Is my Licence Fee paying for this? And a related question for McQ.

The BBC should either offer itself as a subscription channel, or accept advertising. That way, if you have any issues with the way they operate or spend their money, you can simply not subscribe. It's the only way. Back when I lived in Britain, I had a TV on which I watched one or two cable channels very occasionally, but I mainly used it for DVDs and videos. I never got the urge to watch the BBC, I just didn't like it. Don't like their cultural/political slant, not a fan of BBC News and from what I gathered from friends who watched it, the thing is 90% trash reality/cooking/chat/makeover shows and repeats. 

The very idea of making me pay for something I had no intention of watching appalled me (in principle - I never once paid for a license ;)). I'm not saying they haven't made some great programs over the years, they have. But so have other channels, and they were either free or I decided to subscribe to them. 

SteveStrummerUK


Thanks Mike, that's great stuff, very interesting indeed.

My late Uncle worked in BBC production many years ago, all I remember of him was he had an enormous house!

Not Uncle Jimmy by any chance? Did he make you sit on his knee?

SteveStrummerUK


 
Part 1 - The Rant
 
I'm currently watching Pointless   
 

No wonder you started ranting.
 
TV productions cost money whether they ultimately serve to line the pockets of a broadcasting mogul like Simon Cowell or whether they are produced to generate funds for worthy causes the costs would be a factor for the BBC either way.

The poiint is these telethons to raise large amounts for the causes they champion, of that there is no doubt.  I get the common cynicism that some of the celebrities that appear on them could easily just give vast amounts of money to those causes but I don't consider it to be a valid argument against these types of things.  Many well-off people have philanthropic aspects to distrubuting their wealth that none of us get to hear about, giving (or not) should be an individual thing.
 
The proportion of license fee that goes into making these kinds of things will be easily obtainable from the corporation by the simple means of asking them.  They have a public duty to make them things known.  If you were really interested you could always ask.
 
So are you saying you don't mind your licence fee being spent say on Andrew Lloyd Weber finding a lead star, building up a public profile for them whilst not having to pay the going rate for an established star, for one of his massive earning West End productions yet you object to a proportionally reduced fee being spent to generate/raise 10s of millions of £'s for more worthy causes?
 
Many people enjoy taking part any many recieve direct benefit of those efforts so where is the problem (other than having to watch another side-splitting, annual Lenny Henry performance)?
 
As far as this goes the UK population is the 2nd most giving behind Thailand for donating cash to causes, it's part of a tradition that dates back before the WI started holding Whist Drives and the Telethons certainly do their bit in reminding us all to do our bit.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary-sector-network/2011/dec/20/world-giving-index-2011
 
 
What we'd lose by not having a publically funded broadcasting corporation is still far to horrific to contemplate as far as I'm concerned, and I might have criticisms of the corporation but its social conscience and fund raisers are not high on my list of complaints.
 
The fact that they ever paid someone of the likes of Jonathan Ross actual real money, let alone the amounts involved, in the past shows something far more worrying IMO.
 
 
If you want a good example of the differences between the Beeb and a commercial broadcaster then listen to something like the saccharine Classic FM where good classical music is defined by whether you can whistle it in the bath and the best exponents have to resemble porn stars to be any good, and then compare it with Radio 3.  Same target audience one has commercial pressure from sponsors to take into account the other doesn't.  One plays the 2nd movement of Rachmininov's Piano Concerto No2 a dozen times a week (nice as it is) and one plays a dozen different pieces you've never even heard of before in the same time span. Can you tell the difference?

I'm interested now to find out how much of the fee payers money goes toward fund-raisers thereby becoming an involuntary direct contribution perhaps to a cause I haven't elected to donate to.
 
I'd never really given it much thought before being as scheduled programming costs money to produce anyway.  I'm not sure I'll be that bothered when I do find out either given the alternative Friday and Saturday evening peak time tripe that's on offer elsewhere when the Beeb tends to screen its charitable stuff.
 
I mean if you have to produce drivel for that time slot anyway then why not produce drivel that has a far reaching benefit as a by-product?
 
Also, aren't 'Comic Relief' and 'Children in Need' merely agencies that direct donated money to other charities according to relevant and topical need by people that specialise in assessing that need on a case by case basis?  That money does go to different causes each year as a result or am I being naive thinking that?

trimph1


mmmm...can someone explain what these 'licenses' entail?

Is this another way of taxing someone for having a TV or is this right across the board?

It's a set fee that you have to pay every year for the "privilege" of owning an electrical appliance. The money is used to pay for the BBC, a corporation which is largely staffed by London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly. If you object to the BBC's content on principle, or if you just have no particular desire to watch the BBC whatsoever, or even if your sole use of the TV is to watch DVD's and play video games, you still have to pay for it. 

London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly.

 
Hmmm...
 
Funny, I've never heard them broadcast anything which shows such a clear one sided agenda in that way.
 
It's that kind of crap that seems to make the fee much more valuable than it would first seem on the face of it.
 
Yep, lets replace the Beeb with a Murdoch empire, heck it would be cheaper and you'd certainly be getting what you pay for, except you'd be subscribing over the odds for anything they deem as popular enough to charge a premium for.
 
The Beeb has short-comings for sure but I've yet to see the better alternative, and I've got the ridiculously priced Sky box and annual fees that enable me to speak knowledgeably on the alternatives out there already.
 
I don't live in London nor am I a luvvie either nor is there currently a major political persuasion in this country that wants to see the end of the Beeb.
The licence fee dates from a time when radio was in it's infancy in order to fund the infrastructure to make it all work, it's hung around during a World War and countless government changes because basically the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and even in the sattelite powered digital age.  It still has benefits when you see commercial magnates trying to forward even more obvious and deliberate political agendas, than the BBC gets accused of, that merely suit their bank balances.  Which is why you'll see countless UK folk like Strummy and myself still confirming we are happy to pay that fee.

Jonbouy

London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly.

 
Hmmm...
 
Funny, I've never heard them broadcast anything which shows such a clear one sided agenda in that way.
 
It's that kind of crap that seems to make the fee much more valuable than it would first seem on the face of it.
 
Yep, lets replace the Beeb with a Murdoch empire, heck it would be cheaper and you'd certainly be getting what you pay for, except you'd be subscribing over the odds for anything they deem as popular enough to charge a premium for.
 
The Beeb has short-comings for sure but I've yet to see the better alternative, and I've got the ridiculously priced Sky box and annual fees that enable me to speak knowledgeably on the alternatives out there already.
 
I don't live in London nor am I a luvvie either nor is there currently a major political persuasion in this country that wants to see the end of the Beeb.

You can't see a better alternative to forcing people, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for something which they may or may not want to consume? Fascinating 


Of course there's an alternative. Put the BBC out for subscription. If you want it, you'll pay for it. Of course they would have to strip themselves of 90% of the utter tosh that they put on now (bland sitcoms, reality/makeovers shows, banal daytime chat, drama-by-numbers, SadEnders and questionable "comedy") and concentrate on what they always did best (at one time) - documentaries and educational output. If people really want that, then they could pay the BBC a similar fee to the annual license fee, and although less money would be raised than they get now, they wouldn't have all of that expensive large-budget trash to produce. 


Another plus would be that the hundreds of millions that the disinterested would save on license fees would be money spent on things that they actually needed. 

jamesg1213


Agreed. 40 quid a month for 200 channels of utter sh1te, or a £145 per annum license fee. I'd happily pay it just for BBC4, and it doesn't start till 7pm.

Exactly.
 
I'd pay another £50 to pay for them to jam Fox News off the airwaves too...

Jonbouy

sharke

Jonbouy

London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly.

Hmmm...

Funny, I've never heard them broadcast anything which shows such a clear one sided agenda in that way.

It's that kind of crap that seems to make the fee much more valuable than it would first seem on the face of it.

Yep, lets replace the Beeb with a Murdoch empire, heck it would be cheaper and you'd certainly be getting what you pay for, except you'd be subscribing over the odds for anything they deem as popular enough to charge a premium for.

The Beeb has short-comings for sure but I've yet to see the better alternative, and I've got the ridiculously priced Sky box and annual fees that enable me to speak knowledgeably on the alternatives out there already.

I don't live in London nor am I a luvvie either nor is there currently a major political persuasion in this country that wants to see the end of the Beeb.

You can't see a better alternative to forcing people, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for something which they may or may not want to consume? Fascinating 


Of course there's an alternative. Put the BBC out for subscription. If you want it, you'll pay for it. Of course they would have to strip themselves of 90% of the utter tosh that they put on now (bland sitcoms, reality/makeovers shows, banal daytime chat, drama-by-numbers, SadEnders and questionable "comedy") and concentrate on what they always did best (at one time) - documentaries and educational output. If people really want that, then they could pay the BBC a similar fee to the annual license fee, and although less money would be raised than they get now, they wouldn't have all of that expensive large-budget trash to produce. 


Another plus would be that the hundreds of millions that the disinterested would save on license fees would be money spent on things that they actually needed. 

Yawn.
 
The fact is the UK is still a democracy last time I checked and the majority clearly still want the Beeb under it's current licencing model.
 
I don't know how democracy works where you live but that's how it works here.
 
I'll let you know when your current minority view becomes statutory here because of the overwhelming public outcry against it.
 
You lost any valid point when you made yourself look like a reactionary, right wing, redneck rodeo rider when you wrote this BS... London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly.

Yee-Haw!!!

So therefore you support the idea of throwing people in jail for refusing to pay for a TV broadcasting company whose content they may have no intention of consuming. Yawn indeed. That kind of oppression is starting to look old. 


The current fee is about £145. For a struggling family with two kids, that's a new pair of shoes for each of them every year. Or it might cover their heating costs over a cold winter. Of course, people like you would insist that you know what's best for them.


I note that you didn't actually make any arguments against the idea that I put forward, that of a stripped-down BBC that interested parties could pay for voluntarily. You just went right ahead with the "right wing rednecks" angle and threw in a reference to Fox News for good measure. Well for the record Jonbouy, I was born in the UK and spent the first 30 years of my life there. I know all about the BBC and the general "slant" that it takes on cultural and political matters. And no, I'm not a "right wing redneck." I'm a libertarian who believes in individual freedom (social and economic) and who believes that it's a direct abrogation of people's rights to coerce money out of people, under threat of physical violence (which after all is what any threat of imprisonment boils down to) in order to pay for a TV station that they may wish nothing to do with. 

You say "the majority clearly want the license fee." Is it really that clear? Let's take a look at some past polls:

2004: an ICM poll for Panorama found that 31% were in favour of the existing licence fee, 36% said the BBC should be paid for by a subscription, and 31% wanted advertising to pay for the programmes.

2008: an Ipsos MORI poll commissioned by the Guardian found that 41% agreed that the licence fee was an “appropriate funding mechanism”. 37% disagreed.

2009: In the Guardian/ICM Poll licence fee support also rose slightly to 43% amid doubt over commercial viability during a recession.

You may pull a more recent poll out of your hat which shows something more in favor of the license fee. Well, whoop-de-doo. The fact is that it is certainly not "a clear majority" on average. And yes, I believe in democracy. But it must be dampened by some kind of constitution, otherwise what you have is nothing more than mob rule. What if at some point in the future, Jonbouy, cultural or political forces prevailed such that the "majority" wanted to bring back slavery, or kick the Jews out, or otherwise oppress some other unfortunate minority? Would you still wave the flag of raw democracy? 

 
I found this, and it seems to make it clear that the BBC certainly does have the mandate...
 

---

 

About Charity Appeals

1 The purpose of charity appeals

The BBC has broadcast appeals for individual charities since 1923. Appeals are an important part of our remit as a public service broadcaster, and relate to the BBC's broader involvement in social action broadcasting, coverage of the work of the voluntary sector and policies on corporate social responsibility.
BBC broadcast appeals should reflect the diverse range of work being done by the charitable sector, and have three main purposes:
 
1.1 To provide information to our audiences about a wide range of charities which need their support. In doing so, the BBC recognises its responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual charities are financially sound and that donations will be used appropriately.
 
1.2 To encourage members of the public to give to charitable causes.
 
1.3 To give charities the opportunity to raise money and raise public awareness about their work.

 

2 The scope of charity appeals on BBC networks

The BBC Editorial Guidelines set out the scope of charity broadcast appeals on BBC networks, as described below. The Guidelines also state that, apart from these provisions, programmes should not endorse particular charities or make any appeal for funds.
In summary, the scope of charity appeals is:
 
2.1 Regular network broadcast appeals for individual charities that work across the UK. These are the weekly BBC Radio 4 Appeal and the monthly Lifeline appeals on BBC One. They are also appropriately supported by the BBC website, bbc.co.uk.
 
2.2 Specific fund-raising projects such as BBC Children in Need, Red Nose Day with Comic Relief and the annual Blue Peter appeal.
 
2.3 Special appeals when a serious emergency occurs. These include appeals on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), which is composed of UK charities involved in overseas relief work, when a serious emergency occurs abroad.
 
2.4 Appeals for charities working in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. These appeals are carried separately on BBC Scotland, BBC Wales, BBC Northern Ireland and BBC local radio in the English regions. Currently, BBC Scotland does not carry separate appeals.

 

3 Oversight of BBC charity appeals

Oversight of BBC charity appeals is the responsibility of the BBC's Executive Board. The Board is advised by the BBC's independent Charity Appeals Advisory Committee (AAC), which is made up of specialist external advisers who represent a broad range of interests across the charitable sector. In exercising this oversight, the Executive Board and the AAC recognise that:

• The BBC has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual charities featured in appeals are financially sound and that donations will be used appropriately.
• The BBC should provide clear and accessible information to charities about how to apply for an appeal, and about the criteria both for broadcast appeals and for grants from fund-raising projects such as BBC Children in Need.
• The charities are required to provide a clear account of how the money donated by the public has been spent. This should be reflected in reporting by the BBC.
• The following is a summary of the application process and oversight in relation to the range of appeals identified in section 2.

3.1 In relation to regular broadcast appeals (section 2.1), the responsibility for allocating these appeals rests with the Executive Board, which delegates this area of its work to the AAC. Application forms for the regular appeals are available from the BBC Charity Appeals Office. The AAC meets four times a year to assess applications against agreed criteria, and its recommendations are reported to the Executive Board. Successful applications are scheduled for an appeal within approximately a year.
 
3.2 In relation to specific fund-raising projects (section 2.2), these are subject to scrutiny by the AAC and the Executive Board. BBC Children in Need, the BBC Wildlife Fund, the BBC Performing Arts Fund, Comic Relief and Blue Peter provide regular reports to the AAC on their fund-raising policy and activities. In addition, proposals for major additional fund-raising projects are scrutinised by the AAC. The AAC's discussions are reported to the Executive Board, with further discussion or decision-making by the Board as required.
 
3.3 In relation to special appeals when a serious emergency occurs (section 2.3), requests for such appeals must be made through the BBC Charity Appeals Advisor and are approved by the Director-General of the BBC or his nominated deputy on behalf of the Executive Board.
 
3.4 Oversight of appeals in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regions is maintained by Appeals Advisory Committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The function of these bodies is to advise on the broadcasting of charity appeals and related issues in those nations, as well as the distribution of grants from the BBC Children in Need appeal. The Chairs of those committees or their nominated deputies are also members of the BBC Charity Appeals Advisory Committee.
 
 

sharke

trimph1


mmmm...can someone explain what these 'licenses' entail?

Is this another way of taxing someone for having a TV or is this right across the board?

It's a set fee that you have to pay every year for the "privilege" of owning an electrical appliance. The money is used to pay for the BBC, a corporation which is largely staffed by London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly. If you object to the BBC's content on principle, or if you just have no particular desire to watch the BBC whatsoever, or even if your sole use of the TV is to watch DVD's and play video games, you still have to pay for it. 

 
Completely wrong btw.
You need to check your facts here as you are clearly out of touch.
 
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/
 
 
 
You also are not grasping the fact the a stripped down BBC that would work as a subscription channel is completely missing the point.
 
It's not just about the bland sitcoms on BBC 1, all that you cite as being bad about the BBC would be all that remained.
 
All the local service stuff, the good radio stations, the public service stuff, the piloting of new media would be the stuff that doesn't survive without the commercial support of interested parties that would be the precisely what disappears.
 
It's then that those that complain about the service will realise what it is they've lost, but by then you'll never get it back.
 
Hopefully there's still more interest to be had out of broadcasting than merely generating sales.

Jonbouy


Oh, behave.  An erstwhile ex-pat decreeing to all else what's wrong with the Beeb from afar said that? 

There's a world of difference between pointing out that it's wrong to force people to pay for something they don't watch, and arguing that said obligation is somehow "good for them."
  

People don't get violently bullied or locked up for not having a licence, they get fined for using or owning unlicenced equipment which is capable of recieving broadcast media. 
They get sent to court for non-payment of fines in a case where they've been found using or owning that equipment without a licence.
Get rid of the equipment or get a licence if you don't want the fine, if you do get fined then it's your own fault just pay up. 

So in other words, "There'll be no violence, as long as you comply. If you don't comply, then the violence that ensues is entirely your own fault."

That's what it all boils down to. Of course the threat of imprisonment and violence is implied. What happens when you don't pay a fine? Ultimately, you go to jail. What happens if you don't want to go to jail? Why, they'll use physical force to make you go. No amount of spin changes that fact. You are obliged to purchase a "license" to use an appliance that you purchased with your own money from a vendor who does not demand any requirements from you other than the monetary value of the device. It's a perfectly legitimate trade of values between two mutually consenting parties, until the scumbags from the BBC and their state henchmen step in and extort money from you in the ridiculous guise of a "license" to own said device. What potential harm does your ownership of a TV pose anyone else? What potential cost does it impose upon anyone else? The BBC and it's state-enforced "mandate" to collect a fee from citizens is no better than a thug demanding "protection" money from business owners for a "security" service they didn't ask for. 
  
  

I notice you didn't like knee-jerk abusive labels yet you are still capable dishing crap like this out, I also note you didn't dismiss the right-wing tag. 

London-centric luvvie darlings of a particular political and cultural persuasion who guide the station's output accordingly. 
  
This line is still making me chortle, surely you're referring to ex Thatcherite Cabinet Minister Chris Patten in that description. 
  
The Fox News comment is directly relevant as it shows the openly brazen biased agenda that results from the commercially based broadcasters you are advocating the BBC should become. 

The BBC is quite capable of being every bit as biased as a commercial news station, and numerous prominent BBC stars have admitted as such. BBC director general Mark Thomas admitted that the BBC had been guilty of a "massive" left-wing bias. Jane Garvey once admitted that the corridors of the BBC were "littered with champagne bottles" after Blair's win in 1997. Even if their official line is that they aim to prevent bias, the fact remains that left-liberalism is the dominant ideology at the BBC, and it's impossible to hide that bias. I don't even blame them. I don't think news output can be unbiased. I have nothing against a news station being biased. The right has Fox News, the left has MSNBC (and the rest). The right has the Telegraph, the left has the Guardian. I have no trouble with that at all. The difference is that nobody is forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for the four examples I just cited.    
  

If nothing else the Beeb offers an alternative to that.  It should certainly change to reflect modern broadcasting technology, which it is, it should also make moves to be more profitable, which it does, and it is by no means perfect, but what organiziation is.  
  
But as you can probably tell by now I am passionately for it and the licence fee is currently cheaper than the baseline Sky package and I know for certain which one of those I'd drop first. 

OK, so you're passionately for the BBC. What possible objection could you have, then, to making the license fee voluntary for those who wish to watch it? The brunt of your argument, which you're really arguing passionately for, is that you feel that those who don't want to watch the BBC should be forced to pay for it anyway. If enough people want the BBC then they should have no trouble whatsoever in collecting sufficient subscription fees from those who wish to watch it. You made such a passionate stand for democracy in an earlier post. Well, here's democracy for you: if you support the BBC, you vote for it with your hard earned cash by purchasing a subscription. If you don't want the BBC, you vote against it by spending the money on something else. Forcing people to purchase a subscription against their wishes is the equivalent of forcing someone to vote for someone against their wishes. 

My views are clear, and so are yours, they differ somewhat.
 
I do believe that an industry that requires an infrastructure where commerce has no interest in supporting the same level of coverage for all should be facilited to some degree at a government level by public funding.
 
I'm not for nationalisation as such, but there are industries where the playing field needs levelling up a bit first because commerce would side-line complete sectors of the community.  Broadcasting is one of those areas to my mind and the BBC does a pretty good job of maintaining the pitch for everyone to play on even now.
 
I'd be sad to lose my Auntie for sure, even at a saving of £140 a year.
 
 

Jonbouy


My views are clear, and so are yours, they differ somewhat.
 
I do believe that an industry that requires an infrastructure where commerce has no interest in supporting the same level of coverage for all should be facilited to some degree at a government level by public funding.
 
I'm not for nationalisation as such, but there are industries where the playing field needs levelling up a bit first because commerce would side-line complete sectors of the community.  Broadcasting is one of those areas to my mind and the BBC does a pretty good job of maintaining the pitch for everyone to play on even now.
 
I'd be sad to lose my Auntie for sure, even at a saving of £140 a year.
 
 

But you could still have all that for £140 a year. It would involve the BBC shedding itself of all the trash culture and banal crap that they churn out for no other reason than ratings, and concentrating on what they do best, which is news, sport, documentary, kids TV (I'm talking Fingerbobs and Bagpuss, not the crap they churn out now) and highbrow period drama. This would slash their running costs dramatically and allow them to survive by a relatively small annual subscription paid for by those who wish to watch it. They could also sell any good shows they make to an international audience, as they do now. Instead, they have incredibly high running costs brought about by all the lowbrow trash fronted by overpaid big-name celebs, which they have to spit out to justify the fact that the majority of people from whom they extort money from (i.e. plebs) enjoy that sort of thing. It's a vicious circle.