tested but this is our state broadcaster and at least this gives it a relatively protected budget that is not open to political agendas We are talking about the same BBC, right?


Popchartfreak View member profile	13th November 2017, 01:08 PM Post #14
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,832 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Nov 13 2017, 10:43 AM) We are talking about the same BBC, right? yes we are. Just cos you say implying it isnt it dont mean it ain't so (plus I thought you didn't watch the BBC or anything that wasn't the Daily mail website? So how on earth would you know?)


vidcapper View member profile	13th November 2017, 02:40 PM Post #15
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Nov 13 2017, 01:08 PM) yes we are. Just cos you say implying it isnt it dont mean it ain't so Or vice versa. QUOTE (plus I thought you didn't watch the BBC or anything that wasn't the Daily mail website? So how on earth would you know?) I may have said I don't read any other newspaper site on a regularly basis - but the BBC site isn't a newspaper. ISTM if the BBC site appeared to to be biased against both our views then it could claim to be neutral- but since you are happy with it, and I think it is slightly biased, than that suggests to me they have the balance slightly off ATM.


Doctor Blind View member profile	13th November 2017, 03:59 PM Post #16
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,171 User: 7,561	I think it needs to be reviewed and modernised - not least because young people increasingly watch much less TV 'live' and are moving to subscription services like NetFlix. Given the BBC were way ahead of the game with their iPlayer service (which is really good) I would have liked to see them bring the entire BBC iPlayer content behind a subscription paywall [but completely free to those already with a TV licence] and start to sell worldwide. This would produce a new and very lucrative revenue stream, they could then use this commercial arm to reduce the size of the public service remit and lower the licence fee.