NEWS: BBC licence fee to be scrapped?

As the other responder said, governments of different hues in recent decades have been quite upfront about their dislike of the BBC (well the news particularly). They were unforgiving of the Gilligan affair, although neither came out well from that episode. And their antipathy for BBC journalists questioning Brexit (in the course of doing their job) was plain to see.

And yet they are a state controlled machine in the way of Pravda?

I've worked at home on and off for the last decade, and have probably watched more BBC News 24 than most, and like other outlets they can be sloppy and have to correct (part of that comes with being a real time reactive 24 hour channel, most would accept). But the idea that they are manipulating narratives in a machiavellian way is nonsense, and not in the way Pravda and their like do.

People want to see sorcery where there is none or little to none.

And put very simply, compared to Fox News, the BBC is nothing but middle of the road.
We know what state controlled media machines in some countries look and feel like. We know what commercial propoganda machines like Fox look and feel like.

The BBC, when it comes to news, is far from perfect, but that's more about quality. And when you consider the breadth of its news reporting, be it the general news, discussion programmes like Dateline London and Hard Talk, both on the BBC News channel, let alone the breath of their radio (news) programming, its very hard to argue they look anything like the examples of propaganda mentioned above.

You appear to live in London, the 'London media bubble' exists. I'm sorry but the news you receive that affects your area from the BBC likely differs greatly from the news the BBC pumps out up here.

So please don't try and fob off what I'm saying as some kind of sorcery, you, as someone who lives within that area the media bubble vehemently protects have likely experienced next to nothing of the utter contempt the BBC and virtually every other MSM outlet has for the areas outside London and the South East and of course the 3 satellite nations, all this does is make you sound as the ignorant as the twits the BBC employ to report the news.

Did you know Scotland is the only net exporter of fuel, power and food in the whole of the UK? You'll never hear that from the BBC up here, only how poverty stricken we are by debt given to us by another country and we shouldn't ask too many questions about that.

Did you know that when oil was discovered in the North Sea the UK was effectively broke and there was a report commissioned that described what would have happened if Scotland had power over it's waters at that time. It was so embarrassing the Tory government made it secret only for the following Labour government to make it top secret?

When it was declassified the BBC in Scotland played down it's significance.

The BBC has always been a propaganda outlet for the British state, not been looking but out of curiosity how much coverage is it giving the story that the British state siphoned $45 trillion dollars in today's money from India while it was a colony?

Pretty sure the narrative was India was too poor to go it alone all the way up to 1947, another very familiar UK state trope the BBC like to shout from Pacific Quay...
 
HBO

Pound for pound it far outstrips the BBC in terms of quality output with no advertising on a subscription model.


What UK news programmes or current affairs do they produce? HBO is effectively another streaming service, primarilly with content that is more poignant to those viewers in the USA than those in the UK. They did used to co produce some content with the BBC though, but this ceased after the SKY exclusivety deal was struck with HBO and after the BBC's funding was capped. His Dark Materials was an HBO and BBC co production though so there is hope for more new stuff from the BBC in conjunction with HBO.
 
Last edited:
What UK news programmes or current affairs do they produce?

Quite obviously they dont make UK centric news or current affairs programmes.

But the question was "Show me another media organisation that provides better quality across the board than the BBC"

Not "Show me another British media organisation that provides better quality across the board than the BBC"

But their model is one that has consistently made very high quality programmes that are truly held up as being class leading around the world as demonstrated by their international sales.


HBO is effectively another streaming service,

They 'have' a streaming service (just as the BBC do) but they are a Broadcasters with channels in several countries
 
Last edited:
As said, you are not obligated to pay it, but you'd then also hav to relinquish any right to watch live TV broadcasts. This is what the licence is for and you've not a right to demand anything for free.

More people use the BBC than don't, many of them are in fact young people and no, it isn't something just the older populous use. Many of those complaining about having to pay a licence fee don't actually pay it and still use the BBC as well as watching the commercial channels the license gives you the right to watch. The arguement being put forward by many for abolishing the licence is fueled by nothing more than personal greed as opposed to any consideration of the good the BBC does or the purpose it serves. It is something envied by other countries, yet there's still a non sensical picture being painted that the BBC is in some way something that will not be missed?

By all means cease paying for a licence. You are free to do so and no one is making you pay it. Do not dictate to everyone else though that they cannot have the BBC just because you don't want to pay for the licence and want everything in life to be free.

If no one is in fact watching live TV broadcasts anymore then no one is in fact obligated to pay a license fee. What you suggest cannot be in fact the reality because people are still paying for a TV license. If this is in fact true then it would be as you suggest andthe BBC will go under because there wouldn't be any funding for it. So why are you so insistant that you cease to have to pay for it now? I'm assuming you actually are watching it as well as other live broadcasts and that you simply don't want to pay for it?

The BBC is very relevent in the UK because it is the only news service not funded on a commercial basis and therefore not influenced by commercial considerations. THere are also independant reports on its importance that conclude that no other broadcaster filfills the same edicational role or caters to the same number of minorities as the BBC does. Which report or reports are you using to substantiate that the BBC is of no relevence?

I don’t have a licence. Haven’t had for 30 years.

I don’t watch, ever, live tv or any broadcast tv.

I haven’t got a tv aerial.

Your zealous defence of the Old Boys Network is suspect.

Your instance that so many people get the bbc for free by avoiding the tax is reminiscent of a frothing Mail reader...

As I was recently corrected by an near equally zealous mod, the company gets 3.8 billion pounds a year. Utterly, entirely and grotesquely free.

For news, weather, local radio... that is, for want of a more mocking term, more than enough.

Soap operas? Reality tv? You want everyone to pay for that dross?

If a case can be made that the bbc has some serious remit, it is not for soap operas, realty tv, sport, or any ‘entertainment’

People can choose if they want to pay for that. Commercially.

If the bbc can be said to have some special value outside of what is commercially produced then they should make an argument based on that.

Their current bloated grotesqueness is a farce.
 
No, because they are both commercial concerns and competors. The BBC is not a comercial operation and is a public broadcasting service. Besodes which they are supermarkets and not involved in broadcasting and unsure as to theeir proposed contribution being of any relevance?


The commercial broadcasters still use the UK broadcast network to distribute content. THe license fee is supposed to maintain this. If the licence goes then why should the commercial broadcasters still get to use this network and who is then paying for it? THe broadcasters still need to maintain that network.

And yet people happily compare the BBC to the NHS. Apples and oranges.

Let's have a license to fund the UK broadcast network and let the BBC fund themselves.
 
The commercial broadcasters still use the UK broadcast network to distribute content. THe license fee is supposed to maintain this. If the licence goes then why should the commercial broadcasters still get to use this network and who is then paying for it? THe broadcasters still need to maintain that network.

The UK broadcast network is maintained by Arqiva, a private commercial company.

The BBC pay Arqiva for its services just as ITV, C4, Sky etc etc do
 
I don’t have a licence. Haven’t had for 30 years.

I don’t watch, ever, live tv or any broadcast tv.

I haven’t got a tv aerial.

Your zealous defence of the Old Boys Network is suspect.

Your instance that so many people get the bbc for free by avoiding the tax is reminiscent of a frothing Mail reader...

As I was recently corrected by an near equally zealous mod, the company gets 3.8 billion pounds a year. Utterly, entirely and grotesquely free.

For news, weather, local radio... that is, for want of a more mocking term, more than enough.

Soap operas? Reality tv? You want everyone to pay for that dross?

If a case can be made that the bbc has some serious remit, it is not for soap operas, realty tv, sport, or any ‘entertainment’

People can choose if they want to pay for that. Commercially.

If the bbc can be said to have some special value outside of what is commercially produced then they should make an argument based on that.

Their current bloated grotesqueness is a farce.


I've not defended anything other that what I use and have used for all my life.

If you don't watch TV then don't pay the licence, but also don't insist that the licence be dropped and that the BBC be done away with if you yourself find no use for it. It isn't untill everyone is of the same opinion that you'd be correct in expecting this as a realistic prospect.

Why is it even of any concern if you yourself are not paying the license? You are not effected by anything if not actually wanting to watch live TV broadcasts. It is a bit like telling me who I should vote for when you yourself cannot be bothered to vote.

Who are you to demand a service you never use be done away with and if not paying for a licence then what difference does it make to you if there is a licence or not?

The fact is that there are annual reports written every year that actually prove the BBC produce the very content you suggest they don't.Maybe go research is posting such statements. Most of their output is educational and or relative to currebt affairs, much of it is also specially made to cater to those within minorities. Ofcom areobligated to analyse what all channels output and the BBC cmes top in all these areas each and every year.



By the way, I don't read any newspaper and haven't for over 20 years. If I did then it would be more likely to be the Guardian as opposed to the Daily Mail.
 
Last edited:
I think the audiences are simply a cross section, ordinarilly from the area where the show is being hosted? Question Time isn't a sports programme where you'd expect there to be sides. It is an opportunity to ask people in power or those close to it questions.

I have no idea why you feel the need to defend the BBC the way you are but at least do a little bit homework rather than assuming stuff.

Question Time has been caught plenty with suspect audiences.

This piece of s*** has been spotted many times and also caught conversing with the quests before the show began:

Orange Jaiket Moron

I used a supposedly left wing rag this time to be 'fair and impartial' :p

And there's been plenty of other instances where Tory, Labour and Lib Dem councilors get on and manage to ask questions as 'ordinary members' of the audience.

FYI - Question Time goes under BBC Scotland's budget despite the program primarily located in English areas and massively underrepresented the 3rd largest party in Westminster in guests (just happen to be a Scottish party). Lift and shift I believe the term is - used to try and hide the London centric leanings...

Also only 2/3 of the revenue raise from the TV licence in Scotland is spent in Scotland, lowest percentage spend of all parts of the UK.

Yeah no bias here, nothing to see, move along and whatever you do don't think about it for too long...
 
The UK broadcast network is maintained by Arqiva, a private commercial company.

The BBC pay Arqiva for its services just as ITV, C4, Sky etc etc do
And what about the BBCs World Broadcast network? And all of the World Service Relays? Which is much bigger network than the domestic one?
 
I've not defended anything other that what I use and have used for all my life.

If you don't watch TV then don't pay the licence, but also insist the licence be dropped and that the BBC be done away with if you yourself find no use for it. It isn't untill everyone is of the same opinion that you'd be correct in expecting this as a realistic prospect.

Why is it even of any concern if you yourself are not paying the license? You are not effectively effected by anything if not actually wanting to watch live TV broadcasts. It is a bit like telling me who I should vote for when you yourself cannot be bothered to vote.

Who are you to demand a service you never use be done away with and if not paying for a licence then what difference does it make to you if there is a licence or not?

The fact is that there are annual reports written every year that actually prove the BBC produce the very content you suggest they don't.Maybe go research is posting such statements. Most of their output is educational and or relative to currebt affairs, much of it is also specially made to cater to those within minorities. Ofcom areobligated to analyse what all channels output and the BBC cmes top in all these areas each and every year.



By the way, I don't read any newspaper and haven't for over 20 years. If I did then it would be more likely to be the Guardian as opposed to the Daily Mail.
I’m afraid the whole basis of your argument is that because you like the BBC everyone should pay for it. On that basis I look forward to receiving your contribution to my monthly Sky bill...I’m happy to accept cash, card, Paypal or gold....
 
Question Time has been caught plenty with suspect audiences.
Really? I have been on question time a few times. Are you implying that there is something suspect about me? How many times have you been on, or tried to get on ? Or is your 'homework' based on that really reliable source, tabloid journalism?
 
And what about the BBCs World Broadcast network? And all of the World Service Relays? Which is much bigger network than the domestic one?


The claim was made that

"commercial broadcasters still use the UK broadcast network to distribute content. THe license fee is supposed to maintain this"

Which is frankly highly misleading

In international territories I imagine the BBC has to pay a carriage fee to whatever company maintains each broadcast network - But im not going to make claims im uniformed about -
 
I’m afraid the whole basis of your argument is that because you like the BBC everyone should pay for it. On that basis I look forward to receiving your contribution to my monthly Sky bill...I’m happy to accept cash, card, Paypal or gold....

No. my point was is how can someone who doesn't use something have any apreciation of it or what it actually does. No, I don't insist anyone pays anything for something they do not use, but if you use it then pay for it and don't bemoan or deny those who want it having access to it. Why on earth is someone who neither pays the license or watches any live TV insisting that the licence be abolished and the BBC be done away with? It is like me demanding that the Littlewoods warehouse be bombed because I don't shop from catalogues.


And Im apparently part of the old boys network and a Daily Mail reader? Not sure if that is an insult or not?
 
Last edited:
The only things I ever watch on the BBC is the 6 nations and world cup or euros.

That's it, half of that is on ITV anyway so I'm not going to miss much.
 

Yes

I have been on question time a few times. Are you implying that there is something suspect about me?

No, I'm sure you just went on so yer maw could see you on the telly...

How many times have you been on, or tried to get on ?

Never have, never will - no interest in ma maw seeing me on the telly...

Or is your 'homework' based on that really reliable source, tabloid journalism?

I'd actually prefer not to use links and encourage people who disagree me with me to do their own 'homework' but you're damned if you do and damned if you don't on most forums.

Please prove me wrong and sorry, you being in the audience passing the vetting process only proves 2 things - Jack and s***!
 
I watch Peaky Blinders and the occasional documentary on BBC4 and thats it, nothing else on the BBC.
It's been said more eloquently by other posters; if i want to, or do, watch other terrestial channels or Sky i have to have a TV license by law, this is totally unfair.
I currently have a Netflix subsciption and if and when the TV license is scrapped, i will be able to afford an Amazon Prime subscription too. The sooner the better as far as i am concerned.
 
It is like me demanding that the Littlewoods warehouse be bombed because I don't shop from catalogues.



That doesn't really work as an example or are you just being trite?

It's more like if you wanted to wear clothes you had to paying a yearly fee to littlewoods who sent you a package of clothes that would suit 'anybody' on the basis that most people want to wear clothes.
 
No. my point was is how can someone who doesn't use something have any apreciation of it or what it actually does. No, I don't insist anyone pays anything for something they do not use, but if you use it then pay for it and don't bemoan or deny those who want it having access to it. Why on earth is someone who neither pays the license or watches any live TV insisting that the licence be abolished and the BBC be done away with? It is like me demanding that the Littlewoods warehouse be bombed because I don't shop from catalogues.


And Im apparently part of the old boys network and a Daily Mail reader? Not sure if that is an insult or not?
Sorry, I missed the part about when you’re sending your contribution...oh, and by the way....I DO and always have paid the licence fee but don’t watch or listen to anything BBC related old boy! 🙂
 
I don't watch anything, absolutely zilch on ITV. Can I therefore demand that ITV be abolished?
 
what im picking up from the bbc lovers is that they believe everyone should pay regardless of whether you watch the bbc or not, while those of us who want to end the licence fee believe the bbc should be a subscription service where those who watch it pay for it. I dont want to deny anyone their beloved bbc, I just dont want to subsidise their viewing, as for the licence paying for the broadcast system I dont have a tv aerial I recieve my tv via a dish so Im not even getting use of the terrestrial tv service for my money.
 
That doesn't really work as an example or are you just being trite?

It's more like if you wanted to wear clothes you had to paying a yearly fee to littlewoods who sent you a package of clothes that would suit 'anybody' on the basis that most people want to wear clothes.

So now you are insisting I wear clothes?
 
So now you are insisting I wear clothes?


No but if you want to wear clothes you should fund the littlewoods package.

Are you truly struggling to see how your comparisons dont work?



I don't watch anything, absolutely zilch on ITV. Can I therefore demand that ITV be abolished?

Oh....
 
what im picking up from the bbc lovers is that they believe everyone should pay regardless of whether you watch the bbc or not, while those of us who want to end the licence fee believe the bbc should be a subscription service where those who watch it pay for it. I dont want to deny anyone their beloved bbc, I just dont want to subsidise their viewing, as for the licence paying for the broadcast system I dont have a tv aerial I recieve my tv via a dish so Im not even getting use of the terrestrial tv service for my money.

I should say that it makes no odds as to whether you receiver the live TV broadcasts via a terrestrial antenna, cable or satalire. You are still obliged to have a licence in order to legally watch such content.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom