Apparently the Government results from a recent Poll were well in favour and people were happy to pay up to 180 pounds per annum!!!! Who were these people??...Oh yes that's right, those with an average salary of 50,000 a year. I bet they just took a show of hands in the House of Commons Cafeteria! How can the Government justify the TV license when BBC shows make a fortune in advertising, and they now create whole shows as one big advert? ie. 'How do you solve a problem like Maria' I bet Andrew Llloyd Webber didn't get all those Months of publicity for free!
2006-09-17 22:25:43 · 26 answers · asked by sweetpsychosis 2 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Overall I can see need for an in dependant TV organisation and that has to be paid for. I also think they are not as unbiased as they used to be as more political manipulation spreads accross the BBC.
I think this is typical of this government to say the public are happy to pay another £50 or what ever. Did they say what the alternative was. Did they say that you will also have to replace your televisions at another huge cost as 'we are going digital'
It is a dictatorial government and its departments we suffer from you see it all the time parking, speeding, big brother's watching you road tax, MOT and insurance along with huge council tax bills-the government says we are all happy to pay. Well maybe if I was earning what they earn out of my contributions I would be happy!
2006-09-17 22:37:11 · answer #1 · answered by philipscottbrooks 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Enough People Feel the very same way that you do, then You can all rise up and make a Change. Run some Ads in Your Newspapers, Post some Paper Flyers on the Street, and Demand to See where such a Massive Amount of Money is being Spent for Television Programming. Hold those that are taking the Taxpayers' Money Accountable ! To have to pay a Tax to watch TV, then to have to Tolerate Commercials is totally illogical ! A Protest Idea would be to Gather all those who Feel as you do to hold a Massive Protest while Carrying Small Battery Operated Non Tax Paid TV Sets ! A good Place to Gather to Garner Worldwide Solidarity would be in Front of A Webcamera that is Widely Viewed all over the World, on a Continual Basis ! There is one that I Personally Favor, and view Frequently, but I won't Mention it since a Massive Protest may very well shut it down ! But, could You Imagine a Massive Protest of People with TV's all Playing ? You can do this ! How much is a Small Black & White TV in the UK ? They're less than $20 here in the US. Perhaps someone with the Funds to do so could Invest in Several Hundred of these Small "illegal" TV's, with Rechargable Batteries, so that They're Environmentally Responsible , and hand them out for Street Protests of this Insane TV Tax ! If the UK had no TV Adverts., and relied solely on the "License Fee" I could Understand it. But to have to Tolerate Adverts on Top of the License Fee ? Too bad it isn't Tea, then You could just Dump it in the Water like We did, when the British Government Tried to Pull a Similar Stunt on US ! Taxation without Representation ! That's what it's all about ! Get those Small TV's out in the Street in Big Numbers, and the Law will have to change ! YAHOO!
2006-09-18 06:00:52 · answer #2 · answered by gvaporcarb 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's true that the TV license is quite expensive if you have to pay it once.
But I'm sure if you save there and here you'll be able to pay it.
On the other hand imagine what would happen with those very good programs that now-day only BBC has? They'll be axed straight away if we do not pay the license ...
Think about the license like an investment to the future. I don't like when my kid is spending a lot of time in front of TV, but I rather let her spend that time in front of BBC documentaries than other Cartoon Network crap.
2006-09-18 05:40:35 · answer #3 · answered by khanzadian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The licence fee was introduced as a way of ring-fencing revenue for a broadcaster with a public-service remit. And it worked. The BBC became the most respected broadcaster in the world. They don't talk about ITV or Sky One abroad. Ask yourself why.
People who want the licence fee abolished are, in my experience, those people who tend not to watch the more high-brow Arts and Current Affairs shows that the BBC produces but the low-end light entertainment that you could easily find on the commercial channels. And because of this, they don't understand the quality or value of the BBC's output.
Abolishing the licence fee would mean either the funds are simply taken from another source of taxation (in which case you end up paying for it anyway) or the BBC becomes truly self-funding in which case it would end up making far more shows like "Pets Win Prizes" and "Celebrity Love Island" to appeal to the lowest common-denominator in order to survive.
As for "opening up the BBC to competition" as someone else said here, er, it is open to competition. ITV1,2,Ch4, Ch5, Sky, and cable are competitors. There are hundreds of other channels.
I don't agree with means-testing as it penalises people have saved their money compared with those that have blown theirs.
2006-09-18 05:46:36 · answer #4 · answered by sparky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"can't afford" normally means you don't prioritise buying the TV licence high enough on your "wants" list. There are many people who say they "can't afford" something but then CHOOSE to spend thier desposable income on other things - its about priority. If you drink/smoke/eat comfort food ( chocolate/cakes/donuts etc ) then you CAN afford the TV licence, you CHOOSE to spend the money elsewhere.
Students claim they "cannot afford" to live at uni, any student will tell you this, just go into a pub and ask then after thier 6th £2.50 pint.
I don't like the TV licence, but am pleased I can escape the adverts and popularist rubbish from the ITV channels.
I agree the BBC is getting worse, they are dumming down and chasing ratings. Once they do this completely, and we have no quality programs on the BBC then I agree, we should scrap the licence.
2006-09-18 05:40:25 · answer #5 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it is worth the money so I do not not watch TV.
However, it is actually difficult to persuade the TV Licencing authorities you have stopped! Especially if you intend to watch DVDs and videos. It is best to disconnect the aerial and cut the aerial plug off.
It is a poll tax for a service and rich and poor pay the same amount, virtiually amounting to a surcharge on living in a property.
People receiving benefits can pay by instalments.
2006-09-18 05:43:20 · answer #6 · answered by Perseus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think about what you have just said. Can you imagine how much it would cost to administer a means testing system to charge different rates for the tv licence, the cost would probably go up for everyone including you and the already dubious quality programing would get worse.
£125 is only a little over £10 a month. If you smoke give up or buy 4 less beers a month and hey presto you can afford the cost.
2006-09-18 05:33:06 · answer #7 · answered by duel1977 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's way over priced and most of the TV shows are either repeats or not worth watching. Would you still have to pay for a licence if you had a TV but only ever watched DVDs or videos and not actual programmes?
2006-09-18 05:35:12 · answer #8 · answered by suckaslug 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It annoys me as all the channels I like are either on Sky, or STV and CH4. I dont watch much on BBC and this is the rubbish we are paying the licence for. I would be happy if they could block me receiving any BBC channel and then I dont need to pay for a licence. Ofcourse they would never do this. RIP OFF BRITAIN
2006-09-18 05:35:32 · answer #9 · answered by shaunybhoy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the BBC should be opened up to competition and the fee should be reduced year on year so over the next ten years the BBC becomes fully self funding and we have no license fee at all to pay.
2006-09-18 05:29:39 · answer #10 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋