Discussion:
SOT: BBC licence fee
(too old to reply)
Scott
2023-12-04 12:08:15 UTC
Permalink
News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100

"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."

Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
Jeff Gaines
2023-12-04 14:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
pay a licence fee.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Are you confused about gender?
Try milking a bull, you'll learn real quick.
JNugent
2023-12-04 14:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
pay a licence fee.
Stand by for the usual red herrings:

(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...

(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...

(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
JMB99
2023-12-04 16:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?

It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.

But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
which probably costs you more.
JNugent
2023-12-04 20:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
Because they're simple diversionary tactics.
Post by JMB99
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
There's one there straight away (my (B) above).

What has subscription to do with it? Consumers can subscribe if they
like, but there must be a hundred channels on Freeview (aside from the
five or six BBC channels). And there are plenty of other free sources
available by streaming (FreeVee, for instance).
Post by JMB99
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
which probably costs you more.
Ah yes, listed by me at (C). Do you actually know anything about how
businesses are run and what role is played by advertising?

I may have a supplementary question to put after your answer has been given.
BrightsideS9
2023-12-05 08:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
--
brightside S9
JNugent
2023-12-05 10:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.

[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
Pamela
2023-12-06 20:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
Tax which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
Not forgetting Rupert Murdoch's somewhat dismal TalkTV. It seems to be
slowly improving (Piers Morgan seems to be a big draw) but it has a way
to go.
JNugent
2023-12-07 02:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
Tax which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
Not forgetting Rupert Murdoch's somewhat dismal TalkTV. It seems to be
slowly improving (Piers Morgan seems to be a big draw) but it has a way
to go.
What is the connection?
Pamela
2023-12-08 12:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when
you shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the
Advertising Tax which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
Not forgetting Rupert Murdoch's somewhat dismal TalkTV. It seems to
be slowly improving (Piers Morgan seems to be a big draw) but it has
a way to go.
What is the connection?
"Murdochvision".

BrightsideS9
2023-12-07 10:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
Tax which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
So behind the times. Murdoch has had nothing to do with Sky
Television since November 2018, SIX YEARS AGO, Sky was acquired by
Comcast. It is now known as Sky Group Ltd. a division of Comcast.
--
brightside s9
JNugent
2023-12-07 19:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
Why are they red herrings?
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription
systems charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising
Tax which probably costs you more.
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
So behind the times. Murdoch has had nothing to do with Sky
Television since November 2018, SIX YEARS AGO, Sky was acquired by
Comcast. It is now known as Sky Group Ltd. a division of Comcast.
Yes I agree that Guardianistas tend to be behind the times.

Ever since the 1970s, if not earlier.
JMB99
2023-12-08 07:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Yes I agree that Guardianistas tend to be behind the times.
Ever since the 1970s, if not earlier.
If only it would go back to the 1950s when it was still the Manchester
Guardian and a widely respected newspaper.
Blueshirt
2023-12-07 10:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
FWIW, Sky was sold to Comcast.
JNugent
2023-12-07 19:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blueshirt
Post by JNugent
Post by BrightsideS9
Murdochvision? What is that?
Guardian-speak for Sky television.
[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]
FWIW, Sky was sold to Comcast.
That's OK. Comcast is someone.
Roderick Stewart
2023-12-05 08:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.

Rod.
JNugent
2023-12-05 10:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
Post by JMB99
It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.
Or, indeed, when compared to the £0.00 one can pay to receive a great
number of free channels and services (some provided by Amazon Prime) via
an Amazon Fire Stick.
JMB99
2023-12-05 12:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roderick Stewart
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery service,
I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of interest so
did not bother.
Roderick Stewart
2023-12-05 12:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Roderick Stewart
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery service,
I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of interest so
did not bother.
Other streaming services are available. Some of them require
subscription fees and some don't. Some of them show programmes with
adverts but offer the option of paying a subscription to watch them
without the adverts if you prefer. It's up to you. Most of of the ones
that do require a subscription cost less than the BBC licence.

And Amazon, Netflix, ITVX, All4 and the like will not send threatening
letters demanding payment if you don't want their services.

Rod.
Bob Latham
2023-12-05 13:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Roderick Stewart
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up.
Explain how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for
Amazon Prime.
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything
of interest so did not bother.
Unpack that: You wanted the delivery service and were prepared to pay
for it. Then you found out there was some free stuff which you didn't
like so you abandoned the whole idea.

Fair enough but odd reasoning. But at least you had the option to not
bother without being limited on other options with the threat of
prosecution.

Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
yourself in court.

Bob.
Jeff Gaines
2023-12-05 13:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
yourself in court.
What about straight bananas?
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This joke was so funny when I heard it for the first time I fell of my
dinosaur.
Bob Latham
2023-12-05 13:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Bob Latham
Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
yourself in court.
What about straight bananas?
I have nothing against gay or straight bananas. Frankly I'm shocked
that you raise the issue, let bananas live as they wish I say.

Bob.
Jeff Gaines
2023-12-05 14:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Bob Latham
Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
yourself in court.
What about straight bananas?
I have nothing against gay or straight bananas. Frankly I'm shocked
that you raise the issue, let bananas live as they wish I say.
Bob.
:-)
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The fact that there's a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven says
a lot about anticipated traffic numbers.
JMB99
2023-12-05 19:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Unpack that: You wanted the delivery service and were prepared to pay
for it. Then you found out there was some free stuff which you didn't
like so you abandoned the whole idea.
From what I remember they increased the price to include the TV service.

Some time ago and I rarely use Amazon, very wary of the dodgy fake items
they allow to be sold in the market place(?) so prefer to use reliable
dealers even if they cost more. I buy my books from our excellent local
bookshop or direct from the published sometimes.
JNugent
2023-12-06 10:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Latham
Post by JMB99
Post by Roderick Stewart
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up.
Explain how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for
Amazon Prime.
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything
of interest so did not bother.
Unpack that: You wanted the delivery service and were prepared to pay
for it. Then you found out there was some free stuff which you didn't
like so you abandoned the whole idea.
Fair enough but odd reasoning. But at least you had the option to not
bother without being limited on other options with the threat of
prosecution.
Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
yourself in court.
Bob.
No-one ever has a sensible response to that one! And certainly not one
that comes anywhere near being a justification for it.

It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).
JMB99
2023-12-06 11:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).
Though you are forced to indirectly subsidise the Guardian through lots
of Leftie councils and other organisations who buy many copies. Even
the BBC are said to buy lots of copies.
charles
2023-12-06 12:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).
Though you are forced to indirectly subsidise the Guardian through lots
of Leftie councils and other organisations who buy many copies. Even
the BBC are said to buy lots of copies.
but probably no more than copies of other papers. Years ago, at
University, where we had newspapers to read they even included the Daily
Worker.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JMB99
2023-12-06 17:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
but probably no more than copies of other papers. Years ago, at
University, where we had newspapers to read they even included the Daily
Worker.
There have been many reports over the years of some organisation buying
large numbers of copies, the sale of the rag are so low that it must be
an important source of income for them especially after they lost the
income from the motoring magazine some years ago.
JNugent
2023-12-07 01:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by JNugent
It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian
before you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed,
vice-versa).
Though you are forced to indirectly subsidise the Guardian through lots
of Leftie councils and other organisations who buy many copies.
In that case let me clarify:

It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (in addition to being
ripped-off by hose lefty authorities via Council Tax and other imposts).
Post by JMB99
Even the BBC are said to buy lots of copies.
They need to know that all their job ads have been spelled correctly, I
expect.
#Paul
2023-12-06 19:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).
Or like just buying any single newspaper, and still having to put
up with some of your money going to pay for the sports and business
sections (or whatever other bits of it you don't happen to like).


#Paul
JNugent
2023-12-07 01:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by #Paul
Post by JNugent
It's like being forced to pay for and take a copy of the Guardian before
you're allowed to buy the Daily Telegraph (or, indeed, vice-versa).
Or like just buying any single newspaper, and still having to put
up with some of your money going to pay for the sports and business
sections (or whatever other bits of it you don't happen to like).
So you think that having to pay for a whole newspaper that you don't
like in order to be allowed to buy the one you *do* like is no worse
than just being able to buy your favourite in the first place and keep
the other £1.25 in your pocket.

It really does take all sorts...
JNugent
2023-12-06 10:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Roderick Stewart
The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery service,
I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of interest so
did not bother.
Out of interest, how did you look at it if you haven't got it?
Andy Burns
2023-12-06 10:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JMB99
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of
interest so did not bother.
Out of interest, how did you look at it if you haven't got it?
Probably through "explore prime video" which lets you see what content
is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?

<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>
JNugent
2023-12-06 11:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by JNugent
Post by JMB99
Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of
interest so did not bother.
Out of interest, how did you look at it if you haven't got it?
Probably through "explore prime video" which lets you see what content
is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>
Anyone making a judgement via a course like that would have to be
reading titles and any synopses that were available?

I too took out the Prime membership because of the delivery aspect. I
didn't even know about the TV service. We had a Blu-Ray player with an
Amazon app built in and I decided to explore via that method. "Bosch"
was the deciding factor.
Andy Burns
2023-12-06 11:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
"explore prime video" which lets you see what content
Post by Andy Burns
is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>
Anyone making a judgement via a course like that would have to be
reading titles and any synopses that were available?
I too took out the Prime membership because of the delivery aspect.
Same here, I get plenty of same/next day deliveries but rarely watch
anything from Amazon, I presume the cost for delivery without video
wouldn't work out at half?
Post by Andy Burns
I didn't even know about the TV service. We had a Blu-Ray player with
an Amazon app built in and I decided to explore via that method.
"Bosch" was the deciding factor.
I subscribed to Netflix for a year, watched a couple of series of a
couple of shows, but then didn't feel inclined to start watching
anything "new" just because it was there, didn't renew Netflix
JNugent
2023-12-07 01:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Burns
"explore prime video" which lets you see what content
Post by Andy Burns
is available, but not play it unless you sign-in or take a 30day trial?
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Video/b?&node=3010085031>
Anyone making a judgement via a course like that would have to be
reading titles and any synopses that were available?
I too took out the Prime membership because of the delivery aspect.
Same here, I get plenty of same/next day deliveries but rarely watch
anything from Amazon, I presume the cost for delivery without video
wouldn't work out at half?
Post by Andy Burns
I didn't even know about the TV service. We had a Blu-Ray player with
an Amazon app built in and I decided to explore via that method.
"Bosch" was the deciding factor.
I subscribed to Netflix for a year, watched a couple of series of a
couple of shows, but then didn't feel inclined to start watching
anything "new" just because it was there, didn't renew Netflix
I only have Netflix for a month or two, every now and then. Mainly to
see what all the fuss is about with "The Crown" and (of course) to
follow up on "Better Call Saul" while it was current.
Norman Wells
2023-12-04 15:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
pay a licence fee.
If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods
advertised. Or, more than likely, both. You won't save much if
anything at all unless you abandon the BBC altogether.
JNugent
2023-12-04 15:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Scott
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced
to pay a licence fee.
If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods
advertised.  Or, more than likely, both.  You won't save much if
anything at all unless you abandon the BBC altogether.
Please explain how the prices of the goods I buy will increase if I
don't subscribe to and watch BBC, but won't if I do.

I know that Watchdog was a good consumer programme in its day, but...
Jeff Gaines
2023-12-04 15:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jeff Gaines
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
pay a licence fee.
If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods advertised.
Or, more than likely, both. You won't save much if anything at all unless
you abandon the BBC altogether.
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
pro-Israel bias finished me. I pay to watch other channels via adverts and
one streaming service. I do switch streaming services as digital rights
move around.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Though no-one can go back and make a new start, everyone can start from
now and make a new ending.
Norman Wells
2023-12-04 16:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jeff Gaines
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced
to pay a licence fee.
If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods
advertised. Or, more than likely, both.  You won't save much if
anything at all unless you abandon the BBC altogether.
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
pro-Israel bias finished me. I pay to watch other channels via adverts
and one streaming service. I do switch streaming services as digital
rights move around.
Since you need a TV licence to watch anything broadcast live, you're not
saving any money by casting it off though.
Jeff Gaines
2023-12-04 16:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jeff Gaines
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jeff Gaines
I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
pay a licence fee.
If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods advertised.
Or, more than likely, both.  You won't save much if anything at all
unless you abandon the BBC altogether.
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
pro-Israel bias finished me. I pay to watch other channels via adverts
and one streaming service. I do switch streaming services as digital
rights move around.
Since you need a TV licence to watch anything broadcast live, you're not
saving any money by casting it off though.
But I will if we drop the licence fee.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those
who can't.
JMB99
2023-12-04 18:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Gaines
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
pro-Israel bias finished me.
Pro-Israel?

It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I looked
at news programmes.
Java Jive
2023-12-04 19:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Jeff Gaines
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is
... a figment of your imagination, see below ...
Post by JMB99
Post by Jeff Gaines
but
its pro-Israel bias finished me.
Pro-Israel?
It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I looked
at news programmes.
I can't comment about the pro-Israel bias, because I haven't been
watching BBC News enough since the current bout of the long-running
Palestinian-Israeli conflict began, but the fact that you can find room
to think the exact opposite to Jeff probably shows that they're
somewhere in the middle, as they should be.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Pamela
2023-12-06 20:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Jeff Gaines
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but
its pro-Israel bias finished me.
Pro-Israel?
It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I looked
at news programmes.
I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either. The BBC's initial readiness
to repeat Hamas propaganda without criticism was surprising, from who
launched a rocket that hit a hospitals to claims about death tolls.
After loud criticism, the bias seems to have improved.

Out of BBC TV's total output, there are only a few tv programmes I might
watch. In practice I can't trouble myself to seek them out.

Worst of all BBC tv seems to be pandering to the woke agenda by
misrepresenting history and promoting excessively liberal values to an
egregious extent. BBC Three is awash with such woke craziness that it is
more than merely an attempt to appeal to a juvenile audience.

For myself, I'm happy to watch mainly streaming movies and to dig out
whichever video clips I like on YouTube, Vimeo, etc. I don't miss
watching the BBC one little bit, although I do listen to some of their
their radio broadcasts.
JMB99
2023-12-06 22:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either. The BBC's initial readiness
to repeat Hamas propaganda without criticism was surprising, from who
launched a rocket that hit a hospitals to claims about death tolls.
After loud criticism, the bias seems to have improved.
It was quite ironic that ITV and GBTV were attacking the BBC for calling
HAMAS 'militants' but like most (if not all the media) were doing the
same themselves!
Blueshirt
2023-12-07 10:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JMB99
Post by Jeff Gaines
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough
but its pro-Israel bias finished me.
Pro-Israel?
It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I
looked at news programmes.
I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either.
The BBC Pro-Israel? Someone must have watching a different BBC to the
one I was watching! For a while they were virtually a Hamas
propaganda tool.
Norman Wells
2023-12-07 12:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blueshirt
Post by Pamela
Post by JMB99
Post by Jeff Gaines
I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough
but its pro-Israel bias finished me.
Pro-Israel?
It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I
looked at news programmes.
I am not sure about pro-Israel bias either.
The BBC Pro-Israel? Someone must have watching a different BBC to the
one I was watching! For a while they were virtually a Hamas
propaganda tool.
If you listen to the news, it is apparent that Hamas has been renamed by
the BBC as 'Hamas Which Is A Terrorist Organisation According To The UK
Government', and I think we should all use this proper new name out of
respect.
JMB99
2023-12-07 13:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
If you listen to the news, it is apparent that Hamas has been renamed by
the BBC as 'Hamas Which Is A Terrorist Organisation According To The UK
Government', and I think we should all use this proper new name out of
respect.
If they did not then there would be people complaining that they were
not making it clear that it is a proscribed organisation and also HAMAS
supporters from the Left complaining if the BBC just called them terrorists.

It is a form of wording that they have used previously, particularly
with Irish terrorists.

Whatever they do, there will be someone complaining.
charles
2023-12-07 17:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Norman Wells
If you listen to the news, it is apparent that Hamas has been renamed by
the BBC as 'Hamas Which Is A Terrorist Organisation According To The UK
Government', and I think we should all use this proper new name out of
respect.
If they did not then there would be people complaining that they were
not making it clear that it is a proscribed organisation and also HAMAS
supporters from the Left complaining if the BBC just called them terrorists.
It is a form of wording that they have used previously, particularly
with Irish terrorists.
Whatever they do, there will be someone complaining.
and there are reporters in the area. They need to be kept safe by not
upsetting the "locals".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JNugent
2023-12-04 14:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC?
It would be, if watching and paying for the BBC were something one could
choose to do or not to do.
Post by Scott
Should it be funded in a different way?
It should. It should be encrypted and available only to subscribers at
whatever subscription rate the market will stand. But it has a lot of
competition.
Loading...