BBC could go
- Thread starter Harbourwoodwork
- Start date
Sponsored Links
J
joinerjohn
It's still high time the government scrapped the TV Licence (just another tax by any stretch of the imagination) and made the BBC survive on income from other sources. 
(well they do spend thousands on their own program adverts..... doesn't take a bit of cranial exercise to realise they could make millions from other advertisers)
I for one object strongly to the BBC having almost £150 of my money , every year. (guaranteed) (specially when their Director General resigns,,,, only to find he's going to be paid his full salary for a bloody year...... Sort of makes the resignation rather pointless.
(well they do spend thousands on their own program adverts..... doesn't take a bit of cranial exercise to realise they could make millions from other advertisers)I for one object strongly to the BBC having almost £150 of my money , every year. (guaranteed) (specially when their Director General resigns,,,, only to find he's going to be paid his full salary for a bloody year...... Sort of makes the resignation rather pointless.
Do you watch the television (any channel) or listen to the radio?
Stop objecting. Your money doesn't just go to the BBC, it pays for the upkeep of the national broadcast network.
Sponsored Links
J
joinerjohn
You mean ITV get a share? Channel 5 get a share? Sky Broadcasting get a share? Pick TV get a share? Dave TV gets a share? Gold get a share? FX get a share? The Sci Fi channel get a share? The Discovery Channel get a share?
Well I never. They get hardly anything between them.
You mean ITV get a share? Channel 5 get a share? Sky Broadcasting get a share? Pick TV get a share? Dave TV gets a share? Gold get a share? FX get a share? The Sci Fi channel get a share? The Discovery Channel get a share?
Well I never. They get hardly anything between them.
No, they support themselves via the oh so very annoying adverts. The broadcast infrastructure, however, is paid for by you.
J
joinerjohn
Ahh I see, so ITV, SKY, GOLD, DAVE etc (ad infinitum) are just piggybacking on the nationalised network? ( I really don't think so )
J
joinerjohn
Edit,,, double post.
And as I said, it's funny how plenty of countries manage to build such infrastucture privatly.
But when we have money to bung at them via a license fee, they suddenly claim poverty.
Yea, I am sure organisations that pay their stars and management multi million pound salaries can't afford to pay for the network.
And what % of the license fee goes to paying for the network, and what % goes to paying BBC worker salaries and for "entertainment".
Your argument is full of holes, bit like this wonderfull programme you are forced to pay for.
The BBC is having it's problems at the minute but it's a wonderful national institution which should be kept free from political interference (as far as possible) and free from the influence of advertisers.
If you don't like it stop whinging about it on an internet forum and go and petition your MP.
If you don't like it stop whinging about it on an internet forum and go and petition your MP.
The BBC is having it's problems at the minute but it's a wonderful national institution which should be kept free from political interference (as far as possible) and free from the influence of advertisers.
If you don't like it stop whinging about it on an internet forum and go and petition your MP.
Already have.
And like I said, if you think it's so wonderful, why are you afraid no one will voluntarily pay for it on subscription?
I mean, people pay several times more for sky, which is worse right?
I wasn't asking how much their licence fee was, I was applauding their lack of annoying TV adverts. Incidentally, it comes as no surprise that they pay less for their licence than do we.
No need to apologise, Lanky. I'm here to educate and clarify!
What's the difference between paying for a TV licence and paying subscriptions to watch TV? We'd pay money just the same.
OK, you could say that you don't want to subscribe to BBC, but you do want to subscribe to QVC (for some God-only-knows-why reason!). Whoever you choose to subscribe to, they'd have to contribute to the national transmission network if there is no TV licence and, because of that, your subscriptions may well turn out to be higher.
I reckon that, if it came down to choice, you'd find the BBC would receive far more subscriptions than any other TV channel.
You actually need me to mention the word "voluntary".
Read my above posts, I don't "have" to subscribe to anyone.
ITV, C4 etc are free, they can afford to pay towards the transmission network, unless you really believe that they can't whilst paying their staff millions?
You don't think it's a bit of a stretch to claim a multi billion pound industry is going to go "you know what, we just can't afford to deliver our product".
And even "if" you can provide a convincing argument that a TV licence is needed to fund TV and Radio transmission, well that's less than 1/4 of the license fee.
But paying for a TV licence is voluntary. You are not obliged to watch television or listen to the radio.
Yes, that's quite correct.
But didn't you say you'd be prepared to pay subscriptions to watch them? I think that if there was no TV licence you'd have to pay them so that they can pay towards the transmission costs.
You don't think it's a bit of a stretch to claim a multi billion pound industry is going to go "you know what, we just can't afford to deliver our product".
And even "if" you can provide a convincing argument that a TV licence is needed to fund TV and Radio transmission, well that's less than 1/4 of the license fee.
Is it? I don't know what proportion of the licence fee goes towards transmission costs. Do you have details?
Anyway, if you did achieve your aim of getting rid of the TV licence don't you thing that the government would find some other tax to make up the difference? Worse still, unlike the TV licence, it could turn out to be mandatory!
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Deleted member 294929
- General Discussion
