Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Wait & See

Why Are We Forced To Pay For A Tv Licence

Recommended Posts

CAL

A licence fee, dectector vans and overpaid degenerates.

Programmes absolute sh1te these days (Eastenders is entertainment you know :blink: ), radio full of VI property tools, BBC News run by Gordon, no football. WTF!!

It's a fu*king disgrace and should be put out of it's misery IMO. :rolleyes:

Edited by Wait & See

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CAL

A licence fee, dectector vans and overpaid degenerates.

Progammes absolute sh1te these days (Eastenders is entertainment you know :blink: ), radio full of VI property tools, BBC News run by Gordon, no football. WTF!!

It's a fu*king disgrace and should be put out of it's misery IMO. :rolleyes:

What?

You must have seen and been impressed by the new series of Hotel Babylon? Surely..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

I am a heavy consumer of BBC Media, but nearly zero scheduled TV. I consume their website, radio and iplayer everyday in some way. Bear in mind some of the License Fee goes to C4 as well AFAIK.

The quality and impartiality is world renowned and gives the UK a voice in global journalism. And anytime the impartiality is questioned an inquiry happens, this can't be said for Sky News and Murdoch's (questionable) empire.

I don't like the way it's 'forced'. But if it was optional it would be a far higher rate than circa £120 a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its unbelievable you need a license to watch tv.

people actually go to prison for watching tv at home.

Now this is something we can agree on. A tenner a month for a couple of channels in the day an age where you can get 100's for that amount is ******ing outrageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now this is something we can agree on. A tenner a month for a couple of channels in the day an age where you can get 100's for that amount is ******ing outrageous.

A couple of channels no one watches. Lets get that straight right now. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth it for Doctor Who, Top Gear and daily laughs with Homes Under the Hammer, the best satire show ever created. No wonder Chris Morris gave up with that sort of show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Worth it for Doctor Who, Top Gear and daily laughs with Homes Under the Hammer, the best satire show ever created. No wonder Chris Morris gave up with that sort of show.

All these shows are on IPlayer. Show me a PC that needs a TV receiver. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree.

I am a heavy consumer of BBC Media, but nearly zero scheduled TV. I consume their website, radio and iplayer everyday in some way. Bear in mind some of the License Fee goes to C4 as well AFAIK.

The quality and impartiality is world renowned and gives the UK a voice in global journalism. And anytime the impartiality is questioned an inquiry happens, this can't be said for Sky News and Murdoch's (questionable) empire.

I don't like the way it's 'forced'. But if it was optional it would be a far higher rate than circa £120 a year.

The impartaility is questioned all the time, this has resulted in virtually no inquiries. Also, they've refused to release the conclusions of the Balen inquiry. ( I wonder why). This "world renowned" quality meme is garbage by the way. It's a BBC myth that vested interests within the organistaion pump out all the time. Nobody outside of the UK gives a damn about the BBC apart from a few east coast liberal snobs.

Sky news is subject to Ofcam oversight, whereas the BBC is overseen by the Board of Governers. As a result Sky news output it is far less biased and much more balanced.

If the license fee were optional, it would be a lot higher, because most people would choose not to pay it.

I've worked for both the BBC and Sky by the way. The BBC is massively inneficient and dominated by public school educated middle-class liberals. Sky is far more diverse, ethnically, politically and socially (they tend to hire on merit and ability not contacts) and treats and pays its general staff far better. (- Apart from the reporter James Forlong that is, google it and bear in mind that it was the BBC that complained and that he left behind a wife and two small kids)

Edited by Jack's Creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these shows are on IPlayer. Show me a PC that needs a TV receiver. :blink:

I'm permanently attached to a laptop. TV is "over there" babbling away in the background. Don't think I could organise myself sufficiently to actually watch something on a computer. What would be nice would be to hook the laptop to the TV to show Youtube video's etc.. Simple enough, when I can be bothered.

Edited by HostPaul TAFKA Rover2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its unbelievable you need a license to watch tv.

people actually go to prison for watching tv at home.

Then they get to watch TV free in their cell. Oh and whack off to hard core porn on the internet all day. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I'm glad you bought this up.

Oh no, I meant I'm bored to tears of this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CAL

A licence fee, dectector vans and overpaid degenerates.

Programmes absolute sh1te these days (Eastenders is entertainment you know :blink: ), radio full of VI property tools, BBC News run by Gordon, no football. WTF!!

It's a fu*king disgrace and should be put out of it's misery IMO. :rolleyes:

Agreed, completely useless and full of bullsh*te but I must say the BBC iplayer is pretty good tbh. I could live with out it all <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree.

I am a heavy consumer of BBC Media, but nearly zero scheduled TV. I consume their website, radio and iplayer everyday in some way. Bear in mind some of the License Fee goes to C4 as well AFAIK.

The quality and impartiality is world renowned and gives the UK a voice in global journalism. And anytime the impartiality is questioned an inquiry happens, this can't be said for Sky News and Murdoch's (questionable) empire.

I don't like the way it's 'forced'. But if it was optional it would be a far higher rate than circa £120 a year.

If you think its so great you should pay to watch it. Not me. Its as simple as that. I dont care that its biased, its funding method stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CAL

A licence fee, dectector vans and overpaid degenerates.

Programmes absolute sh1te these days (Eastenders is entertainment you know :blink: ), radio full of VI property tools, BBC News run by Gordon, no football. WTF!!

It's a fu*king disgrace and should be put out of it's misery IMO. :rolleyes:

switch it off and throw it out

what will the pushers of propaganda do then

maybe they could try dropping leaflets

or paper money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody outside of the UK gives a damn about the BBC apart from a few east coast liberal snobs.

Sky news is subject to Ofcam oversight, whereas the BBC is overseen by the Board of Governers. As a result Sky news output it is far less biased and much more balanced.If the license fee were optional, it would be a lot higher, because most people would choose not to pay it.

Purest BS.

Who cares what folk outside the UK think, the BBc is paid for by folk inside the UK.

IMO only a Murdoch puppet could put forward the idea that Sky was less biased or more balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC have been plumbing new nadirs with their news coverage recently

There were some particular statistical horrors in the coverage of the assisted suicide debate

First the BBC commentator gave the well known current figures for average life expectancy (76 years for men and 80 for women). Then it made the stunning announcement that most cancer deaths occurred in the over 65s.

Given that a quarter of all deaths are related to cancer this must win the No Shit Sherlock award for stating the bloody obvious.

Quite why the rest of the population should pay a £10 month to employ the idiots who ocme up with this meaningless nonsense. It did not even have much to to do with the news item itself.

Edited by stenosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these shows are on IPlayer. Show me a PC that needs a TV receiver. :blink:

The PC's network adaptor becomes the tv receiver. Does the actual broadcast technology matter?

It's been mooted (don't remember by whom, sorry) that a computer capable of receiving iPlayer will soon be regarded as a telly for tax license purposes. Isn't the infernal thing becoming available on consoles as well now? Excellent, pay up please.

Yes, I know taxation is by dwelling not TV set, but I own a computer and no telly so I'd be worse off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these shows are on IPlayer. Show me a PC that needs a TV receiver. :blink:

I should point out that due to foreign broadcasting rights sales, both Top Gear and Dr Who make a massive profit.

As does most QUALITY BBC programming.

Stuff like HIGNFY, Mock the Week, QI etc etc also make a profit as rebroadcasting rights are sold on.

It's programs aimed at chavs and children that don't make a profit.

This sums up the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The impartaility is questioned all the time, this has resulted in virtually no inquiries. Also, they've refused to release the conclusions of the Balen inquiry. ( I wonder why). This "world renowned" quality meme is garbage by the way. It's a BBC myth that vested interests within the organistaion pump out all the time. Nobody outside of the UK gives a damn about the BBC apart from a few east coast liberal snobs.

Sky news is subject to Ofcam oversight, whereas the BBC is overseen by the Board of Governers. As a result Sky news output it is far less biased and much more balanced.

If the license fee were optional, it would be a lot higher, because most people would choose not to pay it.

I've worked for both the BBC and Sky by the way. The BBC is massively inneficient and dominated by public school educated middle-class liberals. Sky is far more diverse, ethnically, politically and socially (they tend to hire on merit and ability not contacts) and treats and pays its general staff far better. (- Apart from the reporter James Forlong that is, google it and bear in mind that it was the BBC that complained and that he left behind a wife and two small kids)

Someone I know visited the Guardian's offices a couple of years ago. He said it was only after he left he realised that they were all white faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CAL

A licence fee, dectector vans and overpaid degenerates.

Programmes absolute sh1te these days (Eastenders is entertainment you know :blink: ), radio full of VI property tools, BBC News run by Gordon, no football. WTF!!

It's a fu*king disgrace and should be put out of it's misery IMO. :rolleyes:

I live in France, watch BBC on sattelite and stick two fingers up to their licence fee. Send your detector vans if you can find me ha ha ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.