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.

So it sounds like the BBC would have nothing to worry about if the mandatory license fee were scrapped. You'd pay for it voluntarily, and so would (I'm guessing) millions of others like you. However, those who have no interest in the BBC's output would be free to skip the charge and not receive the channel. Unarguably fair for all concerned. 

 
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
 
Of course, people like you would insist that you know what's best for them.

 
Oh, behave.  An erstwhile ex-pat decreeing to all else what's wrong with the Beeb from afar said that?
 
You've made your political views clear already.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 and which one offers the best value for my money.

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.

When did it become a function of government to make TV shows?

The got rid of our licence a while back because there was a mild uproar. Now the department of legalized theft takes the money the old fashioned way and we don't even get a chance to dodge the fee.


How much is the radio licence over there?

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. 

Jonbouy

  
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/
 
 

OK so I was wrong on that technicality. It does not change the brunt of my argument, which is that you are required to purchase a license even if you do not watch the BBC and have no intention of doing so. Whether you watch nothing but Sky or DVD, or do nothing but play video games, it's all the same. They all come under the umbrella of "everything but watching the BBC."       

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.
 
 

BBC 2 and BBC 4 are just about the only places where I can find decent music programs and I would say 80-90% of the other stuff I would go out of my way to watch when I am in the UK is on these channels.

While I am in Dubai I have access to a zillion commercial channels and can very seldom find any thing I want to watch. Looking at the differing perspectives in news coverage between the Local news channels, BBC, Sky, CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, NTV, Russian and Chinese news/propaganda channels can be interesting however.

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.