# End of the Red Button....



## Fish (Nov 18, 2015)

As part of BBC cuts the red button showing multi-screens and other events and information is being closed down, what is also interesting is that the government has apparently _promised_ to address the iPlayer loophole which is why they are seeing a drop in licence fee's as more and more people are watching on iPlayers and catch-up, I can't see how the government can address that personally!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34851369


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Wonder what they are going to do during the Olympics ? The red button enabled them to show every single event


----------



## chrisd (Nov 18, 2015)

Fish said:



			As part of BBC cuts the red button showing multi-screens and other events and information is being closed down, what is also interesting is that the government has apparently _promised_ to address the iPlayer loophole which is why they are seeing a drop in licence fee's as more and more people are watching on iPlayers and catch-up, I can't see how the government can address that personally!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34851369

Click to expand...

They could bring in a new class of license for those who don't currently pay to cover Iplayer etc or just make it compulsory to have a license if you have a tv


----------



## pbrown7582 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Wonder what they are going to do during the Olympics ? The red button enabled them to show every single event
		
Click to expand...

It'll be back to how it used to be BBC2 an you get to watch what's on.
Be the same for Wimbledon not choice of match.

Is it time for the Beeb to take adverts and become a commercial broadcaster?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 18, 2015)

Must say I didn't use it much, very rarely do on Sky either tbh. There are a lot of innovations that seem great on paper and "must have" which turn out to have a lukewarm reception at best. I think this falls into the "nice to have" but not essential so is probably a reasonable thing to cut if significant savings can be made.

As for BBC going commercial..... The BBC sets the bar the other broadcasters have to strive for. Without that bar things would go downhill very fast. I'd guess there'd be very little decent free to air TV within just a few years. You want a TV service just like the US then keep banging the "no licence fee" drum. Even if you don't watch much BBC the other channels are better because it exists. They have to be. There's radio and the website too...all ad free. Fantastic value IMHO.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 18, 2015)

chrisd said:



			They could bring in a new class of license for those who don't currently pay to cover Iplayer etc or just make it compulsory to have a license if you have a tv
		
Click to expand...

Er I think you're coming at this the wrong way. The BBC is just another TAX burden on us. It should be ditched with immediate effect, not try and find ways to close a loophole. Once this is done another will be found. I have more than enough TV and radio I can access for free, I do not wish to be forced to continue to pay for something I no longer need. Let them take ads. I can then record anything I want to actually watch on the BBC and whizz through them  like I do now with others.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

I wonder how many people actually watch much on the Beeb, let alone use the red button. When I think of how much its on in our house... if they sold the channel off it might improve what's on offer.

*dons a tin hat and hides*


----------



## pbrown7582 (Nov 18, 2015)

Not only the red button and the open F1 darts and snooker all going too.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			Er I think you're coming at this the wrong way. The BBC is just another TAX burden on us. It should be ditched with immediate effect, not try and find ways to close a loophole. Once this is done another will be found. I have more than enough TV and radio I can access for free, I do not wish to be forced to continue to pay for something I no longer need. Let them take ads. I can then record anything I want to actually watch on the BBC and whizz through them  like I do now with others.
		
Click to expand...

It's a tax if you will have it that way that all of us have to pay if we use any BBC service - services that are provided for the benefit of us all - not just the payer.  But like many anti-BBC or anti-Licence fee you probably won't accept you have a small part to play in providing a wider societal benefit.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It's a tax if you will have it that way that all of us have to pay if we use any BBC service - services that are provided for the benefit of us all - not just the payer.  But like many anti-BBC or anti-Licence fee you probably won't accept you have a small part to play in providing a wider societal benefit.
		
Click to expand...

What are the wider social benefits that the Beeb provides that aren't available from independant tv and radio (and free)?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			What are the wider social benefits that the Beeb provides that aren't available from independant tv and radio (and free)?
		
Click to expand...

The Proms

(a social benefit is not the same as a societal benefit)


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Proms

(a social benefit is not the same as a societal benefit)
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed the subtle spelling difference. So apart from roads, medicine, sanitation etc what have the romans ever done for us?

So whats the difference between the societal benefit the Beeb provides and MTV/Sky Arts channels? TBH Â£145 a year is good value but where is thefreedom of choice? Its imposed on everyone with a TV, ergo a tax.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 18, 2015)

Think we can thank a certain Australian born American for the way the Beeb is being hobbled at present...

Georgie boy currently to be found hanging out of his rear end...


----------



## Tongo (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Wonder what they are going to do during the Olympics ? The red button enabled them to show every single event
		
Click to expand...




pbrown7582 said:



			It'll be back to how it used to be BBC2 an you get to watch what's on.
Be the same for Wimbledon not choice of match.

Is it time for the Beeb to take adverts and become a commercial broadcaster?
		
Click to expand...


Oh dear, that doesnt bode well. Does that mean a week of swimming followed by a week of Athletics at Rio next year? 

Not much hope of seeing any Hockey then.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 18, 2015)

Rarely use the red button and major sports events are hiking themselves off to the highest bidder.  If the license fee dies I personally think it's the slow demise of free to view TV.

ITV is close to rubbish now and advertising revenue is falling, how long before the go down the charging route. Once this starts then I can honestly see us all paying for everything within the next 15 years. I must state, this is only my opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			It'll be back to how it used to be BBC2 an you get to watch what's on.
Be the same for Wimbledon not choice of match.
		
Click to expand...

We had that in Scotland last week when BBC2 showed two prime time hours of  Kitchen Town playing Prancaster Rovers in the 2nd preliminary rounds of the EFA Cup. 
[ PS .....I may have made up those teams]


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We had that in Scotland last week when BBC2 showed two prime time hours of  Kitchen Town playing Prancaster Rovers in the 2nd preliminary rounds of the EFA Cup. 
[ PS .....I may have made up those teams]
		
Click to expand...

And the Cup


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			It'll be back to how it used to be BBC2 an you get to watch what's on.
Be the same for Wimbledon not choice of match.

Is it time for the Beeb to take adverts and become a commercial broadcaster?
		
Click to expand...

All events will be able to be watched online and via I player - also will be utlizing BBC1 2 3 and 4 and will have a few events on the red button purely for the Olympics only. Will still be able to watch every event :whoo:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			And the Cup 

Click to expand...

I think you will find that it will be known by that in the future......something to do with sponsorship I believe.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We had that in Scotland last week when BBC2 showed two prime time hours of  Kitchen Town playing Prancaster Rovers in the 2nd preliminary rounds of the EFA Cup. 
[ PS .....I may have made up those teams]
		
Click to expand...

Is BBC 2 regional ? I know BBC1 but think BBc2 programming is the same all over the country. Believe last year or the year before there was a Scottish Cup match on BBC2


----------



## pbrown7582 (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We had that in Scotland last week when BBC2 showed two prime time hours of  Kitchen Town playing Prancaster Rovers in the 2nd preliminary rounds of the EFA Cup. 
[ PS .....I may have made up those teams]
		
Click to expand...

youll suffer again it next summer to when  80% of the british isles are in France competing at EURO 16


----------



## pbrown7582 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is BBC 2 regional ? I know BBC1 but think BBc2 programming is the same all over the country. Believe last year or the year before there was a Scottish *PUB* match on BBC2
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			youll sufer again it next summer to when  80% of the british isles are in France competing at EURO 16
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl:

:whoo:


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 18, 2015)

Time to get rid of the license fee..... This gig is over and its time that they paid for themselves.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Time to get rid of the license fee..... This gig is over and its time that they paid for themselves.
		
Click to expand...

How will they pay for the wonderful documentaries and the some of the most popular television programmes on telly - as well as the radio and Internet services they provide ?


----------



## 6inchcup (Nov 18, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			It'll be back to how it used to be BBC2 an you get to watch what's on.
Be the same for Wimbledon not choice of match.

Is it time for the Beeb to take adverts and become a commercial broadcaster?
		
Click to expand...

the only red button i use when the super snobby middle class tennis comes on is the OFF one


----------



## Spuddy (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is BBC 2 regional ? I know BBC1 but think BBc2 programming is the same all over the country. Believe last year or the year before there was a Scottish Cup match on BBC2
		
Click to expand...

Yeah BBC2 is regionalised the same as BBC1


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Time to get rid of the license fee..... This gig is over and its time that they paid for themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Time to get rid of the license fee..... This gig is over and its time that they paid for themselves.
		
Click to expand...


A few more visits to Georgie boys office from Murd the turd and you'll no doubt get your wish....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

pbrown7582 said:



			youll suffer again it next summer to when  80% of the british isles are in France competing at EURO 16
		
Click to expand...

How exactly will I suffer as I shall be watching quality national teams instead of 7th tier English league rubbish.
I think you missed the point. 

BTW Phil I can think of a few Scottish pub teams that would have given that pair a decent game. Duckla Pumpherston for one.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			How exactly will I suffer as I shall be watching quality national teams instead of 7th tier English league rubbish.
I think you missed the point. 

BTW Phil I can think of a few Scottish pub teams that would have given that pair a decent game. Duckla Pumpherston for one.
		
Click to expand...

Then don't watch it - no one forces you to watch the game if you don't wish too. 

Those two teams produced a cracking game - and I'm pretty sure your few Scottish Pub Teams wouldn't have given them a decent game even with your inflated opinion of Scottish Club Football


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Then don't watch it - no one forces you to watch the game if you don't wish too. 

Those two teams produced a cracking game - and I'm pretty sure your few Scottish Pub Teams wouldn't have given them a decent game even with your inflated opinion of Scottish Club Football
		
Click to expand...

What you mean Kitchen Town and Prancaster Rovers are actual teams?
I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			What you mean Kitchen Town and Prancaster Rovers are actual teams?
I find that hard to believe.
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you are referring to the Salford game yes ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is BBC 2 regional ? I know BBC1 but think BBc2 programming is the same all over the country. Believe last year or the year before there was a Scottish Cup match on BBC2
		
Click to expand...

Then you must enjoy watching Scotland 2015....five nights a week.
Viewing figures roughly 5,000 a night.

BBC2 Scotland.......  current affairs programme.........that was never going to work


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

I have no idea who the two teams were.......Thankfully the ten minutes I watched has now been erased from my memory.:lol:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have no idea who the two teams were.......Thankfully the ten minutes I watched has now been erased from my memory.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Then you missed a good football game regardless of who played - most football fans would have enjoyed it.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How will they pay for the wonderful documentaries and the some of the most popular television programmes on telly - as well as the radio and Internet services they provide ?
		
Click to expand...

Become commercial like everyone else... If they are as good as you say they are they will have no problem at all and will even make a profit!

Or we could go on being taxed for it so people like Jeremy Clarkson can be paid millions. 

I pay for Sky, why should I be forced to pay twice. Also not at the nature program part of my life yet... Still rather be out in it!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Become commercial like everyone else... If they are as good as you say they are they will have no problem at all and will even make a profit!

Or we could go on being taxed for it so people like Jeremy Clarkson can be paid millions. 

I pay for Sky, why should I be forced to pay twice. Also not at the nature program part of my life yet... Still rather be out in it!
		
Click to expand...

People pay Â£146 a year - Â£11 a month for four channels - countless amount of radio shows and some of best telly without it being interrupted by an advert every 5 mins - imagine watching The Hunt and it being disturbed constantly by an advert. The BBC gives us the one bunch of programmes that can be shown without the need to advertise Pringles etc etc etc 

People like Clarkson earned the BBC millions due to the amount of money they earned by selling the rights to other countries and will continue to earn the BBC millions which then goes back into the pot to make more television. Add in all the countless projects and funds they have to encourage musicians and emerging talent giving them a platform to display their talents. The BBC does so much work for the future as well as the present. All from people's ten pound a month - peanuts. You can't even watch a film or buy a DVD for that these days. 

I would pay double that to keep the adverts away


----------



## jp5 (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Become commercial like everyone else... If they are as good as you say they are they will have no problem at all and will even make a profit!

Or we could go on being taxed for it so people like Jeremy Clarkson can be paid millions. 

I pay for Sky, why should I be forced to pay twice. *Also not at the nature program part of my life yet... Still rather be out in it!*

Click to expand...

Don't know where you go for your walks, but I don't see many polar bears / tigers / eagles / chimpanzees in their wild habitats on mine.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Become commercial like everyone else... If they are as good as you say they are they will have no problem at all and will even make a profit!

Or we could go on being taxed for it so people like Jeremy Clarkson can be paid millions. 

I pay for Sky, why should I be forced to pay twice. Also not at the nature program part of my life yet... Still rather be out in it!
		
Click to expand...

I wonder how much money we shall get if we sell the BBC off.

I used to be a big fan of the BBC until their coverage of the Scottish referendum.
Now I see them for what they are and no longer trust them to report the truth. Very sad.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			People pay Â£146 a year - Â£11 a month for four channels - countless amount of radio shows and some of best telly without it being interrupted by an advert every 5 mins - imagine watching The Hunt and it being disturbed constantly by an advert. The BBC gives us the one bunch of programmes that can be shown without the need to advertise Pringles etc etc etc 

People like Clarkson earned the BBC millions due to the amount of money they earned by selling the rights to other countries and will continue to earn the BBC millions which then goes back into the pot to make more television. Add in all the countless projects and funds they have to encourage musicians and emerging talent giving them a platform to display their talents. The BBC does so much work for the future as well as the present. All from people's ten pound a month - peanuts. You can't even watch a film or buy a DVD for that these days. 

I would pay double that to keep the adverts away
		
Click to expand...

I fully concede to the later, I had not thought that through. However the former is of no consequence to me, I never watch live tv so the adds just get fast forwarded. I think my feeling are they no matter the cost, I should have the option to not pay and not receive those channels. Its an outdated model in my opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I wonder how much money we shall get if we sell the BBC off.

I used to be a big fan of the BBC until their coverage of the Scottish referendum.
Now I see them for what they are and no longer trust them to report the truth. Very sad.
		
Click to expand...

Do the BBC not report the truth then ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 18, 2015)

To be honest I only use the Sky Sports one and then to watch golf etc? Its clearly seen as a drain on resources but I could think of plenty of other things the BBC could do away with other than the red button


----------



## Robster59 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			People pay Â£146 a year - Â£11 a month for four channels - countless amount of radio shows and some of best telly without it being interrupted by an advert every 5 mins - imagine watching The Hunt and it being disturbed constantly by an advert. The BBC gives us the one bunch of programmes that can be shown without the need to advertise Pringles etc etc etc 

People like Clarkson earned the BBC millions due to the amount of money they earned by selling the rights to other countries and will continue to earn the BBC millions which then goes back into the pot to make more television. Add in all the countless projects and funds they have to encourage musicians and emerging talent giving them a platform to display their talents. The BBC does so much work for the future as well as the present. All from people's ten pound a month - peanuts. You can't even watch a film or buy a DVD for that these days. 

I would pay double that to keep the adverts away
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.  Â£11 a month for all that?  And people pay Â£60, Â£70, Â£80, Â£90 a MONTH for Sky + adverts and don't bitch that they are being overcharged.  We have Sky and to be honest no matter how many channels there are, most of it is tat.  

The BBC is a magnificent institution but the Tory government have NEVER liked it and would love to get rid of it.  Example?  They decide that 75 and over get a free licence BUT the BBC must pay for it.  

People see the BBC as a TV only channel but it is far more than that.  They have in the past, and continue to this day, produce ground breaking drama, documentaries, comedy etc. and should continue.  People spend more than Â£11 a night in the pub, at the bookies, on the lottery and those who think that making it commercial or selling it off would make it a better service are very short sighted indeed.  

It genuinely worries me that we will lose the BBC which is a broadcaster that is the envy of the world.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 18, 2015)

Robster59 said:



			Agreed.  Â£11 a month for all that?  And people pay Â£60, Â£70, Â£80, Â£90 a MONTH for Sky + adverts and don't bitch that they are being overcharged.  We have Sky and to be honest no matter how many channels there are, most of it is tat.  

The BBC is a magnificent institution but the Tory government have NEVER liked it and would love to get rid of it.  Example?  They decide that 75 and over get a free licence BUT the BBC must pay for it.  

People see the BBC as a TV only channel but it is far more than that.  They have in the past, and continue to this day, produce ground breaking drama, documentaries, comedy etc. and should continue.  People spend more than Â£11 a night in the pub, at the bookies, on the lottery and those who think that making it commercial or selling it off would make it a better service are very short sighted indeed.  

It genuinely worries me that we will lose the BBC which is a broadcaster that is the envy of the world.
		
Click to expand...

I would like the choice not to have to be part of the institution. 

In my opinion all those programs that the bbc do well would still be made if the bbc was abolished. 

HID and I have a set of programs we want to watch and are all on the planner. They get recorded or download and we watch them when we want to so it does not matter that there is a lot of dross as we will not have recorded that. TVs does not happen to us, we use it to fit in with us. 

The radio is not to my taste.

No matter the cost, if it's Â£1 or Â£100, it's my money and I should have the choice to not subscribe.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			I would like the choice not to have to be part of the institution. 

In my opinion all those programs that the bbc do well would still be made if the bbc was abolished. 

HID and I have a set of programs we want to watch and are all on the planner. They get recorded or download and we watch them when we want to so it does not matter that there is a lot of dross as we will not have recorded that. TVs does not happen to us, we use it to fit in with us. 

The radio is not to my taste.

No matter the cost, if it's Â£1 or Â£100, it's my money and I should have the choice to not subscribe.
		
Click to expand...

Don't buy a telly license and don't have a telly capable of watching telly - it is possible but I'm guessing there is programs you do watch from the BBC ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 18, 2015)

Robster59 said:



			Agreed.  Â£11 a month for all that?  And people pay Â£60, Â£70, Â£80, Â£90 a MONTH for Sky + adverts and don't bitch that they are being overcharged.  We have Sky and to be honest no matter how many channels there are, most of it is tat.  

The BBC is a magnificent institution but the Tory government have NEVER liked it and would love to get rid of it.  Example?  They decide that 75 and over get a free licence BUT the BBC must pay for it.  

People see the BBC as a TV only channel but it is far more than that.  They have in the past, and continue to this day, produce ground breaking drama, documentaries, comedy etc. and should continue.  People spend more than Â£11 a night in the pub, at the bookies, on the lottery and those who think that making it commercial or selling it off would make it a better service are very short sighted indeed.  

It genuinely worries me that we will lose the BBC which is a broadcaster that is the envy of the world.
		
Click to expand...

Put like that it's hard to argue. I don't use the red button personally but as I said, plenty of things they could do away with first. My concern would be how much further they will cut and whether they will bother bidding for sporting rights when they come again. Could it get to a point where the olympics or Wimbledon go to another channel, especially with Channel 4 already covering the paralympics


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Don't buy a telly license and don't have a telly capable of watching telly - it is possible but I'm guessing there is programs you do watch from the BBC ?
		
Click to expand...


I should not have to go to those lengths should I? 

I am guessing I do watch some bbc now and then. I'm not saying I would stop paying for the licence either but I do think it should not be forced on me.

If it's all that then it won't have a problem standing on its own feet though hu?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			I should not have to go to those lengths should I? 

I am guessing I do watch some bbc now and then. I'm not saying I would stop paying for the licence either but I do think it should not be forced on me.

If it's all that then it won't have a problem standing on its own feet though hu?
		
Click to expand...

It's all that because of everything it does and without the need to have an advert every 5 mins

Again it's not forced on - you have a choice - watch telly on BBC then pay for it or don't watch telly and don't pay for a license


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			I should not have to go to those lengths should I? 

I am guessing I do watch some bbc now and then. I'm not saying I would stop paying for the licence either but I do think it should not be forced on me.

If it's all that then it won't have a problem standing on its own feet though hu?
		
Click to expand...

Interesting point. Should we be forced to still pay the licence irrespective of the amount of BBC output we watch. I do watch BBC, mainly news and documentaries, both areas I think they still rule the world in. However there is not a great deal else, and I only ever listen to 5Live as a radio channel. Shoudl we not have some sort of way of paying for what we consume?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Don't buy a telly license and don't have a telly capable of watching telly - it is possible but I'm guessing there is programs you do watch from the BBC ?
		
Click to expand...

So I could have a TV& just not watch BBC & not be forced to pay for a license?


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 18, 2015)

Robster59 said:



			Agreed.  Â£11 a month for all that?  And people pay Â£60, Â£70, Â£80, Â£90 a MONTH for Sky + adverts and don't bitch that they are being overcharged.  We have Sky and to be honest no matter how many channels there are, most of it is tat.  

The BBC is a magnificent institution but the Tory government have NEVER liked it and would love to get rid of it.  Example?  They decide that 75 and over get a free licence BUT the BBC must pay for it.  

People see the BBC as a TV only channel but it is far more than that.  They have in the past, and continue to this day, produce ground breaking drama, documentaries, comedy etc. and should continue.  People spend more than Â£11 a night in the pub, at the bookies, on the lottery and those who think that making it commercial or selling it off would make it a better service are very short sighted indeed.  

It genuinely worries me that we will lose the BBC which is a broadcaster that is the envy of the world.
		
Click to expand...

But no one forces you to pay for sky just because you have a tv. 
Surely you can see the difference.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 18, 2015)

Pin-seeker said:



			So I could have a TV& just not watch BBC & not be forced to pay for a license?
		
Click to expand...

Are there TV's that are capable of not showing BBC by default? If not, I don't think anyone would have the BBC on there and not watch it at all throughout the year, therefore making the viewer eligible to pay the licence fee. I would prefer a way of paying for what you used. Not sure how that would be policed. Equally as difficult as getting a TV not utilising BBC or not watching


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 18, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Are there TV's that are capable of not showing BBC by default? If not, I don't think anyone would have the BBC on there and not watch it at all throughout the year, therefore making the viewer eligible to pay the licence fee. I would prefer a way of paying for what you used. Not sure how that would be policed. Equally as difficult as getting a TV not utilising BBC or not watching
		
Click to expand...

Pay per view, it's done with movie channels and sports...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Pay per view, it's done with movie channels and sports...
		
Click to expand...

And will end costing a damn sight more than what you would pay for a telly license


----------



## delc (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			What are the wider social benefits that the Beeb provides that aren't available from independant tv and radio (and free)?
		
Click to expand...

Advert free television! The Tory party unfairly regards the BBC as a subversive left wing organisation which dares to question its policies, which is why it under attack. Also part of the private sector good, public sector bad thing!


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

delc said:



			Advert free television! The Tory party unfairly regards the BBC as a subversive left wing organisation which dares to question its policies, which is why it under attack. Also part of the private sector good, public sector bad thing!
		
Click to expand...

Soooo, if you don't show adverts you are considered to be a subversive left wing organisation? Does that make Sky, with its 7 minute long advert breaks far right!?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Soooo, if you don't show adverts you are considered to be a subversive left wing organisation? Does that make Sky, with its 7 minute long advert breaks far right!?
		
Click to expand...

Ever heard of Fox News?


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Ever heard of Fox News?
		
Click to expand...

Yes thanks


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Yes thanks
		
Click to expand...

If a news channel depends on advertising revenue to exist. Advertising revenue predominantly from big business who tend to benefit most from right wing policies and right wing administrations......which way do you think they will lean?  The point of the BBC is that it's neutral and tries to be balanced in it's coverage. Now, that is admittedly very difficult to achieve and they will inevitably get some things wrong but at least it's an objective starting point. To someone on the right the coverage may appear left biased, to someone on the left it may appear right biased. With a very right wing government in power I believe they have an agenda to weaken or change the BBC because it is really the only voice not subject to the commercial pressures that bring about right wing bias above. It's a constant thorn in the side of the Tory party which I'm sure they would prefer wasn't there.


----------



## Fish (Nov 19, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			If a news channel depends on advertising revenue to exist. Advertising revenue predominantly from big business who tend to benefit most from right wing policies and right wing administrations......which way do you think they will lean?  The point of the BBC is that it's neutral and tries to be balanced in it's coverage. Now, that is admittedly very difficult to achieve and they will inevitably get some things wrong but at least it's an objective starting point. To someone on the right the coverage may appear left biased, to someone on the left it may appear right biased. *With a very right wing government in power* I believe they have an agenda to weaken or change the BBC because it is really the only voice not subject to the commercial pressures that bring about right wing bias above. It's a constant thorn in the side of the Tory party which I'm sure they would prefer wasn't there.
		
Click to expand...

Are they?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 19, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Think we can thank a certain Australian born American for the way the Beeb is being hobbled at present...

Georgie boy currently to be found hanging out of his rear end...
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Don't confuse the current governments stance on the BBC with any thinking on what is good for the nation.  But it is mostly what is a good for Murdoch's commercial interests and the government protecting any media outlet that basically agrees with them politically, and trying to rein in any that does not.

Said it before and said it again but the BBC has had a great influence on who we are as a nation and is one of the most respected, if not the most respected broadcasting organisation in the world. To begin with we'd be nowhere as good and as influential as we are in the world of music without them. 

If it was not for the BBC then everything you watch and hear would in some way be influenced by advertisers and would ultimately be there to make money.  And the people paying the most money would be able to steer the output to align with the political and social beliefs. You only need to look at the printed press and Fox News to see what would happen.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			If a news channel depends on advertising revenue to exist. Advertising revenue predominantly from big business who tend to benefit most from right wing policies and right wing administrations......which way do you think they will lean?  The point of the BBC is that it's neutral and tries to be balanced in it's coverage. Now, that is admittedly very difficult to achieve and they will inevitably get some things wrong but at least it's an objective starting point. To someone on the right the coverage may appear left biased, to someone on the left it may appear right biased. With a very right wing government in power I believe they have an agenda to weaken or change the BBC because it is really the only voice not subject to the commercial pressures that bring about right wing bias above. It's a constant thorn in the side of the Tory party which I'm sure they would prefer wasn't there.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with your theory but would question just how good is the Beeb's reporting. I tend to watch news from around the world via various media. The Beeb often miss big stories from around the world in favour of a piece on the price of a bag of spuds in Wurzle Gumidge land.

But to put another slant on it. Do we really want a state run news organisation? It has been said in the past that the Beeb is a govt mouthpiece. Even during the last 6 years there's been news put out by the Beeb that has a pro Govt stance. Unfortunately the Beeb often switch from reporting news to giving opinions on the news. If they are going to do that I'd like them to be not state run.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 19, 2015)

Fish said:



			Are they?
		
Click to expand...

In a relative sense I think so......they are further right than Blair, and then further right than the coalition.....so at least two (I think considerable) notches further right than we have been in the last 18 years.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 19, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Become commercial like everyone else... If they are as good as you say they are they will have no problem at all and will even make a profit!

Or we could go on being taxed for it so people like Jeremy Clarkson can be paid millions. 

I pay for Sky, why should I be forced to pay twice. Also not at the nature program part of my life yet... Still rather be out in it!
		
Click to expand...

The Clarkson point is so wrong as Top gear earned the BBC many times more than what they were paid in overseas revenue, and also kudos. It's a lazy Daily Mail argument that financially is complete and utter garbage.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			The Clarkson point is so wrong as Top gear earned the BBC many times more than what they were paid in overseas revenue, and also kudos. It's a lazy Daily Mail argument that financially is complete and utter garbage.
		
Click to expand...

Oh no, not labelled a Daily Mail argument... nurse, nurse! The yoghurt knitters are out again...


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I agree with your theory but would question just how good is the Beeb's reporting. I tend to watch news from around the world via various media. The Beeb often miss big stories from around the world in favour of a piece on the price of a bag of spuds in Wurzle Gumidge land.

But to put another slant on it. Do we really want a state run news organisation? It has been said in the past that the Beeb is a govt mouthpiece. Even during the last 6 years there's been news put out by the Beeb that has a pro Govt stance. Unfortunately the Beeb often switch from reporting news to giving opinions on the news. If they are going to do that I'd like them to be not state run.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, tend to agree on quality but I think that applies to everyone....they all broadcast complete drivel at times.

Fully agree on state broadcasting too. Probably the worst of all scenarios but I really don't think the BBC is that or even near that. In it's current/past form it is often the critic of the government of the day rather than the mouthpiece. Like I said above it's all relative as well as subjective. Two people will have completely different opinions on the validity/bias of a piece depending on where they stand on the political spectrum. I suppose the point I'm making is that the BBC is our best attempt at impartial, objective and balanced news reporting and interfering with that for political rather than pure economic reasons by the government is a bad thing. I suspect strongly that the current government are doing that under the smokescreen of "reforms".


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Oh no, not labelled a Daily Mail argument... nurse, nurse! The yoghurt knitters are out again...

Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...mmond-s-helicopter-James-s-private-plane.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...BBC-two-months-dropped-punching-producer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wages-paid-stars-hiding-public-accounts.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ars-boosted-total-wage-bill-hired-people.html

And there's many more so if you read the Daily Mail for long enough you'll start to believe it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Then you must enjoy watching Scotland 2015....five nights a week.
Viewing figures roughly 5,000 a night.

BBC2 Scotland.......  current affairs programme.........that was never going to work 

Click to expand...

I watch it...  Didn't realise I was part of such a minority.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			People pay Â£146 a year - Â£11 a month for four channels - countless amount of radio shows and some of best telly without it being interrupted by an advert every 5 mins - imagine watching The Hunt and it being disturbed constantly by an advert. The BBC gives us the one bunch of programmes that can be shown without the need to advertise Pringles etc etc etc 

People like Clarkson earned the BBC millions due to the amount of money they earned by selling the rights to other countries and will continue to earn the BBC millions which then goes back into the pot to make more television. Add in all the countless projects and funds they have to encourage musicians and emerging talent giving them a platform to display their talents. The BBC does so much work for the future as well as the present. All from people's ten pound a month - peanuts. You can't even watch a film or buy a DVD for that these days. 

I would pay double that to keep the adverts away
		
Click to expand...

This ^^^ in spades

As for many posts on these boards I'm reading a load of 'I'd be all right Jack' type comments (see @Alex1975s posts #41 and #45 for example) - which is a pity but what I'd expect.  For the sake of Â£11 a month.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 19, 2015)

Just to be clear for the folk suggesting not watching the BBC or buying a TV set that doesn't receive the BBC if you don't want to pay for a TV licence, you need to be have a TV Licence if you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device.

So whether you watch the BBC or not has nothing to do with having to have a TV licence and nor does whether you actually own a television or not.  If you watch any live TV, be it Sky Sports, the Discovery channel or whatever else, you need to have a TV licence.

And just for the sake of accuracy, a TV licence (colour)  is just over Â£12 a month, not Â£11 or Â£10.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			This ^^^ in spades

As for many posts on these boards I'm reading a load of 'I'd be all right Jack' type comments (see @Alex1975s posts #41 and #45 for example) - which is a pity but what I'd expect.  For the sake of Â£11 a month.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I've got to disagree with the tone of this. Its up to any individual where they spend their hard earned money. Whether you like it or not, at least respect the opinion. Fine if someone doesn't want it but calling them greedy because of that is a step too far. Maybe its your moral compass that's skewed too far the other way... but that's just an opinion too.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			This ^^^ in spades

As for many posts on these boards I'm reading a load of 'I'd be all right Jack' type comments (see @Alex1975s posts #41 and #45 for example) - which is a pity but what I'd expect.  For the sake of Â£11 a month.
		
Click to expand...


What I am seeing is `I need you all to pay for the BBC cos if we don't all pay they will take it away from *ME*`

I am paying for your entertainment and *I* might not want to!!!!

Guess what though... In the end it will go... and you will have to pay for your own entertainment.

I wonder if it was optional how many people would still pay. That would be the ultimate barometer of it actual worth the the UK as a whole. I bet you Â£1000 that it could not support its self!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			What I am seeing is `I need you all to pay for the BBC cos if we don't all pay they will take it away from *ME*`

*I am paying for your entertainment and I might not want to!!!!*

Guess what though... In the end it will go... and you will have to pay for your own entertainment.

I wonder if it was optional how many people would still pay. That would be the ultimate barometer of it actual worth the the UK as a whole. I bet you Â£1000 that it could not support its self!
		
Click to expand...

No - we are jointly paying for a shared entertainment.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 19, 2015)

Personally, I think the BBC needs an overhaul from top to bottom and an end to a lot of the money wasting that such an institute has. Look as one example how many people they send to things like the WC or the olympics. Seems a horrendous number of people going to these events and I've no idea what they all do and how they contribute to the coverage.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Its up to any individual where they spend their hard earned money.
		
Click to expand...


It is...

So why is my hard earnt being used to subsidise commuters ticket prices? [Whilst the rail companies are still able to pay divi's to shareholders]... I don't get any 'help' with my petrol money to get me to my workplace... 

TV licence is a tax same as all the other taxes none of us really like paying for 'things' we don't like paying for...


----------



## Tongo (Nov 19, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Personally, I think the BBC needs an overhaul from top to bottom and an end to a lot of the money wasting that such an institute has. Look as one example how many people they send to things like the WC or the olympics. Seems a horrendous number of people going to these events and I've no idea what they all do and how they contribute to the coverage.
		
Click to expand...

They wont be sending anybody soon. Not once they start paying billions just to televise the PL highlights!


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No - we are jointly paying for a shared entertainment.
		
Click to expand...


Ill take that as an acceptance on your part that what I am saying is correct and that now the choice is so much, its clear to you that the way the BBC is funded is out of date.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Ill take that as an acceptance on your part that what I am saying is correct and that now the choice is so much, its clear to you that the way the BBC is funded is out of date.
		
Click to expand...

Don't think so.  I'm more happy to pay my Â£12/month contribution to a service that is of huge benefit to the wider audience and enjoyed in all is facets by so many  both in the UK and Worldwide.


----------



## drdel (Nov 19, 2015)

The BBC has lost its way as a business model.

It has thought it needed to compete for talent and now pays a few 'stars' too much when there is new talent it could bring to the public and freshen up the offerings.

It now buys in most of its programme so that when they are successful it has to bid to keep them rather than be able to exploit the success.

If the BBC retreated from bidding then the other broadcasters would start being able to get 'talent' for less cost, eventually the BBC could do more with less.

I think they are value for money but unfortunately the 'few' who are favoured earn too high a proportion of the income and stay too long. Many of this 'elite' are, in my opinion, not very good.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Don't think so.  I'm more happy to pay my Â£12/month contribution to a service that is of huge benefit to the wider audience and enjoyed in all is facets by so many  both in the UK and Worldwide.
		
Click to expand...


Would you pay double that? Three times that? Just curious how important it is to you?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 19, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			It is...

So why is my hard earnt being used to subsidise commuters ticket prices? [Whilst the rail companies are still able to pay divi's to shareholders]... I don't get any 'help' with my petrol money to get me to my workplace... 

TV licence is a tax same as all the other taxes none of us really like paying for 'things' we don't like paying for...
		
Click to expand...

Interesting point.
I do the odd stint in the local community charity shop and when there is an item that is difficult to value [ie a half roll of new carpet] I usually say 'pay what you think it is worth'.
Nine times out of ten you get a lot more than the figure you had in mind.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 19, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Would you pay double that? Three times that? Just curious how important it is to you?
		
Click to expand...

I would pay double the fee :thup:

The BBC produce wonderful programmes and do the big sporting events ( that they cover ) brilliantly - the 2010 Olympic Coverage was the best sports coverage I have seen.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 19, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I would pay double the fee :thup:

The BBC produce wonderful programmes and do the big sporting events ( that they cover ) brilliantly - the 2010 Olympic Coverage was the best sports coverage I have seen.
		
Click to expand...

The BBC have lost control over TV rights for the Olympics from 2022 onwards.  Discovery (owner of Eurosport) have snapped up a pan European deal.  The BBC may still be able to sub-licence for the UK but not sure if that means they will have to use the Eurosport feeds much like Sky do for their US golf coverage.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			Would you pay double that? Three times that? Just curious how important it is to you?
		
Click to expand...

I would pay whatever is deemed appropriate for the licence fee payer to pay to fund the BBC.  The decision on whether Â£24/month or Â£36/month is acceptable would not be mine to make.  I can certainly afford Â£36month and would happily do away with most of my Sky subscription to pay that - but affordability for me is not what would determine the level the fee is set.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 19, 2015)

ger147 said:



			The BBC have lost control over TV rights for the Olympics from 2022 onwards.  Discovery (owner of Eurosport) have snapped up a pan European deal.  The BBC may still be able to sub-licence for the UK but not sure if that means they will have to use the Eurosport feeds much like Sky do for their US golf coverage.
		
Click to expand...

They will sub licence it and will use a lot of their own cameras and production for certain events ( Atheltics , Cycling , Rowing and Swimming ) and using host cameras and feed for other events


----------



## ger147 (Nov 19, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They will sub licence it and will use a lot of their own cameras and production for certain events ( Atheltics , Cycling , Rowing and Swimming ) and using host cameras and feed for other events
		
Click to expand...

If your a fan of the Olympics and enjoy watching it on the BBC I can only assume you hope that's the case.

But as there is no deal in place yet no-one knows, could end up on ITV.


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I would pay whatever is deemed appropriate for the licence fee payer to pay to fund the BBC.  The decision on whether Â£24/month or Â£36/month is acceptable would not be mine to make.  I can certainly afford Â£36month and would happily do away with most of my Sky subscription to pay that - but affordability for me is not what would determine the level the fee is set.
		
Click to expand...

My question was not about affordability it was about me trying to asertane it's worth to you. 

It's an interesting topic. While it's the law I will buy a licence. Once it's not I'll take a view but as I sit here I don't think I would pay extra over Sky. They do nothing specific that I would want to subscribe to.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 19, 2015)

ger147 said:



			If your a fan of the Olympics and enjoy watching it on the BBC I can only assume you hope that's the case.

But as there is no deal in place yet no-one knows, could end up on ITV.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it as every time the BBC goes up against the commercial channels for sporting events the BBC always gets more viewers.  So you'd hope the custodians and guardians of the sport would realise that and take the opportunity to get as many people watching it as possible thus ensuring the future viability of the sport, over any short term financial gain. Most of which ends up in the pockets of already stupidly paid players/competitors and/or their agents/hangers on.




Hold on, I take that back, what am I saying, it's custodians of sport.  Of course they will chose short term financial gain as that is all they seem to care about nowadays.


----------



## delc (Nov 19, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			My question was not about affordability it was about me trying to asertane it's worth to you. 

It's an interesting topic. While it's the law I will buy a licence. Once it's not I'll take a view but as I sit here I don't think I would pay extra over Sky. They do nothing specific that I would want to subscribe to.
		
Click to expand...

Compared with Sky, the BBC is amazingly good value for money!


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 19, 2015)

delc said:



			Compared with Sky, the BBC is amazingly good value for money!
		
Click to expand...

Is it really tho?
I pay Â£56 pm for Sky,that includes God knows how many channels,Lots of Sport & Phone line & Broadband.

And at least I get the choice of paying for Sky. 
The BBC is pretty much forced upon me.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 19, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They will sub licence it and will use a lot of their own cameras and production for certain events ( Atheltics , Cycling , Rowing and Swimming ) and using host cameras and feed for other events
		
Click to expand...

How do you know this. I have grave fears by 2022 BBC will have lost most if not all of their sports


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 19, 2015)

delc said:



			Compared with Sky, the BBC is amazingly good value for money!
		
Click to expand...


Delc I'm a little surprised at you?! Bit of a silly thing to say. It's like saying "your music is crap" ... It's a matter of opinion!

That a side, my point is choice.... I would like the choice not to have to pay for the bbc services. I do not want be forced to subsidise others.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 19, 2015)

Pin-seeker said:



			Is it really tho?
I pay Â£56 pm for Sky,*that includes God knows how many channels*,Lots of Sport & Phone line & Broadband.

And at least I get the choice of paying for Sky. 
The BBC is pretty much forced upon me.
		
Click to expand...

How many of those channels do you watch on a regular basis? I have now reduced my Sky package to the most basic level available and that is mainly so the kids can watch the Disney channels. I no longer have sports or movies but still have access to 100's of channels. There are probably less than half a dozen of those channels that I watch regularly that I couldn't get on freeview.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 20, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			My question was not about affordability it was about me trying to asertane it's worth to you. 

It's an interesting topic. While it's the law I will buy a licence. Once it's not I'll take a view but as I sit here I don't think I would pay extra over Sky. They do nothing specific that I would want to subscribe to.
		
Click to expand...

My point is that it doesn't really matter what it is worth to me - the value of something is sometimes more than it's cost.  

But since you asked I could say that as I pay about Â£100/month for my Sky subscription then I'd be happy to cancel all of Sky to pay for the BBC. So maybe my starter would by Â£100 a month.  But of course at that level the BBC I'd be getting would be more than current BBC and so I don't know what my Â£100/month would be providing me and so I don't know whether I'd be happy or not to pay my Â£100/month.  But if it was a mandatory licence fee then I would.

I hardly watch any Sky these days - it is truly not worth what I pay.  My principle viewing is BBC1, BBC2 and BBC4, and the majority of my radio listening (90%?) is to Radio4, Radio5Live, RadioScotland and Radio6Music.  And I use the BBC website a lot.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Nov 20, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			How many of those channels do you watch on a regular basis? I have now reduced my Sky package to the most basic level available and that is mainly so the kids can watch the Disney channels. I no longer have sports or movies but still have access to 100's of channels. There are probably less than half a dozen of those channels that I watch regularly that I couldn't get on freeview.
		
Click to expand...

I admit that I don't watch most of the channels,but I'd also add the BBC channels to that list. 
I'd just like the choice of paying to view the BBC Channels,or not.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 20, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			How many of those channels do you watch on a regular basis? I have now reduced my Sky package to the most basic level available and that is mainly so the kids can watch the Disney channels. I no longer have sports or movies but still have access to 100's of channels. There are probably less than half a dozen of those channels that I watch regularly that I couldn't get on freeview.
		
Click to expand...

I'm going to scrap Sky.  I don't watch any English Premiership football (we got it for my son who lives away from home now); we don't watch much in the way of Sky movies; and most of the stuff my Mrs likes is UKTV - so on Freeview.  I will miss Sky Arts and do occasionally watch something on Sky Atlantic.  But for that Â£100/month - nope.  Good old BBC for me - unbeatable and stupendous value for money.

Not too worried about the loss of the Red Button as didn't use it much


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 20, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			My point is that it doesn't really matter what it is worth to me - *the value of something is sometimes more than it's cost*.  

But since you asked I could say that as I pay about Â£100/month for my Sky subscription then I'd be happy to cancel all of Sky to pay for the BBC. So maybe my starter would by Â£100 a month.  But of course at that level the BBC I'd be getting would be more than current BBC and so I don't know what my Â£100/month would be providing me and so I don't know whether I'd be happy or not to pay my Â£100/month.  But if it was a mandatory licence fee then I would.

I hardly watch any Sky these days - it is truly not worth what I pay.  My principle viewing is BBC1, BBC2 and BBC4, and the majority of my radio listening (90%?) is to Radio4, Radio5Live, RadioScotland and Radio6Music.  And I use the BBC website a lot.
		
Click to expand...


True, but not very often. But for you in this case it would seem so from your answer. You as an intelligent guy would concede that the very opposite might be the same for others though?!

If there is the same passion from others in the UK as you have for the BBC then there is no need to make it mandatory. They could charge the likes of you more and the likes of me nothing and be in the same position. I have a feeling though that your some what polar and actually if the BBC licence fee was not mandatory then the BBC would be closed for business in a matter of months... *If * I am correct, and I may not be, that would be the true worth of the BBC.

I think you have the same hunch as me and that is why you are happy for it to be mandatory, cos you know we are contributing to your entertainment that would otherwise be taken away or repurposed.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 20, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			True, but not very often. But for you in this case it would seem so from your answer. You as an intelligent guy would concede that the very opposite might be the same for others though?!

If there is the same passion from others in the UK as you have for the BBC then there is no need to make it mandatory. They could charge the likes of you more and the likes of me nothing and be in the same position. I have a feeling though that your some what polar and actually if the BBC licence fee was not mandatory then the BBC would be closed for business in a matter of months... *If * I am correct, and I may not be, that would be the true worth of the BBC.

I think you have the same hunch as me and that is why you are happy for it to be mandatory, cos you know we are contributing to your entertainment that would otherwise be taken away or repurposed.
		
Click to expand...

My contribution is for my entertainment - yes, but I recognise a wider value my contribution makes to the greater whole that provides quality programming for others who might not be able to justify subscription services (particularly for channels that they might not imagine they would be interested in) - and in any case some Tories seem to think that if you are on benefits you shouldn't have subscription TV


----------



## Alex1975 (Nov 20, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			My contribution is for my entertainment - yes, but I recognise a wider value my contribution makes to the greater whole that provides quality programming for others who might not be able to justify subscription services (particularly for channels that they might not imagine they would be interested in) - and in any case some Tories seem to think that if you are on benefits you shouldn't have subscription TV 

Click to expand...


I don't see this as a political issue but.... they probably shouldn't.


----------



## bluewolf (Nov 20, 2015)

Alex1975 said:



			I don't see this as a political issue but.... they probably shouldn't.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that Cameron would be most upset with that theory... Or should I say that Murdoch would be most upset, which would mean that the British Government would be most upset...


*apologies for the prolific use of the word "upset"...


----------

