I don't have a tv for the plain reason that I can't afford the telly licence, and I have told them but we still get nasty letters from them. I appreciate that the BBC is a nice little thing, like they provide education and entertainment, but it's not worth the cost of the television each year.
2006-11-26 12:37:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by floppity 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
The BBC is the oldest broadcasting service in the world and was founded with a mandate to put over the airwaves programmes that were informative, educational and entertaining. Scrapping the licence fee would leave the BBC in the same position as ITV whereby it would need to air shows to the lowest common denominator in order to earn advertising revenue.
Over the years the BBC comedy department has proved consistently superior to ITV. Fawlty Towers, Steptoe and Son, One Foot in the Grave, Only Fools and Horses, Red Dwarf, Blackadder, Not the Nine o'Clock News, Have I got News for You, The Young Ones, Are you Being Served, 'Allo 'Allo, Waiting for God, The Good Life, To the Manor Born and Yes, Minister are just a few of the outputs that are considered amongst the finest comedies in the world and are viewed still by millions around the world and earn UK TV Gold a lucrative living even today. ITV comedies, with the exception of Man about the House, George and Mildred, the Benny Hill Show and On the Buses are not as memorable.
The BBC has a good drama department too but I agree that ITV is equal to it; Pride and Prejudice compares to Brideshead Revisited and vice versa, Doctor Who to Sharpe.
You are neglecting to mention the role of BBC Radio, which is free. Radio2 is the most listened to station in Europe, and whilst I agree that Radio1 should be radically reformed and its current presenters dragged out and horse-whipped through the streets of Canterbury, Radio 4 provides a service which is enjoyed throughout the land and is vital for shipping. The World Service is for millions the only source of truthful news reporting available, so much so that before now being caught listening to the BBC has carried a death penalty in some countries.
I do agree that the BBC is overbloated and has too many empty suits doing jobs that only detriment to the creative side. It does not need policy coordinators, nor diversity awareness counsellors etc and yes it does spend disproportionately on stations that have little audience. BBC Parliament should be amalgamated with BBC Four and the two childrens' channels should be brought under one umbrella.
On Channel 4 tonight was:
5:50 Deal or No Deal.
6:40 Codex
7:40 News
8:00 Ghostbusters
10: Maddonna
11:45 8 Out of 10 Cats
12:20 Late Night Poker
Which means a creativity factor of 2 1/2 hours directly attributable.
On BBC1:
6:45 Antiques Roadshow
7:35 News
8:00 The Great British Summer
9:00 Planet Earth
10 News
10:15 Panorama
10:55 BBC Sessions: The Who
11:45 Tough Guys
Which in a shorter timespan gives a factor of 4 hours and 25. Factoring in time for advertisement, the BBC is producing twice as much output as Channel 4. Another 5 hours on BBC2 shows the value.
Although we do live in a multi-channel age many do not produce their own output and are dependent on British and American networks for their programming. Do you want to see a stream of endless repeats or do you want new ideas?
In short were we to make the BBC earn its pay by advertising the variety and possibly quality of programming would drop. Whilst I agree that the license fee is currently too high this is a matter for a parliamentary committee to recommend cutting some of the ersatz managerial positions at the BBC and letting it be run by the truly creative people, and for parliament to act upon forcibly.
A national broadcaster has to have a variety of programming and must be all things to all men. If you have only a limited repertoire you have only a limited audience.
I'd like to know where you got your figure of 5000 people from. I've worked in big-scale coms and just the technicians needed very nearly came to that, and we were nowhere near as big as the BBC.
2006-11-26 13:13:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by prakdrive 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Why should we have to pay a tv licence.
I never watch bbc. it is total rubbish. Also, i never watch itv, c4 or c5.
I only watch the ntl channels. like paramount and mtv etc.
And yet i am paying for this stupid tv licence, So that the bbc can pay their hosts million, their managers even more and throw a couple of pennys to the other channels.
It doesn't make any sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I pay ntl £50.00 a month for my tv, phone and broadband. And it is a good service. SO, WHY OH GOD WHY do i have to pay the F****** BBC this DAMN TV license?
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They do not deserve my money!
Its like car insurance, you pay them all that money, have no accidents throughout the year. Surely you should get something back! But no, what do you get?
A discount of your next years insurance. They are making money for nothing!
And if you do have an accident, they increase your premiums? I don't get it. You pay them to cover you if you have an accident, that's the service they are providing.
And yet they increase your premiums. Why?
How is it that the whole country is full of this CRAP, and we sit back and take it up the what not?!!!!!!!!!
I think that the BBC should stop wasting my money and go to hell.
I think that the TV licence should only be applicable if you are an employee of the bbc, like
Jonathon £10million Ross
or
Terry £8 million Wogan.
The BBC channels should release their own set top box and only be available via this box and the cost of the box should cover their costs.
That way anyone who doesn't have CRAPPY BBC, will not have to pay them a penny!!!!!!!!!
The BBC are NAZIs. They should be attacked. Someone should tell George Bush that the BBC have lots of OIL, then Bush can destroy the BBC claiming that they may or may not harbour weapons of mass destruction.
Or, someone should invent a CRAPOMETER, then a law should be passed, stating that any channel or broadcasting company that falls below the targets set by the CRAPOMETER will be fined and jailed then sodomised by Water Buffalos and beaten with BSE infected Cricket bats wrapped with barb wire.
I think that the BBC will either close down quickly or fall victim to the CRAPOMETER laws.
This crapometer should also extend to
insurance companies,
traffic wardens,
Gas and Elec' companies who put up their prices for no actual reason except that they want more money.
cold callers,
Hoodies,
late postmen,
mp's,
late transport,
STUPIDLY Over priced, diabetes inducing KRISPY KREME donuts!
people who use the race card or sexuality card,
political correctness,
speed cameras,
FAKE pollice - community support officers,
Real police who can't or won't do their job and instead fine people for swearing instead of catching murderers and rapists.
People who use their fingers to emphasise inverted commas,
Income support, should be changed, you get 6 months after that you're on you're own!
The PM,
The Royal Family,
Duty/Tax on foreign Cigarettes/Drink.
Gordon BLOODY Brown.
And The stupidly expensive, -have you learnt nothing from the millenium dome -2012 Olympics and that annoying stupid, money wasting Mayor Livingston.
I think that covers it all.
All this and to think it all started of with the Bloody BBC TV licence.
2006-11-26 13:54:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by mohsinmalikuk 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
To many people forget that the BBC does more than produce TV. The radio and online services are world leading and to consume both of these, you don't need a TV licence.
bbc 1 and 2 may have lost their way but bbc radio and bbc.co.uk are great
2006-11-30 09:27:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by G B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No and No.
I think the input of the BBC is vital to keep the national interests promoted, and not the interests of those who might happen to own whichever commercial stations may be in place. And yes I am implying BOTH Murdoch AND Branson in that - they are both as bad as the other I suspect.
In addition I have been watching the BBC for many years, and still think their output is every bit as good as the commercial stations.
But I also agree with you that Channel 4 is also very good too.
2006-11-26 12:43:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The BBC is a good service and has had many good years but the TV licence fee is an old and very out-dated system, the money we pay for the licence is too much in comparison to the rubbish which is churned out on the 5 terrestial channels.
2006-11-28 16:08:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by HellBound 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Are you just on crack!!
have you ever visited the BBC website? do you like watching adverts?
Channel 4 is very good, i wouldn't wana pay for it i tell you that - but have you eva watched their news!! they have far left, far right and centre ground reports all in the same program!! Its a bit random (however entertaining) and shows you just how much your opinions can change by the method and rhetoric of news readers.
2006-11-27 01:09:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by speedball182 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No and no.
Channel 4 produces some good programmes but you obviously haven't noticed it's a publicly owned corporation with a public service remit. It's not a purely commercial organisation.
2006-11-27 07:41:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Huh? 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes:....It should definately be scrapped!! and
They already advertise things like 'you tube' for example......They also make a lot of money via the 'phone-ins' like 'strictly come dancing' etc. I think it is a travesty that we have to still pay!! Especially when all we get is poor programing, left wing biased news and are told that we must pay or be a criminal!!!! Isn't it great to live in a democracy!?!???
2006-11-28 10:47:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by kbw 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes and that's always been the case so with their new request for the licence to go up again has been turned down and they have lost M Grade perhaps there might be a rethink with a new man at the helm but dont hold your breath
2006-11-29 07:33:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by srracvuee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋