BBC licence fee

Pedestrian said:
Again Andrew neil announced his Fox News type tosh yesterday so it’s already enroute.
My council tax covers many essential services inc those I already use and ones I may need at times. The bbc provides a service I don’t ever use. The bbc website is shit. That’s already been mentioned. The partisan football coverage is embarrassing. I shouldn’t be forced to pay for something I don’t want. The fairest way is to make it a subscription service then folk like you can enjoy Zoe ball and Laura kuenssberg and folk like me will be better off financially. I’m not particularly against it as a service, I equate it to the metro free newspaper. It suits certain types and I don’t have any issue with that. It’s the compulsory licence that I object to especially since I don’t use anything it provides. I also think it’s dated and would benefit from a new direction. Turning it into a optional subscription service would give it an opportunity to modernise.
Click to expand...
Where in my response did you get the notion that I watch it much or agree with the licence fee? I was explaining what the model was with relation to everyone funding a public service broadcaster because you said you don't understand it. My mother and father watch the BBC a lot and they know lots that do the same. Millions watch some of the programmes on there, but because you don't want to see any of it you want to complain about how unfair it is - to you. Ever thought about others who can't afford Netflix, Amazon, BT, Sky, Apple etc.

By all means remove the fee, but as I've said before in this thread, what I've see abroad doesn't fill me with expectation that quality would improve. A public funded service might provide something you might use in the future - who knows.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
Where in my response did you get the notion that I watch it much or agree with the licence fee? I was explaining what the model was with relation to everyone funding a public service broadcaster because you said you don't understand it. My mother and father watch the BBC a lot and they know lots that do the same. Millions watch some of the programmes on there, but because you don't want to see any of it you want to complain about how unfair it is - to you. Ever thought about others who can't afford Netflix, Amazon, BT, Sky, Apple etc.

By all means remove the fee, but as I've said before in this thread, what I've see abroad doesn't fill me with expectation that quality would improve. A public funded service might provide something you might use in the future - who knows.my point is is that it should be an o
Click to expand...
Not really sure what you’re on about here fella. You’re a bit all over the place. I’ve never suggested removing the fee. An optional subscription service wouldn’t stop anyone from signing up to utilise what they want on the bbc. Netflix and amazon are actually cheaper then the bbc btw but still those who couldn’t afford all the subscription services could select what they can afford. If it provided something I wanted now or in the future I’d also be free to sign up.
 
Pedestrian said:
Not really sure what you’re on about here fella. You’re a bit all over the place. I’ve never suggested removing the fee. An optional subscription service wouldn’t stop anyone from signing up to utilise what they want on the bbc. Netflix and amazon are actually cheaper then the bbc btw but still those who couldn’t afford all the subscription services could select what they can afford. If it provided something I wanted now or in the future I’d also be free to sign up.
Click to expand...
Ah forget it, you don't understand the concept.
 
Fame Monster said:
I think Rupert Lowe's a funder but I was talking in general terms. Whenever there's money to be made, sharks will always be circling. Despite that, a lot of people support the movement for political reasons and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

You mentioned that you voted leave yet I'm sure you're aware there were many dodgy people trying to profiteer from that result. I also think it would be an insult to your intelligence to say that you were conned or unaware that there were people like that in the same camp as you.
Click to expand...
A lot of people didn't support until it started and spread its propaganda.
 
Bovril said:
Mate I respect you as a poster but I think the Queen with all that comes with her pays a lot of coffers into the economy in tourism alone.
Click to expand...
The BBC sells lots of programmes overseas and brings money into the economy, its the same argument.
 
Rascal said:
I used your argument against you, so why is it ridiculous.

If my argument is ridiculous so is yours.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn’t the bbc switch to a subscription service? If it’s so good it’ll survive. I personally feel that the content is crap. I don’t and never have listened to the radio and the website is comparable to the daily mail website imo. Therefore I think it’s outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.
 
Pedestrian said:
Why shouldn’t the bbc switch to a subscription service? If it’s so good it’ll survive. I personally feel that the content is crap. I don’t and never have listened to the radio and the website is comparable to the daily mail website imo. Therefore I think it’s outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.
Click to expand...
Why don't we out source our nuclear submarines to Serco, I think they are crap. People who want nuclear missiles could pay a subscription to Serco, I have never seen a nuclear submarine so why should I pay for it/

#DEFUNDNUCLEARSUBS
 
Rascal said:
Why don't we out source our nuclear submarines to Serco, I think they are crap. People who want nuclear missiles could pay a subscription to Serco, I have never seen a nuclear submarine so why should I pay for it/

#DEFUNDNUCLEARSUBS
Click to expand...
You have no reasonable response so resort to being a muppet. Have a good evening.
 
It’s a public service. The debate should be about whether it is fulfilling its role as being that and whether it’s a service that we should have rather than just what you as an individual consume.

Unfortunately, the debate is more of the latter though. Suits the people that do want it to go if it stays that way too.
 
meltonblue said:
It’s a public service. The debate should be about whether it is fulfilling its role as being that and whether it’s a service that we should have rather than just what you as an individual consume.

Unfortunately, the debate is more of the latter though. Suits the people that do want it to go if it stays that way too.
Click to expand...
It’s an outdated service that has for many been surpassed by alternatives. The debate should be around funding of the outdated service. There is no valid reason that I can think of why it shouldn’t be a subscription service, that then gives folk the option of paying or not. Debating the actual content would be a never ending argument. Some folk love it and others don’t. Those folk that appreciate it and want it to continue can subscribe, those who don’t enjoy it can opt out. Everyone’s happy.
 
meltonblue said:
It’s a public service. The debate should be about whether it is fulfilling its role as being that and whether it’s a service that we should have rather than just what you as an individual consume.

Unfortunately, the debate is more of the latter though. Suits the people that do want it to go if it stays that way too.
Click to expand...
Some of us are trying to discuss its role but struggling to get heard over those that just want to shout out why it doesn't suit them.

Spoils the discussion for everyone.
 
Pedestrian said:
It’s an outdated service that has for many been surpassed by alternatives. The debate should be around funding of the outdated service. There is no valid reason that I can think of why it shouldn’t be a subscription service, that then gives folk the option of paying or not. Debating the actual content would be a never ending argument. Some folk love it and others don’t. Those folk that appreciate it and want it to continue can subscribe, those who don’t enjoy it can opt out. Everyone’s happy.
Click to expand...

I can’t think of any alternatives that provide the spectrum of services the bbc does to all age groups and across all interests

If you can’t see a valid argument why it isn’t a subscription service, then do you think the same of any other public services? Or is it you don’t believe that we need one for what the bbc does?
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
Some of us are trying to discuss its role but struggling to get heard over those that just want to shout out why it doesn't suit them.

Spoils the discussion for everyone.
Click to expand...
Weird. I’m messaging the same as you are fella. Hilarious that you can’t come back with a response to my suggestion. A subscription service would be the fairest option.
 
Sorry, just to add one point from my perspective. There is plenty that the bbc does that would not be commercially viable and wouldn’t work either elsewhere or on a subscription based platform. That doesn’t make it any less vital unless we really want to dumb down as an overall society and not consider the interests of others.

I will always argue for the presence of an independent news service too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top