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?

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. 

...unless you're over 75, then you don't.

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.

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.

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. 

I know the CBC here is funded through our taxes itself.....

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...

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!!!

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?