Is the UK TV Licence fee worth the money? Should it be scrapped ?

Answer 1

The BBC should be sold off to private enterprise. You have to be very suspicious of any country that wants to own television channels as their only use is proporganda purposes. As you can tell from the last few days where the BBC has ripped of the public because internally they view the taxpayer with contempt because lets face it the BBC is a sacred cow and they know they can treat the british public this way because the are dumb enough to put up with it. The BBC is full of left wing socialist on over bloated saleries that view the public as dumb tax payers. The other morning on BBC 1 Breakfast about 7 AM they had a news item showing people how to hang up cloths on a cloths line properly..... are the British Public that dumb that they will willing accept this type of garbage for £130 PY. Remember Alistar Campbell dictating to the BBC what they will be saying..... wimps.

Answer 2

No way is the licence fee value for money. The majority of shows on the BBC are repeats or tacky reality shows that are just ripping off ideas from Channel Four or ITV (who at least have the excuse that we're not funding them). I can't remember the last time there was a good film on the channel (ITV, on occasion, has managed to get a new release aired before Sky by buying the rights first). The only thing the BBC is good for is the news and even then, you can get equally as good quality news on ITV or Sky. Fifteen years ago, the licence fee might have been worth it to some degree as the BBC made an effort to made decent dramas but now we're paying for rubbish shows, egotistical TV presenters to travel the globe on our money and stupid digital channels that no-one watches when there are better channels out there. Watching the BBC and you honestly feel as if you'd have been better off just putting your money down the drain. The BBC should be made to air adverts to fund themselves if they want to keep going. However, with the abundance of better shows on Sky, I don't think anyone would cry if they just vanished.

Answer 3

You bet it is. Do you want someone like Murdoch to have a complete monopoly of propaganda. The ones who shout loudest for this are the ones who will make the most money.

In USA you can not see a TV programme without it being interrupted by an advert. This would creep in here.
What the BBC needs is less interference by government to report the news as it is. Remember the reaction to the Kelly programme which was except for minor errors true. Murdoch would have suppressed it and none of us would have known. It is sad that BBC governors backed down in the face of Gov. hostility it has done their reputation little good.

I also think that the BEEB Will have to take a more vigorous view on "Artistic Licence" in documentaries. This must be a form of self censorship not government or government guidelines censorship

Answer 4

I used to despise paying the TV licence. But then I began to realise the great stuff that would have never appeared on TV if it wasnt for the way the beeb is funded. Such as " Little Britain, Monty Python, The Office, Black Adder, Monkey Dust, the list goes on"

But then again theres "Eastenders" on it, so in that case scrap the bloody thing.

Answer 5

I wonder why we cant have a meter usage only pay when you watch - so long as they keep fee no higher than annual fee devided by 52 divided by 7, devided by 24 etc charging weekly, daily or hourly amount then I think it would be a lot more user friendly, as none of us watch 24/7.

Channels without adverts all round - let the advertisement channels only pay for our tv usage I say. I do think it is customers choice whether they want to be exposed to sales bumpf. Sales people should only be allowed into your home by invitation. I think we should start saying that they got to pay the viewer to watch. Lets turn the tables round a bit.

Answer 6

Without a known amount of money you can't plan; which means it's difficult to invest in decent programmes. The price of the BBC is low compared to SKY, etc, and they do make a lot of quality stuff. I watch some, there's a lot that I don't watch. If the only programmes made were the ones to rely on advertising and subscription then it would be down to i) all programmes being cheap and nasty telly; ii) everything being subscription - you only watch what you pay for. The problem with this is that you would never see anything really new - only more of what you already pay for.

Answer 7

Even if you don't WATCH broadcast TV there's nothing like having a TV around when you get the urge to catch something that's on - plus, I think I would go insane if I couldn't relax and watch a good DVD now and then. So I would need to have a TV.

On the other hand I think a TV License is outrageous. Just the idea of it makes me ANGRY. I think it's wrong. Horribly WRONG & evil.

SCRAP IT!!!!!!

Answer 8

Yes it's great to have tv without adverts. However, the BBC should decide whether their funding is going to be via the licence or via premium rate competition phone lines.

Answer 9

I gave up watching t.v. years ago and watch only d.v.ds and videos. I really object to the harrassment I receive through the post from the licensing people even after I have repeatedly telephoned them to tell them of my decision. Their communications are rude and threatening and, if anything, confirm my decision to avoid t.v. with it's plethora of soaps, sport and general rubbish in which I have not the slightest interest. I only wish they would get on and make the "inspection" they are constantly threatening so I could tell them what I think of the garbage they are transmitting.

Answer 10

Well they could always use the money they embezzled from Comic Relief and Children In Need to fund it. Get rid of it, it's just another bloody British rip off