And why dare they not touch it? Because the vast majority of the great British public would kick 7 bells out of em. That old bean is direct democracy in action. The BBC has the support of the public because the VAST MAJORITY of us know how bloody good it is. If we didnt support it, the Tories would be in there with the carpet baggers faster than an MP with a blank book of expenses receipts.
Au contraire, its bleeding obvious to everyone except yourself. Besides all you have stated is merely your opinion. Thats all we all have done really. So ask yourself this, without the support of the public, why will the government not step in and change it. Whats stopping them. Answers on a postcard to 'Point of View' c/o BBC, London.
then if the vast British public want it. why do they spend tens of millions trying to enforce it. surely they shouldnt have to because everyone wants it. but all tv licensing adverts dont play on the fact what a great thing it is...it is all threatening to scare people into paying for it.. I dont see adverts from car insurance companies scaring people into buying car insurance. why do they feel they have to use scare tactics...answers on a postcard to points of view... numbers are at a record high and please point me toward info to support your opinion.
Phill, theres no info to support one word of your opinion. They have to enforce it because we would all try to dodge it if we could. Thats what being British is about. We all want something for nothing.
thanks you have answered my question and your own.. no one wants to pay for it out of love. its duress. "you dont watch us, you watch sky - we still want some fuckin money out your pocket" even if you never watch the darn bbc channels they still want money like some modern day gangsters. they should fund themselves and the tens of millions they save on scare tactics advertising and the private arm CAPITA they can ditch saving 100 million all the money saved can then go toward more brilliant programming and fat cat pay-offs "thats what being british is about" pmsl - stoopid ass quote of the day
The extraordinary thing about this thread, Phil, is the way you seem incapable of grasping the concept of taxes. Here's the thing: Taxes are compulsory, everybody has to pay them, and the money pays for public services. Each individual would prefer not to have to pay taxes, but the population as a whole well understands that taxes have to be collected if public services are to be provided in a civilised society. Almost everybody gets this - except you, apparently. I feel quite sorry about that.
whoohoo get you with the insults pete taxes are compulsory totally different thing old bean. surely mr pete-paradox mbe can calculate that my gripe is the way the bbc is paid for. it is non essential and unaccountable and funded from an archaic outdated means. and today police and fire are being slashed as the public purse is squeezed while those fuckers receive more from me than my police force does in a year so it can make shit stars fatter and greedier and pay old chums off with unearned parachute payments. in the 50s itv showed there is another way.. other channels dont do it or need to.... just auntie starting to think you probably linked to them
Lame Phil. You have no argument yet you continue to dig a hole. You offer no alternative to finance the BBC yet berate the way it is financed. You want to watch the BBC yet not pay for it. So my stoopid (sic) ass quote is evidenced by your own posts if you re-read all your previous. I have pointed out your alternatives. You do not have to pay for the BBC if you do not want it. I provided you with a link on how to do so. And if you for one minute thought you could dodge paying for something you would. We all would. That is just human nature. It isnt proof that the BBC is unwanted. Its just an observation. There is a distinction between 'proof' and 'observation' to be found within any common dictionary you care to examine. The evidence or 'proof' that the BBC is a much loved and cherished institution is its very existence. Things that people do not want tend to evaporate (except taxes and Piers Morgan). The BBC's very existence countermands any arguments you have because it is there because the British public want it. If they did not your arguments would be echoed throughout the country in every social media outlet. It isnt. There is only your lone voice on an obscure forum. Echo'd only by JohnV who is likely as not daft as a brush and prone to wearing socks with sandals. The opinion of two nutters does not constitute a mandate for change. It merely indicates how inclusive this forum is.
put ya glasses on and read my previous posts. I have offered an alternative and p.s. theres as many against as for perhaps there should be a forum -"VOTE" lol (moderator can that be done)
What's this obsession with "fat-cat BBC payoffs"? What about all the other pay-offs that Sky has given us? You will surely remember when you could see a test match on the TV (the BBC, then) for free. You'll remember when you saw the Ali Frazier fight for free. You'll remember that Sky has given so much money to the Prem that Rooney and his mates now get a fat cat payoff every week. And now the amount of football you can see for free is severely reduced. And apparently Moto GP all also be leaving terrestrial TV. And then people complain that the Beeb doesn't show what they want to see.
thats lifes choices glidd if you want sky - you subscribe to it. but you still have to pay the bbc even if you never watch it
You have not. So ner. Commercial TV is horrible. Adverts everywhere. Remember back when the football world cup was in the USA and the yanks wanted to change the rules of football to include a break during each half for advertising? I will agree with you to a point about fat cat execs pay. But that is symptomatic in all avenues of industry. I also agree about 'stars' pay. Like footballers their 'worth' is overinflated. But its a competitive market, like the one you proffer as an alternative, and thus as they compete the 'value' increases. So its your fault Phill, your and yours alone that we have to suffer the likes of Lious Spence. Youve changed. I don't know you anymore.
it is a valid alternative you may not like it - that does not make it any less valid leave louis out of this - he is incredible and a genuine star not linked to yewtree I sort of imagine pete-mbe to be like an over-emotional louis spence on speed. I can just see him in his bike leathers acting all louis
OK. OK. Fair enough. You're right. You do. But what %, I wonder, of British TV owners never look at a programme on the BBC? It's got to be tiny. In any system of whatever sort, you'll find people who don't subscribe to a majority view. Those people would probably like to opt out of whatever they are being coerced into doing. But it's just too bad. You can't please all the people all the time and I am willing to bet, that if you had a referendum which asked the question: "Would you like the licence fee to be abolished if in return the BBC would carry commercial advertising in the same proportion as other commercial channels or be a subscription only service?" the answer would be a resounding no. This would be even more so when it was pointed out that the BBC radio would also carry advertising, and that the advertising generated would not cover the amount of new and expensive programming the BBC currently does. And you wouldn't get anything for free on BBC iPlayer either - that would be a subscription service too. If you want to get a feel for what a referendum might do, start off with a poll on here. Just start a new "poll" thread (it's simple to do). It won't be wildly accurate, but it should give you a vague idea. Just word the question correctly.
No you havent Phill. A few posts filled with inane ramblings and dribbling does not constitute an alternative. What you proffer is that the BBC be more like the American model. I don't think that even in your frail state of mind you would wish that. The thing is, one never knows what one has until it is no longer there.
at the end of the day I respect your view. I dont tell you that you are wrong but i state my argument and agree to disagree "inane ramblings" they maybe, surprising how many 'likes' I got for those ramblings...so theres more than one 'fool' on here thank the god, allah, wonga or whoever. some have to go the extra mile and impose their view like a judge and state in essence "I dont agree and i am right because I said I am - so you are a fool" aka pete-paradox 'mbe' (glidd - on smartphone - cant do that task - I feel an alex salmon / david cameron how to word the bloody question moment coming lol)
I see JohnV did not deny the socks with sandals scandal. I knew it. I prefer to debate amicably. After all opinions are just that. Opinions. Veracity very often has very little to do with it. Right then Phill, what can we argue about next? Cabaye £10M! Youre avin a giraffe.
