Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
easy2012

Bbc License Fee Is Taxation Without Representatin

Recommended Posts

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20110208/tpl-licence-fee-is-taxation-without-repe-0a1c1a1.html

Licence fee is 'taxation without repesentation'

Tuesday, February 8 06:05 pm

Buzz Up!

Email StoryPrint Story

A Conservative MP has called for BBC licence fee payers to be given more say in how the corporation is run. Skip related content

Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, introduced a private bill in the Commons today that would allow people to elect the BBC Trust and vote on other key issues such as pay and programming.

He said at present the BBC is run "like a feudal monarchy".

Introducing his BBC Licence Fee Payers (Voting Rights) Bill during the ten minute rule motion, Halfon said: "The BBC cannot continue to be a kleptocracy indifferent to the public who pay for it."

He called for licence fee payers to have more input about where their priorities for the BBC's output lie.

"Some may want a beefed up World Service paid for by reducing expense elsewhere, perhaps by cutting the £50,000 a day that the BBC spends on taxis,"he said.

Halfon said that at present viewers and listeners have to pay their licence fee and put up with what is provided or stop watching TV altogether.

Under his plans, people would be able to vote online, with each licence fee payer having a unique pin code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting argument "Taxation Without Representation".

The web-voting would be very interesting too - IF approved and put in practice, which I really doubt.

But if it did, I think most people would probably vote for radical cuts, Channel 4 format (adverts funds), etc.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have to pay for the likes of Strictly from the fee I am compelled to pay.

Put the BBC on the same footing as the commercial channels and let the gravy train run off the rails.

Personally, I favour the other side of this coin. The BBC should stop trying to compete with the commercial channels and should have to justify every broadcast as, essentially, something that's worth doing but would be hard for the commercial sector to pull off profitably...

... and recognise that 24/7 output on multiple channels is not necessary. Reduce the fee, reduce the number of hours of broadcasts produced, and up the quality. TBH if they pulled off the last two, I wouldn't even be that worried about the fee...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I favour the other side of this coin. The BBC should stop trying to compete with the commercial channels and should have to justify every broadcast as, essentially, something that's worth doing but would be hard for the commercial sector to pull off profitably...

... and recognise that 24/7 output on multiple channels is not necessary. Reduce the fee, reduce the number of hours of broadcasts produced, and up the quality. TBH if they pulled off the last two, I wouldn't even be that worried about the fee...

Agree with that. The idea of it becoming another advert-filled commercial drivel channel that exists only to try to persuade you to buy stuff is awful - the licence is better than that, although it's heading too much in the direction of being the worst of both worlds at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a first gut-reaction:

I get the feeling that the BBC show so (relatively) much that I'm prepared to watch that it's not entirely left to the general public to decide what the programmes are going to be. If it came to 'democracy', I'm sure there'd be more soaps, more sport, more cooking shows... and on and on, and less science, less politics and all the other things that I stand a chance of enjoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with that. The idea of it becoming another advert-filled commercial drivel channel that exists only to try to persuade you to buy stuff is awful - the licence is better than that, although it's heading too much in the direction of being the worst of both worlds at present.

Unlike the BBC, you only "pay" the "commercial drivel" if you chose to watch a particular show, on a particular channel. It is not forced (really, enforceable by bailiff and police) upon you, want it or not, to subsidise the public sector propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a first gut-reaction:

I get the feeling that the BBC show so (relatively) much that I'm prepared to watch that it's not entirely left to the general public to decide what the programmes are going to be. If it came to 'democracy', I'm sure there'd be more soaps, more sport, more cooking shows... and on and on, and less science, less politics and all the other things that I stand a chance of enjoying.

True.

Though could it really get much worse than now? with these... "Strictly... Gipsy Weddings ... On Ice" ?!

...

... yes, it could.

You are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a first gut-reaction:

I get the feeling that the BBC show so (relatively) much that I'm prepared to watch that it's not entirely left to the general public to decide what the programmes are going to be. If it came to 'democracy', I'm sure there'd be more soaps, more sport, more cooking shows... and on and on, and less science, less politics and all the other things that I stand a chance of enjoying.

+1. For starters, can't see advertisers rushing to support one prog. I found very interesting last week - Ancient History of Britain. Ditto the geology of Britain prog. on very recently. Don't watch soaps, though I've nothing against them, and I'm sick to death of s*dding cookery programmes.

In interests of honesty should add that if not for HUTH and Heir Hunters (not on at the moment) I'd probably never get any ironing done. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the BBC, you only "pay" the "commercial drivel" if you chose to watch a particular show, on a particular channel. It is not forced (really, enforceable by bailiff and police) upon you, want it or not, to subsidise the public sector propaganda.

You don't have to have a TV.

Sure, there's plenty of non-commercial drivel on the BBC, but my own view is that when you weigh everything up it's the lesser of two evils. Going commercial would almost certainly end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed I would be voting for no property porn - unbiased reporting- no large fees to presenters esp Jonathon Ross and his ilk---and if this results in them leaving well Cheerio. I am sure there is a host of young talent just waiting to get their chance at more realistic salaries.

I have reduced my viewing to a couple of hours a week and get most of my news off the internet - yet I still have to pay for the likes of Strictly from the fee I am compelled to pay.

Put the BBC on the same footing as the commercial channels and let the gravy train run off the rails.

Less repeats and cut down on USA trash esp the Gangsta trash. Brit Youf always used to lead the World with 'trends' without being brainwashed by inner city c_rap or MTV!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to have a TV.

I am sorry Riedquat, I am sure you don't realise that, but this argument is extremely authoritarian.

I want to have a TV, to watch what I want. It is absurd that you think you or the government has the right to block me from it.

Sure, there's plenty of non-commercial drivel on the BBC, but my own view is that when you weigh everything up it's the lesser of two evils. Going commercial would almost certainly end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course you can have your own view. But you/gov. shouldn't keep imposing it on me. This is the wrong bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....paying for a TV license is like paying your annual road tax....you get to drive on the roads you pay for? ;)

It is a BBC tax, really, not a "TV" license. Virtually all the funds go to the BBC. Much more than 90%. (I forgot the exact number, easy to Google though, if you want.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can have your own view. But you/gov. shouldn't keep imposing it on me. This is the wrong bit.

And you have a different view about which is the overall better (or least bad, at any rate) option. That is your own view - in your view it's wrong, in mine it's not, but that is simply just a different opinion,. Neither of us can claim absolute right or wrongness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV Tax is morally obscene, what modern civilisation would allow a company to imprison it's population if they dare to to own a TV and watch live transmissions, why do we allow this to continue in this day and age, if the BBC is that wonderful they will be flooded with willing subscribers, wont they?

The BBC TV Tax model needs total reform, no taxation without representation indeed, it doesn't go far enough, turn it into a subscriber only model, and stop with the threats and fines and imprisionment of the poor, ban the unjust UK TV tax.

Edited by JustAnotherProle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I favour the other side of this coin. The BBC should stop trying to compete with the commercial channels and should have to justify every broadcast as, essentially, something that's worth doing but would be hard for the commercial sector to pull off profitably...

... and recognise that 24/7 output on multiple channels is not necessary. Reduce the fee, reduce the number of hours of broadcasts produced, and up the quality. TBH if they pulled off the last two, I wouldn't even be that worried about the fee...

I agree.

Having said that, I don't watch Strictly Come Dancing but it is very popular. A bit hard to argue with that.

What I want to know is, when will Sky subscribers start to rebel at having to endure adverts on their comparatively expensive service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the BBC, you only "pay" the "commercial drivel" if you chose to watch a particular show, on a particular channel.

I dunno. I don't have a TV, so I don't pay the licence fee. But I do buy food, drink, heat, light, broadband, banking services etc., all of which are advertised on the commercial channels. Surely some part of my monthly fee to, say, Virgin goes towards their advertising costs? So I end up indirectly paying for TV that I never watch.

If I could buy from companies that don't advertise on TV at all, I could perhaps avoid lining the likes of Rupert Murdoch's pockets, but it's very hard to find say, a supermarket that doesn't buy any commercial time on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

Having said that, I don't watch Strictly Come Dancing but it is very popular. A bit hard to argue with that.

What I want to know is, when will Sky subscribers start to rebel at having to endure adverts on their comparatively expensive service?

All Sky subscribers can have Sky plus for no extra cost these days.

We pre-record everything. I haven't seen an advert for months.

I had the misfortune to see the latest BBC offering Outcasts the other day. Total garbage.

Decent TV drama on freeview is becoming a problem now that Sky have bought all the HBO stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

....paying for a TV license is like paying your annual road tax....you get to drive on the roads you pay for? ;)

The BBC is much like the roads, full of annoying c**ts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the BBC is any good, it has nothing to worry about. People will freely choose to pay for its programming and its programming alone. The rest can watch ITV/C4,5 for free.

Obviously, that pretty much all the calls to keep the status quo come from the left should give you a pretty good idea of where its allegiances lie.

Maybe some middle option. Returning BBC to 2 channels TV, and cutting about half of its radio stations and killing off its reporting on news/current affair would please everyone. It has become spread too thinly, and quality has suffered IMO. BBC 3 is barely watchable but for family guy/american dad repeats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

I dunno. I don't have a TV, so I don't pay the licence fee. But I do buy food, drink, heat, light, broadband, banking services etc., all of which are advertised on the commercial channels. Surely some part of my monthly fee to, say, Virgin goes towards their advertising costs? So I end up indirectly paying for TV that I never watch.

If I could buy from companies that don't advertise on TV at all, I could perhaps avoid lining the likes of Rupert Murdoch's pockets, but it's very hard to find say, a supermarket that doesn't buy any commercial time on TV.

Supermarkets seem to feed the Daily Mail :-

http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/mediamoney/2010/08/11/retail-advertisers-in-national-newspapers-too-big-to-fail/

I guess it's the same reason Tesco & co use endless celeb voiceovers, so they can buy off the media and chattering classes whilst they build out their oligopolies?

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV Tax is morally obscene, what modern civilisation would allow a company to imprison it's population if they dare to to own a TV and watch live transmissions, why do we allow this to continue in this day and age, if the BBC is that wonderful they will be flooded with willing subscribers, wont they?

The BBC TV Tax model needs total reform, no taxation without representation indeed, it doesn't go far enough, turn it into a subscriber only model, and stop with the threats and fines and imprisionment of the poor, ban the unjust UK TV tax.

My company had a threatening letter about watching TV on Pc when I rang and queried this the answer was you are guilty until you can prove innocence.....sooner the licence fee is abolished the better...plus we will lose a raft of self serving bureaucrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 293 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.