TV licensing...

[Mick F]

I don't want the live televisual product - BBC or the Independent stuff - so we don't have a telly and therefore don't pay the TVL. We can pick and chose from any of the catch-up stuff, though rarely do that at all as there's nothing we want to catch up with!

We've recently bought a Fiat 500 and last week a chap we met asked us if we were going to watch Watchdog about them. I had recently joined a Fiat forum and have read all about the problem so I was well-armed with an answer and conversation regarding our 500 not being the model in the frame. I sat down with my laptop a couple of days ago and tuned into iPlayer to watch the programme out of interest. Suffice it to say, the article never touched the surface.

The main thing I noticed, was that Watchdog was an utter load of rubbish. It was childish, supercilious, facile, pointless, cheap and nasty, and downright awful. If that is typical to what's on the telly these days, I'm glad we don't have one!

[kwackers]

The relative quality of BBC product is irrelevant.

Really? Yet you can't write a sentence about it without inserting words like "trash" or insulting those who choose to watch it.
Perhaps you didn't intend your statements to be taken literally???

[blackbike]

The relative quality of BBC product is irrelevant.

Really? Yet you can't write a sentence about it without inserting words like "trash" or insulting those who choose to watch it.
Perhaps you didn't intend your statements to be taken literally???

Nearly all of it is trash. That's not a particular criticism of the BBC. TV is a trash medium. That seems to be how it has developed.

The BBC's trash TV is no better or worse than that produced by any other broadcaster.

I simply cannot see why the state involves itself so heavily in the production of trash TV, and regards that production as so important that it needs to be backed by a criminal law backed tax on TV use.

Surely the production of rubbish like Eastenders and all the other formulaic garbage which makes up at least 80% of the BBC's TV schedules can be left entirely to the private sector, to be financed in various ways which do not involve compulsion, snoopers, harassment, fines and criminal records.

Do we really need the state harassing people because they don't want to pay for junk TV from one particular manufacturer of that commodity?

I don't think so.

[kwackers]

Nearly all of it is trash. That's not a particular criticism of the BBC. TV is a trash medium. That seems to be how it has developed.

Again, all in your opinion.
Who determines what's trash and what isn't?

As an example you mention Eastenders, now I'll admit I've never watched it (nor any soap) but I was reading an article some time ago that was talking about the social benefits of soap operas.
It mentioned that they opened the floor to discussion about social issues and that they helped to make people aware that sometimes the situation they were in was in fact plain wrong, or that for people in such a situation there was help available. That sounds good to me (unless you think people should just sit and watch public information films - they'd be well popular...)

As an example, did you know that the Archers was created as a means to disseminate farming information to farmers?

The whole tone of your arguments seems to be constructed around the 'fact' that you don't like the programming. Obviously this isn't a problem since you can opt out of the whole thing by not bothering with a TV and not paying a license and thus your argument is (IMO) moot.

[al_yrpal]

It always seems to me that TV haters constantly invent things to justify their position. TV is for everyone, inevitably there will only be very few programmes for those who have narrow interests. Those of us with wider interests and tastes will find more to appreciate. With 200 odd channels available to me via Freesat there is always something somewhere that I could be watching but I don't. In addition to all that I can tune into Amazon Prime, or half a dozen other film and TV show providers some of them offering pay to view films and old TV shows, I dont. I occasionally rent or buy films that I missed or couldnt be bothered to go to the cinema to see. Some people seem to believe that there is something intrinsically good about reading a book with pages or Radio 4s turgid programming in preference to watching a TV? I really can't understand this, it seems like the worst kind of inverted snobbery to me.
All that said there is a lot of things that I don't like and cannot be bothered with on TV, but mine has an off switch. As for the license fee, for our family its a bargain for the fun, education and entertainment that we enjoy because of it.

Al

[Edwards]

I find it strange that somebody with no TV can state categorically that all TV programs are trash and crap. Are all BBC programs available on I player?

I thought that watching the Arctic Foxes hunting and sometimes getting stuck in the snow was worth every penny MrsE spends on the TV.

[NUKe]

I don't mind the licence fee; it does allow the BBC to produce some of the better drama and documentaries, a lot of which wouldn't get made by the independents. I watch mainly BBC and listen quite a bit to radio 4. Dr Who alone is worth the licence fee. This current series with Capaldi has been the best so far. BBC4 runs some great programmes which you just couldn't make for a commercial station, exploring science and the arts. But there is so much more the BBC also produces a lot of educational stuff, my kids use BBC bite size quite a bit. BBC 3 gives a stage for some offbeat comedy and drama from the next generation of TV producers, presenters and actors.

[blackbike]

Nearly all of it is trash. That's not a particular criticism of the BBC. TV is a trash medium. That seems to be how it has developed.

Again, all in your opinion.
Who determines what's trash and what isn't?

A person making a decision about buying TV content, that's who.

Why should I pay towards your BBC programmes just because, in your opinion, they are good?

When it comes to which TV programmes I want to pay for, it should be my opinion which counts, not yours.

I doubt you want to chip in to help me with my Sky subscription just because I enjoy watching football, yet you apparently you think I should be forced to chip in to help pay for TV you want but I don't.

It's ridiculous that the state mass manufactures a whole pile of TV dross and forces everyone to pay for it in return for permission to use their own TV in their own homes to receive any broadcasts at all.

If someone thinks the BBC is good value for money then I've no objection them paying the state for it. But why are people who don't want the BBC expected to pay for it too?

People who don't want BBC programmes should pay nothing for the BBC and be free to use their TVs for other services. The BBC's pitiful programmes are not a necessity of life so any state and criminal law involvement in their funding is inappropriate, outdated and needlessly authoritarian.

There might be a case for a much, much smaller BBC producing a very small quantity of high quality, limited appeal programming generally unavailable on commercial channels. That could be financed out of general taxation just like we fund small amounts of other high quality, limited appeal arts and entertainment such as opera, ballet and orchestras.

There is no need for the current vast BBC, financed by a nasty tax and associated collection harassment of people with no need to pay, which mainly produces utter garbage which duplicates similar rubbish from the commercial sector.

That's why the licence fee should be scrapped.

[kwackers]

A person making a decision about buying TV content, that's who.

I don't like most of what's on TV, the difference IMO is that I'm not narrow minded enough to think that my view of what is good and bad is the only one. Nor do I rant on and on about how it's all crap and nor do I dismiss TV viewers as "dismal, sad, impressionable" people.

TBH, having read your rants I'm actually of the opinion that the TV license is an excellent thing - if only to annoy you.

[al_yrpal]

Personally I have always thought that people who are mad on watching millionaires kicking an inflated pigs bladder around a field need their heads examined, especially if they pay for Sky. There.. you made me say it.

Al

[tyreon]

Can I interrupt people here and ask them to consider the public school children whose future may be jeopardised by commentators refusing to pay for their 'tv trash'. Many PS educated uncles,aunts,mums and dads are employed in (BBC) management. Their sons and daughters wait to be employed by our national broadcaster! Think of others! Think o their salaries...and pensions! Someones gotta pay for 'em. Most recently I read that Eton has theatre as big as the National Theatre in London,and that its 'boarders' are taking over Hollywood,BBC drama roles,management...well,basically the lot. I know its toff(sorry,tough)for fellow thespians(of the East End variety)when they get 'the boot',but(thus have I read),Eton chums(should this read chumps?)can turn a phrase which the likes o Ray(Winston) and meself can't. (Sorry,Ray) The BBC needs your money

Speaking for myself I have to admire toffs chutzpah: I read 'our guvners' make 'the trash' like Benefits Street: Poverty Porn. Think Boris's sister did a programme on slumming it:giving 'elpful advice to someone on the social: good dough and nice voyeurism. And all paid for outta the public purse: yum-yum.

Now there's a link here with the public £££ supporting games,heroes,Olympic stadiums and the like. Think I read that more and more gold/silver/bronze medals are going to public schoolboys. Lots and lottsa prizes. I think Dulwich has a nice 50 metre size swimming pool and really good athletics ground. Come-a-growth in sporting events,we pay for the venue(Stratford renewal!!) and the winners take the prizes: £££,money,kudos,fame...television commentating,BBC management...see how it goes around?

Network,network,network.

Dunno where I've gone in this conversation... Was it, what's the date of the revolution?

[Edwards]

I read 'our guvners' make 'the trash' like Benefits Street: Poverty Porn.

Were or are either of these shown on the BBC?

[wirral_cyclist]

Oh come on don't be naive, the minute the (BBC) licence fee is abolished the then government (it matters not) will introduce a media tax that will undoubtedly include those people currently loopholing the system by streaming/time shifting so fee will be for any content from any medium to any device. (and be 2x current rates too...)

[Mick F]

Doubt it.
The BBC is independent from government by dint of the TVL.
If taxpayers paid, it would cease to be independent and become a state-run broadcaster.

I doubt that would happen. Possibly, the BBC would go commercial but even that is highly unlikely.
The status quo will remain for the foreseeable future.

[blackbike]

Doubt it.
The BBC is independent from government by dint of the TVL.

Not true.

It's hard to think of any organisation which is less independent of the government than the BBC.

All the members of the BBC's governing body are appointed by the government.

All the senior staff appointments at the BBC require government approval, ultimately from the Prime Minister.

For the most senior BBC appointments, it is the government which complies the short list of candidates.

Staff for many BBC jobs are vetted by the government's security services, and can be refused appointment if those security services find something they don't like.

The BBC is entirely funded by the government from money in the Consolidated Fund. This is exactly how most government services are funded.

The BBC's level of funding is totally controlled by the government.

And the National Audit Office, a government body, now classes the TV licence as a tax.

These facts do not really indicate any level of BBC independence from the state.


It's not a mark of a healthy society when the government guarantees funding for and so closely controls a broadcaster which produces so much rubbish.

We tax tobacco and alcohol but we don't spend the money on making sure everyone has a supply of reasonably affordable supply of those junk products. We spend the money on useful things like schools and hospitals.

If we are to tax TV use then the money should be spent on useful things too, not squandered on junk TV and pop music radio for the poor souls who need such rubbish in their lives.