Without BBC Radio I might never have got into HHGTTG at such a young age. I fortuitously caught the first episode broadcast as I was confined to my room for misbehaviour. Been hooked by Douglas Adams ever since. Its pretty fair to say he has had an enormous impact on how I look at things. Him, Chuck Jones/Tex Avery have made me the tit I am.
Here is an example of what the licence fee brings... Try and read the whole thing if you have time. A good man in Rwanda Firstly; it's a great piece of journalism with no commercial agenda. Secondly; I've never seen a webpage constructed in this way and I thought it was a great new way to present stuff on the web.
Aye and if you look it up in the dictionary... bampot (ˈbæmˌpɒt) Definitions noun (Scottish, slang) headcase, idiot, fool, finm
Paying a licence fee without a choice is indeed simply a tax. That is what taxes are - income tax, VAT, stamp duty, fuel duty, council tax, etc. are obligatory. The BBC licence fee is, obviously, a tax. Unusually it is hypothecated to a particular purpose, in this case broadcasting. Like every other tax, the "say in how the money gets spent" arises at election time via the political process. I do not see anything controversial in having a broadcasting tax, nor with its yield being hypothecated to the BBC, nor with public expenditure being allocated by an elected parliament. The controversial bit of the new proposal is it being universal, i.e. payable not only by the 99% of the population who use the BBC but also by the other 1% who do not. This makes it essentially a small poll tax. I can see why people might oppose a poll tax on principle, but that principle is unconnected with the merits or demerits of the BBC. Incidentally the BBC World Service was for many decades paid for by the Foreign Office, not from the BBC licence fee. Thus all taxpayers were contributing, whether they personally used BBC services or not, on the basis that the BBC World Service is of benefit to the nation as a whole. That recently changed, so the burden of financial support of the World Service has been reduced to UK licence payers only. I must say I disagree with that reduction.
I fully understand why some people are huge fans of the BBC and rightly so as they do produce some really good stuff at times. The problem for me is that I don't personally feel I benefit that greatly from the license fee overall as much of the BBC offering doesn't interest me, therefor if I only want access to some why can I not pay only for that? IF however that would never be an option then quite honestly I'd treat it the same as I have done with elements of my sky subscription and cancel my right to viewing. I have plenty of channels with nothing showing on my sky box but I don't care, I make that choice and it's my right to do so. The whole BBC tax is what gets to me. They're a very modern and savvy broadcaster which IMO have had the gravy train of public funding come far too easy. It's very possible for them to switch to a subscription service and therefor those of you happy to pay can continue to do so, those of us that don't wish to can live in peace without ridiculous letters of legal action. If they can't then continue to spend money so lavishly then perhaps they'll trim down what they spend on, it wouldn't be a bad thing and the random fringe stuff they do will get dropped OR they move to a proper broadcasting business model of advertising. Again that's their choice and the people would speak, not enough money coming in would simply mean it isn't just me who wishes to stop paying them. Facts are that I watch far more top gear on Dave, yes it was made by the BBC but my viewing of it is on an advertising business model channel and I don't mind. If the BBC stopped funding jezza, Hammond and captain slow do you honestly think the whole thing wouldn't be picked up by an alternative funding source? If they stopped making top gear full stop then frankly I'd not miss the BBC at all...... When you think of that I pay a hefty price for just 7 yearly episodes of top gear don't i.
I don't pay for sky, its a rip-off. Only have bt sport as it was free with the internet subscription. I doubt I'll ever pay for syk again, but if I had to 'subscribe' to the bbc I would. I bet it'll be a hell of a lot more than the price a license fee is at the moment though.
The BBC sets the standards that other broadcasters aspire to, the unique way they are funded means they can do stuff like This BBC - Radio 4 The Listening Project - Home which no commercial broadcaster would consider. The only non music based stations on the radio in this country are either niche (Voice of Russia), religious (Sunrise Radio) or utter crap (Talk Sport) there is nothing that even comes close to the breadth and quality of Radio 5 live and Radio 4. The commercial music stations generally play a very narrow androgynous selection of easy listening / chart music. It needs a Radio 1 / 1 Xtra to provide a platform for upcoming new acts and to have the courage not to chase ratings. The tax we all pay is not to allow us to watch the BBC it is a licence to operate equipment capable of receiving live broadcast TV, the funds raised are allocated solely to the BBC. It's a bit like having private health insurance and paying income tax, just because you don't need the NHS doesn't mean you don't pay for it. It's one of the things we do if we want to be part of the wider society.
What happens if the good folk in Scotland decide to exit from being British? Do they get free viewing ,can they still access the BBC,will they abolish all fees ,how can this be addressed and am I being a bit cheeky ???? Oh yes.........
If I dont have a TV I dont have to pay. If I dont have a job i dont pay income tax, but I do pay tax on the things I buy and any savings. Ergo, beeb licence is just that, and not a tax. Surely everyone can see that
I fully respect everyone's view on whether they like the BBC or not but for those in favour of the current system it's all still based upon you specifically liking and/or wanting access to it. And fair enough, i get that. If somebody took away my access to things like Game of thrones, Hannibal, Idiot abroad , any of the Ross Kemp Afghanistan/gangs programs and many of the documentaries on Sky i wouldn't be happy. But lets face it, I choose to pay for that because I like that, my choice and my preference of viewing and i pay Sky for that access. When my bill gets too high we as a family trim down the package OR Sky offer a deal reduction if applicable. I therefor control what i pay and whether i feel im getting value from it. People in favour of the current system enjoy a substantial amount of what the BBC offer and that's great for them, but I can see why they would get defensive as if some of the funding dried up then there's a good chance an element of the stuff they particularly like would not be made. The flip side of that though is that many people probably don't enjoy/benefit that greatly from what the BBC make or broadcast so it's very similar to them asking for you to chip in to their monthly costs towards Sky Atlantic because that's what they like (and you don't). So to put it another way IF the Licence fee was actually partly going to Sky and partly going to the BBC (they both broadcast) then I'm pretty sure many of you without sky would be up in arms saying you dont benefit from Sky so why should you pay? I do get what the 'official line' of the BBC tax/fee is intended for but if we were to bring things up to date in the modern society it's actually just a way to paper over the cracks of an outdated idea. Nobody would honestly try and get the public to pay for the privilege of receiving a signal to access any broadcast. It's a ridiculous notion. Besides the government needs us to access that content, it benefits them. I'm not saying that the BBC doesn't make stuff for all, I'm just saying it's an outdated ideal that the 'good old BBC' has all our best interests at heart. The 'unique way they are funded' is pretty much just saying 'we can do what we want because you pay us anyway'...... It's not a notion I'm happy with. It runs like a fat cat corporation with a board they can largely ignore, we are in effect shareholders with no say what so ever, we just have to pay and they know it. My point is that if the BBC is really offering such value for all its members then surely they'll retain that income when it comes to people making the choice as to whether they pay of not? How confident are they in the product they produce? Well non of us are given the chance to find out as we simply have to pay for it anyway. I don't want the end of the BBC, I just want to get them up to date and if that means allowing people like me to downgrade my subscription should I feel much of what they offer not relevant then so be it. Much of it IS largely irrelevant to me therefor id downgrade if given the choice... which I'm not and there in lies the problem.
