back to article Abolish the Telly Tax? Fat chance, say MPs at non-binding debate

Britons simply don't understand that "public sector broadcasting" is a "good for all society", a Labour MP lamented during a Westminster Hall debate on TV licensing. In spite of the dozen or so MPs who spoke during the 2.5-hour session, the debate managed to almost completely bypass the question of repealing the Telly Tax, as …

  1. unwarranted triumphalism

    Threatogram received from Crapita today

    Duly binned unread.

    Supporters of the Beeb probably think that nonsmokers should be made to pay tobacco duty.

    1. Christoph Silver badge

      Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

      Did it have their new bit on the outside, demanding that you tell them when your house is going to be empty?

      1. K Silver badge

        Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

        I was getting letters on a weekly basis, and some hand-delivered notices.. whilst I refuse to kowtow to their demands, I just got fed up, and actually found an easy way to stop the harassment - I dropped them a 1 line email containing my house number, postcode and a few words stating I don't watch TV. Suddenly the letters and threats stopped..

        1. unwarranted triumphalism

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          It doesn't stop the threatograms forever.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          Did you explicitly withdraw your consent to their further processing your personal data?

        3. macjules Silver badge
          Big Brother

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          I dropped them a 1 line email containing my house number, postcode and a few words stating I don't watch TV.

          But why even bother to do that? Giving Capita your email address house number and postcode provides them with a lot of marketing information about you which they will then sell on.

          I simply let the paperwork pile up and when Capita come to call I show them the licence and shout "Darling, let the dogs loose now".

          1. Danny 14 Silver badge

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            he didnt say it was hus REAL address.

            its easy to tpyo

          2. Timbo

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            "I simply let the paperwork pile up and when Capita come to call I show them the licence and shout "Darling, let the dogs loose now"."

            If you have a TV LIcence, then why are you getting letters from TVL/Crapita???

            Are you implying that Crapita's database is out of date and perhaps even has errors....no wonder the licence is £145, if licence payers are forking out for all the paper, envelopes, printing AND postage !!

        4. streaky Silver badge

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          I dropped them a 1 line email containing my house number, postcode and a few words stating I don't watch TV. Suddenly the letters and threats stopped..

          This does work... for a time.. then it starts again. Eventually they stop reading your emails/letters and decide that you can't possibly be not watching TV because nobody does that. I usually just wait for them to show up and tell them to go fuck themselves, they normally get the message.

          1. GhilleDhu
            Devil

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            When I moved in to my first flat I couldn't afford a telly let alone anything else. So I dutifully sent back the nope I don't have a license part of the form.

            After a few months the man in a fake van came round, and demanded I let him enter my flat. I told him politely to leave as I didn't have a telly and therefore I didn't need a license and I didn't give him permission to enter my door...

            Fast forward easily 6 months of the same man popping around, just when i'd got home, or when I was entertaining etc. Finally one lovely Sat morning I was away to pull open the curtains when I spotted him trunching up the path to the block of flats. Quick as a flash I stripped out of my PJ's, turned on the shower and waited. Soon enough there was a knock at the door, took a quick glimpse to make sure it was the right person, confirmed and swung the door widely open.

            Now the vision of a 6"2 reasonably fat bloke starkers was definitely not what he was expecting. I asked him what he wanted and he stammered out that he was here to check if I had a TV license.... I said I've already told you I don't own a telly but if you're sure you want to check go right ahead.

            As he came in I shut the main door, and followed him closely around as he scanned around my rooms for anything telly like. He asked if I PC monitor had a telly input, I told him go take a look and let him feel really uncomfortable as he had a look behind. At that point the kettle pinged and I suggested he might want a cup of tea... He was out of there in no time at all, and I never saw him or another one again. When the missus came home I told her what happened and I got in trouble, but I still laugh at the memory of it.

            Note: This was before the days of catch up, so couldn't have watched anything on the PC unless it was on a CDROM :).

      2. unwarranted triumphalism

        Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

        I didn't notice. I'll check the next one; the threatograms will arrive in greater numbers now that they have stopped believing that I don't watch telly..

        1. JimboSmith Silver badge

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          Got a letter at work and I called them up as the option that covered our situation didn't exist on their website. I said yes we have a TV (two in fact) but no aerial connection to them. We don't really use them except for demonstrations where we need a big screen. The bloke said "You could have just have ticked another box you know" but that wouldn't be correct and I said so. I suggested that they should add another option which was just "other" with a space for your own explanation. He said that they'd be in contact in 12 months time to see if anything had changed. I said don't bother but I'll put money on them doing that.

          At one place I temped at they were moving out of the building as the entire row of offices were going to be demolished. This was at the end of the licence period and at the new offices there was no TV so the redirected reminders and red ink letters went in the bin. The demolition crew apparently were very surprised when a bloke from Crapita/TVL turned up looking for the business.

    2. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

      Dunno about threats, I'll watch this space as a couple of months ago I informed them that I had stopped watching TV (which is true - damn all worth watching, and I was wasting too much of my life channel hoping in the hope of finding something to watch)

      Only irritation is that I am an honest citizen so I don't watch anything on iPlayer, even when there is the occasional odd program of interest - and I can't watch S4C on catch-up as that's on iPlayer too.

      I'll just stick to the Grand Sumo highlights on catch-up on NHK world.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

        Of all the taxes I pay the tv licence is the only one that goes on something I approve of, and it's a tiny fraction of the amount of taxes I pay, from PAYE through to VAT. I pay it happily because I've seen what's on Sky, I see the crap that passes for informative TV on 5 and it's clear that the quality of content would plummet without the BBC.

        Bunch of cheapskates.

        1. K Silver badge

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          @sabroni - Your entitled to the BBC, but at the moment others are subsiding your past-times.. consumers of the service (and only them) should pay for this. Though if you're happy to subsidize my past-times (porn and travelling) then I'll happily contribute to the BBC license fee!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            I don't go to school. I think it's an utter outrage that my taxes should support those who do.

            Being fit and healthy, I don't use hospitals. They should all be abolished.

            I'm not elderly. Those who are should just put up or shut up.

            etc.

            1. unwarranted triumphalism

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              The BBC is not a public service, it's a source of (shit) entertainment.

              The fact that you are trying to conflate the two tells me everything I need to know about you.

              1. strum Silver badge

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                >The fact that you are trying to conflate the two tells me everything I need to know about you.

                The fact that you are unable to recognise the quality that the Beeb produces (amongst more populist fare) speaks volumes about you.

            2. Oh Homer
              Mushroom

              Re: "I don't go to school"

              Maybe if you did then you'd understand that what you subjectively characterise as "entertainment" is not an essential public utility, it's not a human right, and it doesn't make the difference between life or death ... or even between comfort and squalor. It's completely non-essential, of purely subjective value, and those who have absolutely no interest in it whatsoever should not be harassed into paying for it. Period.

              A better analogy would be if everyone were forced by law to pay Cineworld for the benefit of a largely adolescent minority who religiously visit the cinema to watch endless streams of Transformers sequels, on the basis that "you might one day decide to go watch a film at Cineworld", even though you haven't been anywhere near a cinema in well over a decade.

              Would you find that acceptable?

              No, then why the fuck should I be forced to fund your hobby?

              1. strum Silver badge

                Re: "I don't go to school"

                >No, then why the fuck should I be forced to fund your hobby?

                Oh dear. The anti-intellectuals are out in force today.

                Close all libraries (they can use Kindle).

                Close all parks (they can grow their own gardens).

                Close all public schools/universities (they can go to Eton).

                What a sorry country this would be, if people like you had their way.

            3. 9Rune5

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              "I don't go to school. I think it's an utter outrage that my taxes should support those who do.

              Being fit and healthy, I don't use hospitals. They should all be abolished."

              I agree. The government should focus on the important stuff, and leave the nonsense public broadcasting lark to the private sector.

          2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            "consumers of the service (and only them) should pay for this"

            I haven't been to the doctors in years, why should I pay for the NHS?

            I haven't had any issues with crime, why should I pay for the police?

            I haven't had a fire, why should I pay for the fire service?

            I haven't had any foreign countries try to attack me, why should I pay for the armed forces?

            And if you want to go only down the hobby/entertainment route, I don't watch the olympics, yet I had to pay towards them when they came to the UK, and probably every time they are on. Probably the same with football etc. too.

            Some things are deemed to be in the national interest. And, strictly, paying the TV license is not "paying for the BBC", it's paying for the privilege of watching TV. You don't have to watch TV if you don't want, so you don't have to pay for a TV license. Just like you don't need to have a car, so don't have to pay road fund license.

            1. TRT Silver badge

              Re: The crap that's on channel 5...

              Last night was a gruesome schedule. The Apprentice. Peaky Blinders. I'm a Celebrity. Lifers Behind Bars. Raped: My Story.

              And on the plethora of other channels:

              Something about Jamie Bulger, something about getting back with your ex, something about Death Row, something about The Zodiac Killer...

              It makes me wonder if there's a reason to live anymore? I didn't get as far as the music channels, but I'm willing to bet there was a 12 hour homage to The Smiths on one channel, and My Music:Tracey Chapman on the other.

              1. Jess

                Re: The crap that's on channel 5...

                Peaky Blinders is excellent. (But also available on Netflix, if you don't mind waiting.) But whenever I'm in the Premier Inn (Abysmal wifi, that only seems to stay connected for more than a couple of minutes on Linux or BB10, limiting your options for streaming) I do confirm I'm not missing much by not having a TV licence at home.

              2. strum Silver badge

                Re: The crap that's on channel 5...

                >Last night was a gruesome schedule. The Apprentice. Peaky Blinders. I'm a Celebrity. Lifers Behind Bars. Raped: My Story.

                At the same time as Peaky Blinders, BBC4 had the excellent "Digging for Britain" (with lots of skeletons & skulls).

            2. technoise

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              Dr. Mouse:

              "I haven't been to the doctors in years, why should I pay for the NHS?

              I haven't had any issues with crime, why should I pay for the police?

              I haven't had a fire, why should I pay for the fire service?

              I haven't had any foreign countries try to attack me, why should I pay for the armed forces?"

              How does something that preserves life, or defends it, like the NHS, the fire service, or the military, equate to an entertainment service? And why should we be forced to pay for information we aren't necessarily interested in, or agree with?

              If you think this hand-picked entertainment and information is so essential that we all have to pay for it, why don't we all pay for all the other information and entertainment out there? And why is this payment necessary for us to see all the other stuff that this tax doesn't pay for, and for which we have to pay extra?

              The whole idea of the TV licence is a nonsense, but it represents a large pot of money (£3.7 billion per year, not 40p a day) that the establishment of this country appears to be so addicted to, that they continually support it within the Westminster bubble.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                "How does something that preserves life, or defends it, like the NHS, the fire service, or the military, equate to an entertainment service? "

                Because its aim is to enrich life, which is just as important as preserving it.

                "And why should we be forced to pay for information we aren't necessarily interested in, or agree with?"

                Because somebody else might be interested in it, or starved of other sources of information through no fault of their own.

                I'm happy to pay it.

                Sidenote - El Reg's anti-BBC/license fee bias has always struck me as really odd. Although the last few times we've had calls to our press office from them they've been american journalists, so maybe that explains it...

                1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

                  Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                  "Because its aim is to enrich life, which is just as important as preserving it."

                  Just as important, eh?

                  I'll remember that next time you're lying in agony on a gurney in an NHS hospital with a suspected appendicitis and there are no beds available but 50 million(?) was found to EVALUATE that lovely Garden Bridge and those other "cultural" enrichments that the bubble dwellers think we need. The BBC is a "nice to have"

                  1. Volvic

                    Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                    A strawman argument, eh?

                    The duty to enrich the lives of your citizens is just as important as the duty to protect them, yes. And I'm happy to pay money to help do both. Life without information and entertainment is not life, it's just existing. Your comments about the Garden Bridge are irrelevant to the topic at hand, but on the internet a reasonable discussion without ludicrous hyperbole is a "nice to have".

                    1. SundogUK

                      Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                      "The duty to enrich the lives of your citizens is just as important as the duty to protect them"

                      Fuck off. The government has a duty to obey the will of the people and nothing else.

              2. strum Silver badge

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                >If you think this hand-picked entertainment and information is so essential that we all have to pay for it, why don't we all pay for all the other information and entertainment out there?

                because it's a lot less trustworthy (being dependent on some oligarch's whim).

                > it represents a large pot of money (£3.7 billion per year, not 40p a day) that the establishment of this country appears to be so addicted to, that they continually support it within the Westminster bubble.

                ...and the British population do, too.

              3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                "How does something that preserves life, or defends it, like the NHS, the fire service, or the military, equate to an entertainment service? And why should we be forced to pay for information we aren't necessarily interested in, or agree with?"

                You mean like museums, youth clubs, parks and things? Or the many many other "entertainment" things paid for by taxes of one sort or another?

            3. OurAl

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              I don't have to pay £145 annually to ASDA, so that I can eat food supplied from Tesco.

              I don't have to pay the road tax to Ford, so that I can buy a Vauxhall

              If the BBC is so popular, why is it not funded through subscribing, just like Sky.

              1. Timbo

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                "If the BBC is so popular, why is it not funded through subscribing, just like Sky."

                EXACTLY.

                Let the BBC become a subscription service, added to your Sky/Virgin "bundle" and ensure BBC subscriber cards are available for people watching on Freeview/Freesat.

                If the other channels want to go to a subscription model, then let them. Then we all have free choice as to what we want to watch.

                Personally, I don't want to subsidise Strictly Apprentice Chris Evans Bake Off Roadshow as a result of maybe wanting to see something on Sky or Netflix.

                I have a TV and an aerial point in the house - so what's the betting even if I declared that I don't watch "TV", someone from Crapita will decree that I *could* watch TV via an aerial cable, if that was bought for 69p from Wilko's...spare me the hassle, P-Leese....

            4. HmmmYes Silver badge

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              Well, all the above are services useful in the modern world.

              The BBC just is not essential, useful, unique or good anymore.

              At least let me discount my Netflix subs against the tax.

            5. TheTor

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              Some things are deemed to be in the national interest. And, strictly, paying the TV license is not "paying for the BBC", it's paying for the privilege of watching TV. You don't have to watch TV if you don't want, so you don't have to pay for a TV license. Just like you don't need to have a car, so don't have to pay road fund license.

              No it isn't. Its for watching live broadcasts (or any beeb content) on any device. I can watch dvds, netflix, et all, on my TV completely licence free.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                Not sure why you were down voted, some people are just imbeciles I guess.

                Of course you can watch Netflix without paying for a licence. I wrote back telling Crapita exactly that and haven't missed the BBC's anti-straight male agenda and biased reporting one fucking bit.

                I don't appreciate having LGBT shit shoved down my throat at every opportunity, so I decided to not fund it.

                When I do occasionally watch TV, I watch YouTube for my news and music, with an ad-blocker that I disable when I feel like watching ads (occasional ads are quite useful/entertaining), and I also pay for the much better value Netflix and choose exactly what to watch, which incidentally also has a few of the better BBC dramas/documentaries.

          3. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today @K

            Though if you're happy to subsidize my past-times (porn and travelling) then I'll happily contribute to the BBC license fee!

            It may surprise you, but currently everyone who pays for a TV licence does sort of subsidize your pastimes! Without the licence fee, there would be no Freeview service and thus no free-to-air "Adult" and Travel channels...

            Remember the TV licence fee is something the government charges people who want to receive TV, regardless of the channels watched. The government has in a separate decision decided to ring-fence the revenues generated from the licence fee and give them in their entirety to the BBC.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today @K

              Wrong! It's for receiving BBc content live or by download. RTFM!

        2. Goldmember

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          "Bunch of cheapskates."

          Not really. It all depends on what you want to watch.

          18 months ago I cancelled all services and switched exclusively to non-iPlayer streaming - some paid for, some free - and I've never looked back. But back in the days of me having broadcast TV at home, I only really ever watched the F1, a few Sky Atlantic and HBO dramas (Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones etc) and car-related shows (Wheeler Dealers, Fast 'n' Loud). None of which were available on the BBC. And yet, I still had to pay the ridiculous licence fee to watch all of this stuff, on top of the extortionate Sky subscription.

          So no, it's nothing to do with being "cheap", it's all to do with being FORCED to pay for a particular media network's entertainment output, even if you have no intention of using it and only want to watch commercial output (note the word Entertainment here, before anyone pipes up with the stupid "how often do you go to hospital? You're happy to pay for that and not use it" argument).

          It's great that you're happy to pay for the BBC. If the government ever see sense (a paradox, I know) and decides to switch it to a subscription-only service, you can enjoy paying for it. But I shouldn't have to.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            I think that you're missing the point. In NZ we abolished the TV Licence fee years ago. Net result saturation advertising and just another channel largely catering to the LCD.

            If a TV station has to depend on advertising revenue for income then independence goes out the window and with it programme quality.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

              1. SundogUK

                Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                "not only will the free channels that exist lower their standards.."

                Why?

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

                  1. Mr Han

                    Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

                    Why Don't You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go Out and Do Something Less Boring Instead?

            2. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              From NZ: the tele had ads AND the licence fee, so don't create a misconception.

              And all our (local) programming was shite. It was like 95% of French films: made just to keep people employed and because there was funding available.

              Sky is NOT the only model. Netflicks is.

              And isn't that why there's (I believe) ads on iplayer?

            3. SundogUK

              Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

              "...with it programme quality."

              Bollocks. The best TV being made today is coming from the US, hardly a bastion of non-commercial TV.

        3. Oh Homer

          Re: "something I approve of"

          Your subjective reasoning is non sequitur.

          Why should those who don't "approve of" the garbage that passes for modern day TV entertainment be endlessly harassed, intimidated and treated like criminals?

          And no, contacting the TVL does not stop the harassment, it only ensures that the next threatogram is addressed to e.g. "Mr. Smith" instead of "The Legal Occupier". I speak from personal experience.

          It's not like I oppose taxation -- I'm a lifelong socialist and Labour Party member, after all -- but taxes are supposed to be for essential public utilities, not something that subjectively qualifies as "entertainment".

          I don't particularly care how many starry-eyed sentimentalists eulogise the BBC. I. DO. NOT. WANT. IT. Why the fuck should I be expected to pay for it?

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. strum Silver badge

            Re: "something I approve of"

            >Why should those who don't "approve of"

            Why should those who don't approve deprive the rest of us?

        4. Sirius Lee

          Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

          "it's clear that the quality of content would plummet without the BBC"

          The BBC is the 800lb gorilla the the UK sitting room. Other UK terrestrial TV companies have to find ways to entice advertisers while the BBC is stealing their ideas. Was the BBC the first to have a nightly soap opera? No. Was it the firs to have a dancing competition? No. But the BBC barges in and takes away viewers from commercial TV providers using our money to do so.

          Is it any wonder the offerings of commercial TV providers is lack-lustre when they have to find a way to profitability with a state funded (we *are* the state) broadcaster in the sitting room? If they had more revenues they probably would provide a wider range and better quality of content.

          Is it any wonder that the free view channels are stuffed with US content providers who do not need to compete with a state funded content provider.

          Sure, have a public service broadcaster but have one that fills niches not occupied by commercial companies, such as Sky at Night or University Challenge, rather than steal other's good ideas. May be then we will have a wider choice of excellent content.

          1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            @Sirius Lee.

            Er, yeah, the BBC were the first to broadcast 'soap operas',.... ON THE RADIO. The BBC broadcast a soap on telly in 1954, a year before ITV came online.

            Dancing comps,.... oh, dear, .. 'Come dancing' was first broadcast in 1950.

            Please retract the falsehoods in your post and adjust your attitude accordingly.

          2. strum Silver badge

            Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today

            >the BBC is stealing their ideas

            Over the decades, the BBC has invented a lot more TV 'standards' than all the others put together.

            >Was the BBC the first to have a nightly soap opera?

            Actually - yes (on radio).

            >Was it the firs to have a dancing competition?

            Pretty much. Having invented the Come Dancing brand, back in the 50s.

            >Sure, have a public service broadcaster but have one that fills niches not occupied by commercial companies, such as Sky at Night or University Challenge, rather than steal other's good ideas.

            Deary me. University Challenge was one of the very few ideas 'stolen' from ITV (after ITV ditched it).

  2. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    "Least worst option"

    Yes, that's all we seem to get from our elected "leaders" these days isn't it. The "least worst option".

    Lazy bunch of shysters with not one ounce of gumption or willing to see if there is a better option than what is currently in place. So I made my own decision... I willfully haven't paid for a TVL for four years and don't intend to... and to be honest, I don't miss broadcast TV one bit.

    1. streaky Silver badge

      Re: "Least worst option"

      To be fair they did take the head of the BBC out to the woodshed not that long back. The MPs know full well there are better options, just the kind of people who read the guardian would set their hair on fire so they're scared of pulling the trigger. Maybe after we leave the EU so they're not doing what they do best and tying up the country in court cases without merit.

    2. strum Silver badge

      Re: "Least worst option"

      >Lazy bunch of shysters with not one ounce of gumption

      yeah. I'm sure you could do so much better (if you could be bothered to get off your arse).

  3. Spanners Silver badge
    Flame

    The BBC used to be more independent.

    Then Tonly Bliar got upset with the idea of someone criticising his taking us into an illegal war.

    The BBC now is too pliable towards whoever is in power.

    1. grizzly

      Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

      I've no objection to a national broadcaster, but it should be funded progressively from general taxation, not a separate regressive fixed-price tax (licence fee).

      If you don't have a TV, a radio or a computer, you still benefit from having a society that is informed, entertained and educated.

      I agree the beeb tends to be biased in favour of whoever is in govt, eg when half the Tory party lied that leaving EU would give £350m to the NHS, it should have been couched exactly as that: a lie. Not "Remain supporters dispute the claim..." But it is the responsibility of the regulator Ofcom, to ensure balance. Scrapping the national broadcaster is not the solution.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Megaphone

        Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

        If you don't have a TV, a radio or a computer, you still benefit from having a society that is informed, entertained and educated.

        ding ding ding!

        And if you think the current level of ignorance is low, then like others said - spend some time in US and sample their TV, and the effects it has.

        1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

          Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

          "And if you think the current level of ignorance is low, then like others said - spend some time in US and sample their TV, and the effects it has."

          Indeed, all that mainstream bias in favour of Clinton, yet the sheeple were so dumb they voted against her. What's up with that?

          1. Jeremy Puddleduck

            Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

            She won the popular vote, that's what up. The daft Electoral College is a whole different problem.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. SundogUK

        Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

        "...you still benefit from having a society that is informed, entertained and educated."

        You seriously believe we live in a society that is informed and educated? Entertained, obviously - bread and circuses and all that...

    2. lorisarvendu

      Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

      Exact figures of how many complaints were received of political bias by the BBC are difficult to come by, although the BBC themselves have stated that the proportion of complaints of right-wing bias vs left-wing bias are roughly equal (ha ha what a surprise).

      However, regardless of how many complaints there were on each side, this report from Ofcom is very telling:

      https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/106575/Political-bias-complaints-against-the-bbc-463881.pdf

      Ofcom received 1,868 complaints of political bias between 2014 and 2017, none of which were upheld. Since this is the only objective criteria we currently have for measuring it, the only conclusion we can make is that the BBC is indeed politically neutral.

      It is hard to believe this on a personal level, but this is almost certainly because we all feel very strongly about our own political leanings, and therefore it is difficult to not see a derogatory comment by the BBC against Corbyn and the Labour party as political bias, when in fact the same criticisms are also aimed at the Government and Tory party. You only have to look at terms such as "Brexiteer" and "Remoaner" (and the spirit in which they are employed) to see that most people cannot be objective about anything political.,

      1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

        I must agree. Most people who talk about something being biased mean that it doesn't exactly match their own opinion.

        I have, personally, noticed a slight left-leaning bias on the BBC (and I'm slightly left-of-centre in my political opinions). Most of the rest of the complaints I see have been either;

        a) Someone with extreme left- or right-wing views disagreeing with a fairly neutral analysis, or

        b) People complaining that the BBC is showing Remain bias (when it is normally just reporting on the opinions of experts, most of whom believe Brexit will be economically damaging)

      2. Steve the Cynic Silver badge

        Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

        "Ofcom received 1,868 complaints of political bias between 2014 and 2017, none of which were upheld. Since this is the only objective criteria we currently have for measuring it, the only conclusion we can make is that the BBC is indeed politically neutral."

        Not necessarily. It is equally reasonable to assert that the bias at the BBC is the same as the bias at Ofcom, so Ofcom's people don't "see" the BBC bias (and therefore the complaint is incorrect).

        1. lorisarvendu

          Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

          "Not necessarily. It is equally reasonable to assert that the bias at the BBC is the same as the bias at Ofcom, so Ofcom's people don't "see" the BBC bias (and therefore the complaint is incorrect)."

          So what you seem to be saying is that even though you don't know what proportion of those 1,868 complaints were about left-wing political bias and which were right-wing...the BBC is still biased. And because Ofcom has not upheld any of them, then Ofcom has the same Bias as the BBC.

          You do realise how absurd that sounds? No, it is not reasonable to assert that Ofcom is biased in the BBC's favour...when you have no evidence of what that bias is.

        2. SundogUK

          Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

          "the bias at the BBC is the same as the bias at Ofcom"

          This.

          Bunch of Guardian-reading toss-pots, the lot of them.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

      when GUMMINT runs the industry, expect non-independence and corruption. and taxes. HIGHER taxes. Never lower, just higher. And more of them. Because the gummint weenies are ADDICTS to public funds, and they want moar, Moar, MOAR!

      1. strum Silver badge

        Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

        >when GUMMINT runs the industry, expect non-independence and corruption. and taxes.

        When industry runs the gummint, expect higher prices and shit service (and no journalist able to investigate).

    4. strum Silver badge

      Re: The BBC used to be more independent.

      >Then Tonly Bliar got upset with the idea of someone criticising his taking us into an illegal war.

      The BBC lied about Blair, every hour, on the hour, across 31 news outlets, for seven weeks (long after they knew they couldn't stand their story up).

      I'm a fan of the BBC (and the license fee), but Gilligan's lie could not be allowed to go unpunished.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Telly Tax or Adverts

    That's what it comes down to in the end.

    As a confirmed hater of all adverts I don't have to say what side I'm on.

    I find US TV impossible to watch. I ususally spend at least a month a year there on Business. In recent years I've not even bothered to switch the damm thing on. IT is Adverts with Programmes as an afterthought.

    I really don't want to have to suffer that here.

    YMMV and I expect that there are many different opinions.

    1. iron Silver badge

      Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

      " Telly Tax or Adverts

      That's what it comes down to in the end."

      No it really doesn't. On the odd occasion that I watch broadcast TV (currently approx 1 hour per week, not the BBC) I find the adverts to be intolerable, because I normally don't see any adverts at all while watching Netflix. Netflix make better shows than the BBC and don't have adverts so tax or ads is not the only choice.

      1. Lars Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        "Netflix make better shows". Funny, I didn't know Netflix makes shows.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I didn't know Netflix makes shows

          They resurrected Longmire after it was cancelled. So yes, they make shows. I'm sure they make others.

          I get the threat-a-grams with the clear window stating, 'What are you doing on (insert date). ' I wait for them to

          knock but nothing happens. Give it a few weeks then the next threat arrives. TV Shows from around the globe arrive in my house via the internet. As yes I sometimes watch live sport by those means. Iit is my duty to resist unfair laws. Just like others have done in the past. Votes for women, Slavery, racial discrimination, etc..

          All overturned because people took a stand. They were law breakers and could have gone to prison for their defiance. I hope they have a telly in my cellblock if they catch me watching live sport. I can't be arsed to check UK listings to see if some channel is showing the thing so I take the risk.

        2. rmason Silver badge

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          @Lars

          " Funny, I didn't know Netflix makes shows."

          well, now you do. they make many.

          1. strum Silver badge

            Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

            >they make many.

            The commission some. They don't make any.

        3. JohnMurray

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          They pay others.

          Star Trek Discovery is quite good...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

            I have no idea why people think there's no advertising on the BBC. Full of advertising. For it's own products. And, this advertising isn't just in the bits between programming. Just about every day, they are having 'couples' from Shitly Come Dancing on Breakfast, people talking about how wonderful Blue Planet 2 is. The number of times they advertise something called 'Pesky Blinders', 'Howard's End' or some other such shite. Even people on the endlessly repeated 'Antiques Celebrity Road Trip' are from other BBC shows, and they promote them. You cant escape it. I'll repeat. BBC full of ads. And repeats.

        4. Korev Silver badge
          Terminator

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          Funny, I didn't know Netflix makes shows.

          You could start off by watching the latest series of Black Mirror which for some reason Netflix made instead of Channel 4 (or the BBC).

        5. lorisarvendu

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          You're right. They commission shows. They don't make them.

        6. d3vy Silver badge

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          "Funny, I didn't know Netflix makes shows."

          Ozark,

          Better call Saul

          Star Trek discovery

          Stranger things

          Orange is the new black...

          Seriously they have a few misses but their content is getting better and better at the moment.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix

          I'd have paid the £8 subscription just for star trek.

          Same as I'd pay the £14 licence fee just for Dr who!

          1. Jess

            Re: Same as I'd pay the £14 licence fee just for Dr who!

            I used to just buy the DVDs, it was cheaper.

            However, I have far too many disks and am only buying content on Ultraviolet now.

            In the absence of the current Dr Who series being available on it, I will just have to wait until I'm somewhere I can watch it, legally.

        7. Jess

          Re: Funny, I didn't know Netflix makes shows.

          Technically I suspect they are commissioned. But they wouldn't happen if Netflix didn't pay for them.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        I'm struggling to find Netflix on Freeview, or the multiple Netflix Radio stations, and the Netflix websites such as cooking, news, kids, world affairs.

        I've looked on Netflix, where is its own news output?

        Oh you mean the BBC is like Netflix if you remove all the stuff that they other than American TV shows and Films?

      3. Just Enough

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        "Netflix make better shows than the BBC"

        Netflix don't make "shows", they make drama. They also don't make news programmes and pitifully little documentaries. They don't make radio programmes or have radio channels. They don't make soaps. They don't make educational programmes, natural history, science or history programmes.

        Suggesting that Netflix is in any way a realistic alternative choice to the BBC is suggesting that we just watch episodes of fictional dramas, and do without all the rest.

        1. Kevin Johnston

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          I tried watching Channel 4 online as I didn't have access to a TV and it would not allow me unless I disabled my Ad-blocker. So, set up a VM and jump through all the hoops, go to the catch-up and not only were there ads all over the page but I had to sit through all the 'broadcast' Ads too as I wasn't able to skip through the timeline to the point I wanted. Made the mistake of trying to pause while I made a coffee and it stopped the session and I had to start all over again.

          I'm amazed the BBC haven't bought the site as an upgrade to iPlayer.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          As much as I would like to agree Netflix has in fact made and is starting to make more and more documentaries. "13th" for example is quite decent and has won multiple awards. The "White Rabbit Project" seems to be a half-continuation of the hugely popular Mythbusters.

      4. khinch

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        As much as I love the shows Netflix produces, they are all purely entertainment shows. The BBC outputs programs of all categories, including news, documentaries, weather forecasts, breakfast shows and Open University lectures just to name a few. Not to mention that the BBC has almost 70 radio stations and looks after the World Service channel.

        As someone with two small children, I find the quality of programs on CBeebies and CBBC to be far greater than anything ITV, C5, Tiny Pop or Nikelodeon produces. Furthermore, the BBC also produces iPhone and Android games to complement their kids TV shows.

        So, to compare Netflix and the BBC isn't 100% fair as Netflix outputs a small subset of the BBC's output. All of the categories of program the BBC produces are available by other means, but most of those are via services supported by adverts.

        Having said all that, the debate referenced in the article wasn't "How good is the BBC?", it was about how should/could it be paid for. Personally, I'd be happy to pay for it another way other than the licence fee, and those potential other other methods are what the MPs should have been debating.

      5. DavCrav Silver badge

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        "Netflix make better shows than the BBC and don't have adverts so tax or ads is not the only choice."

        You pay for Netflix! So it's essentially a tax on Netflix watchers, right?

        1. Jess

          Re: You pay for Netflix! So it's essentially a tax on Netflix watchers, right?

          No.

          The TV licence is a tax on watching live TV.

          I am totally OK with the idea of needing a TV licence to watch iPlayer and live BBC, and it was very nice of them to allow me to watch iPlayer for all those years for free. (I have never owned a colour TV licence, I had a black and white licence and TV, for the occasional live TV, until the licences were no longer provided by the post office, and the corner shops I tried were unable to provide one, and I got a threatening letter, when I was away from home for a while, so i ditched the TV)

          The thing I object to is not being allowed to watch live non licence funded channels.

          (Given the technical situation, the most sensible solution would be to allow streaming online of non funded channels, and worry about the over the air broadcast situation next time standards are due to change.)

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: You pay for Netflix! So it's essentially a tax on Netflix watchers, right?

            "the most sensible solution would be to allow streaming online of non funded channels,"

            Live or "near live" streaming is now covered as part of the licence fee. How or if it's monitored for enforcement purposes is another matter. However, since watching live or near live streaming is illegal without a licence now, who knows what "metadata" is being stored now for later trawling years down the line. Maybe they'll save all that up for the next time they are short of cash and come after you then.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

      Telly Tax or Adverts

      Not in the days of digital. There is absolutely no technical impediment to prevent pay-per-view or short term pay even for over the air broadcasting. Sure, it is not implemented in the present STBs and TVs. This does not prevent the concept. If necessary the STBs can be swapped - the same way they were swapped in for digital.

      The BBC, however will never allow this to happen.

      1. If we pay for what we really view on BBC it will be reduced to Attenborough, a couple of game shows, 10pm news and maybe (just maybe) some of the cbbeebies programmes. +/- a couple of soaps. All the rest will die in less than a month.

      2. The BBC has always been a foreign policy instrument. The government loves to pretend that it is not so (trying to make the occasional "additional funding" brown envelopes to the foreign service inconspicuous). However it was, it is and it will be. As long as the foreign service is in any way cross-subsidised by the telly tax, it can pretend to be independent. The moment we move to a pay-per-view system the government will have to fund all of the propaganda broadcast in Russian, Chinese, Korean, Farsi, etc directly, thus terminating any of the current illusions of independence. This is also the ultimate ace in the BBC corporation card deck. Every time the parliament and/or the government has looked at reducing the funding or making it more directly dependent on actual viewing it got a reply that "do that and the birdie gets it". At which point it has backed off again, again and again.

      1. technoise

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        Anonymous: The BBC has always been a foreign policy instrument

        The BBC World Service used to be, before the days of David Camoron, payed for by the Foreign Office. By sleight of hand it was shoved into the Licence Fee, thus transferring yet more general taxation into a regressive tax.

        1. graeme leggett

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          World service is also getting £290 million from central gov across the years til 2020

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        "The moment we move to a pay-per-view system the government will have to fund all of the propaganda broadcast in Russian, Chinese, Korean, Farsi, etc directly, thus terminating any of the current illusions of independence. "

        You might want to look at the funding model for the World Service. Govt. are already spending millions there outside of "normal" BBC funding.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

      Adverts?

      What the fook are they?

      The only time I get adverts is watching the footy on American streams at half time and I can contest they are really enjoyable for the pure comedy value.

      I don't get adverts on the computer and I certainly don't get adverts with the tv and movie torrents I download.

      I lead a pretty ad free life and my yin is in balance with my yang because of it.

      I also pay my tv licence, subscribe to sky/netflix/Amazon Prime and hold a season ticket for my football team because I'm not a scrote who expects everything for free.

      1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        I also pay my tv licence, subscribe to sky/netflix/Amazon Prime and hold a season ticket for my football team because I'm not a scrote who expects everything for free.

        Fair dos! But you must be very, very wealthy!

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Re: But you must be very, very wealthy!

          Yeah, for that brief period after payday before all the direct debits go out....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          Tv Licence £147

          Sky £50 per month (Sky Q + Cinema)

          Netflix £9.99 per month

          Amazon £7.99

          Season Ticket £65 * 11 months

          Around £160 per month. Not wealthy in the slightest however I prefer to pay my way. I could quite easily cancel them and still get the content but I chose not to because one day when I get the letter or the knock at the door for what I download/stream I will be able to tell them to fook off.

          1. Mr Han

            Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

            £160/month seems wealthy to me. Or do you not do anything other than watch TV and football?

    4. Lars Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

      I don't know how this works in all different countries but the Army and the NHS are payed through taxation so why not the BBC too, then just demand that there be no adverts at all. The downside is of course that those guys running around had to go writing parking tickets instead, perhaps. And I think you should give some credit to the BBC, at least they used to make some good programs.

      1. lorisarvendu

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        "I don't know how this works in all different countries but the Army and the NHS are payed through taxation so why not the BBC too..."

        The Beeb gets £3.7Bn from the License fee. At present only those who have TV broadcast receiving equipment pay it. If you pay for it out of General Taxation, then every Tax Payer will be contributing, regardless of whether they watch TV or not. I thought this was what people were complaining about.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          "At present only those who have TV broadcast receiving equipment pay it. "

          Not true, whether you pay for has nothing to do with what equipment you own.

        2. technoise

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          Iorisarvendu: The Beeb gets £3.7Bn from the License fee. At present only those who have TV broadcast receiving equipment pay it. If you pay for it out of General Taxation, then every Tax Payer will be contributing, regardless of whether they watch TV or not. I thought this was what people were complaining about.

          If it came from income tax, it would be related to ability to pay, rather than being exactly the same for a mansion owned by a Baron, with a household of servants and dependants, as it is for a single mum in a bedsit in a council flat in Sunderland.

          1. lorisarvendu

            Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

            "If it came from income tax, it would be related to ability to pay, rather than being exactly the same for a mansion owned by a Baron, with a household of servants and dependants, as it is for a single mum in a bedsit in a council flat in Sunderland."

            Yes but now you're proposing a system where the more you earn, the more your proportion of Telly Tax is...regardless of whether you watch TV or not! By making it payable out of general Taxation you've completely negated what a lot of comments here are saying - "Why should I pay the TV Tax when I don't watch TV."

        3. Lars Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

          @ lorisarvendu

          What I described is what we did in Finland and quite frankly I am fully prepared to pay for not having to see any adverts. There are other channels for that, and then there is this question about domestic "home made" programs, I doubt Netflix would have "made" say Yes Minister or Monty Python or will ever "make" anything particularly English programs. There are other things to remember too that the BBC is supposed to deliver that no other channel have to deliver.

          I also agree with technois comment.

          The quality question is an other topic and who wants more of this and less of that, as the story goes one man was interviewed about the radio programs and how he liked them, and he did very much, and when they asked him what he listened to he said the time signal.

          Personally I spend a lot more time on YouTube.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

        What I object to mainly is thus; We pay our licence fee, the BBC makes programmes. We get to see them once or twice, then the rights get sold on and if we want to watch it again, we have to buy it on DVD or equivalent.

        If ALL bbc content was available in an archive, I'd likely have no objections to the fee. Instead, they take my money to make content I don't want to watch, prevent me watching it again, and make even more money from my investment, all whilst coming back cap in hand for more.

        Nice little racket they have going on, eh?

    5. JimboSmith Silver badge

      Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

      Yeah US TV is dire with all the adverts* but the pledge drives on PBS are something else. I realise that what I'm about to say won't apply to many Americans but it does to me. What really bugs me is when the local PBS station is having a pledge drive. They show a bit of something and then stop and have some has been z list celebrity tell you to call in and support the station so great programming like this can continue. Only problem is it's normally a BBC show I'm watching and I've already paid for that because I pay my Licence Fee in the UK. God help us if the BBC are ever forced to resort to pledge drives

      *They do make some great programmes every now and again plus I'm a baseball fan. Having an adbreak every 10 minutes is not good for my boredom threshold. Then the adverts are often for some antidepressant and they have to list every side effect so they drone on. May cause diarrhea, drowsiness, flatulence, mood swings, loss of sexual appetite, increased appetite, loss of sensitivity in the left hand side of your body, suicidal thoughts (hopefully not at the same time (especially the first three)) etc.

      1. JimboSmith Silver badge

        Re: Telly Tax or Adverts - Pledge Drive

        And if you haven't seen one this and this and this etc. are what I'm talking about

    6. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Telly Tax or Adverts

      "I find US TV impossible to watch"

      So do I, for the most part, but it's not the ads. It's the CONTENT.

  5. Fading Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Really?

    "What it seems to suggest is that the petitioners believe that their provider – whether Sky, BT or Virgin – should somehow pay the licence fee, even though the petitioners still want to watch BBC services."

    As everyone "still wants to watch BBC services" then a subscription model would surely bring in a higher revenue - think of the enforcement savings alone they could make......

  6. iron Silver badge

    "If we do not want bland uniformity, an organisation that can encompass Radio 4 and Radio 6 Music and make programmes varying from EastEnders to The Sky at Night is an important thing to preserve."

    And all of it total crap. I don't watch anything on the BBC or made by the BBC (with the exception of a couple of very old shows on Netflix). How is it that Netflix can make everything from House of Cards to The Expanse without a license fee? Give me Netflix, HBO and Starz over the BBC any day.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "How is it that Netflix can make everything from House of Cards to The Expanse without a license fee? Give me Netflix, HBO and Starz over the BBC any day."

      Because they do fuck all when it comes to Radio, Websites, Current affairs; in fact anything they can't buy in several months in advance.

      1. Cynical Shopper

        @ Lost all faith... "Because [Netflix] do fuck all when it comes to Radio, Websites, Current affairs; in fact anything they can't buy in several months in advance."

        If you needed a licence to consume *any* BBC content then your argument would stack up, but most of the stuff you mention doesn't require a TV licence.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "If you needed a licence to consume *any* BBC content then your argument would stack up, but most of the stuff you mention doesn't require a TV licence."

          Yes, it's disgusting, isn't it, All those services provided free to everyone but paid for by licence payers. Most which would not be available to anyone if the BBC was subscription only.

    2. Roger Varley

      "And all of it total crap."

      If you think that the output from the BBC is total crap, you really need to spend sometime watching the output from other countries, and then you would be aware of what crap broadcasting really looks like. In my neck of the woods, the output from the local state broadcaster would make re-runs of the Teletubbies look like Oscar winning material.

    3. David Nash Silver badge

      "And all of it total crap. I don't watch anything on the BBC"

      You don't want to watch it therefore it's crap? All of radio 4, all of 6 Music, every episode of Eastenders (you might have a point there), every programme you don't watch?

      Do you also think the government should stop funding roads to places you don't want to go, close schools when your kids (if you have any) have grown up, etc. etc?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Do you also think the government should stop funding roads to places you don't want to go, close schools when your kids (if you have any) have grown up, etc. etc?"

        Wow, not that old chestnut. Let's think about your argument for a second.....you are seriously suggesting that state provided entertainment is as important as roads and schools? Seriously!?!

        Transport, Education = Public spending priority.

        Homes under the hammer, antiques road trip = Not.

    4. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Netflix bought the UK streaming rights to The Expanse which is not the same as making The Expanse. The Expanse was made by Syfy which is a subsidiary of NBC.

      This template reply can be repeated for a load of other things that it is claimed Netflix make but don't, but not the terrible excrement that Netflix really do make that people somehow forget to mention.

      1. david bates

        Umm...but the BBC buy in a lot from independent production companies...thats why BakeOff is on Ch4 now.

        The BBC also have a record for producing utter dross - see about 50% or 'comedy' and drama on R4.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Umm...but the BBC buy in a lot from independent production companies...

          That is because of changes made back in the 90's when it was determined that as both the leading UK broadcast organisation and commissioner of programmes that part of its public service obligation was to stimulate the programme production industry. Thus many former BBC employees were encouraged to set up their own production company and sell programmes back to the BBC and to others.

          This action served two purposes: the first it gave the production companies greater freedom than they had when directly employed by the BBC, the second was that this could reduce the cost of the BBC and thus the cost of the licence fee.

          The BBC also have a record for producing utter dross - see about 50% or 'comedy' and drama on R4.

          Agree with respect to R4, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was a R3 production and much superior for it....

        2. strum Silver badge

          >the BBC buy in a lot from independent production companies

          They were forced to - by Maggie Thatcher.

        3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "Umm...but the BBC buy in a lot from independent production companies...thats why BakeOff is on Ch4 now."

          Many of whom are BBC spin-offs/start-ups because the commercial TV lobbyists forced a break up of the BBC as being too big to compete against. Part of the knock on effect of this was to dumb down a lot of shows because now the owners licence them to the BBC but also want to sell, re-sell and sell some more to anyone they can elsewhere in the world. For the same reason, much of the "BBC" contents is gone from iPlayer after a short while because the BBC don't own them and the rights charges are high for on-demand.

      2. d3vy Silver badge

        Dan55

        You're quite right I remember seeing that about the expanse.

        The BBC also buy in the rights to show other shows, remember Simpsons used to be one bbc2! :)

      3. Jess

        Re: the terrible excrement that Netflix really do make

        Iron Fist was good, (it just could have been a couple of episodes shorter.)

        But the argument is not about whether the BBC is good or crap or whether the alternatives are, it is whether you should have to pay a tax on streaming live TV to fund it.

    5. david bates

      I used to listen to Radio 4 at lot. Now seems to be obsessed with music and 'the stories of ordinary people'. I barely bother these days. Sometimes the Archers, sometimes Today for background noise. Everything else has become so dumbed down over the last few years I can't tolerate it.

      The BBC has nothing I want and TBH if it vanished tomorrow I really wouldn't miss it.

    6. Jess

      Re:Give me Netflix, HBO and Starz over the BBC any day.

      I disagree with your opinion that the BBC makes nothing good.

      However what I object to is being forced to 'subscribe' to it, if I wish to watch other services.

      The amount of good stuff that I personally would want to watch does not justify the fee (for me personally).

      What rankles is that I am, as a consequence, also denied streaming non funded channels.

    7. strum Silver badge

      >I don't watch anything on the BBC or made by the BBC

      That may be why you are such an uncultured idiot.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    8. strum Silver badge

      >House of Cards

      You do realise that this is a remake of a BBC series?

    9. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "Give me Netflix, HBO and Starz over the BBC any day."

      You do realise they are cherry picking what they think is the best of TV, don't you? And just because they happen to buy or commission stuff you currently like doesn't mean that everyone likes what they do or even that you will still like what they next year or the year after.

      I had a Netflix subscription, a 3 month freebie. I'd seen everything I was interested in the first 2 months (as had my wife, with different tastes to me) and barely looked at it in month three as we realised there was very little new stuff appearing. Assuming I get get a month by month subscription and not be tied to a 12 month contract, I may look again in a year or so.

    10. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "I don't watch anything on the BBC or made by the BBC"

      Not even any of the BBC Worldwide/BBC America [co-]productions that get sold all over the place, sometimes not even to BBC UK, and eventually get broadcast here by other channels? Unless you watch the end credits right to the end, you might not even know a show is a BBC production in some case.

      The Musketeers and Orphan Black come to mind.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

    Seriously - 7mins of content followed by 7mins of adds is not unusual.

    There's a reason people move to HBO and Netflix in the US - to avoid adverts. And they pay at least 40p per day to do so.

    So to the curmudgeons on this thread who own a TV but claim never to use the BBC I say - tough s**t, its for the public good.

    1. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

      'tough s**t, its for the public good.'

      Yes, best not let the proles decide for themselves.

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

        "Yes, best not let the proles decide for themselves"

        The proles CAN decide for themselves

        - Watch TV and pay

        - Don't watch TV and don't pay

        1. unwarranted triumphalism

          Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

          Too bad the Beeb and its cheerleaders can't accept that anyone would choose the 2nd option.

          1. lorisarvendu

            Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

            "Too bad the Beeb and its cheerleaders can't accept that anyone would choose the 2nd option."

            I presume you've never heard of the concept of "not telling the truth to avoid paying the license fee" then?

    2. technoise

      Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

      You can make any huge amount of money seem small by dividing it into smaller and smaller packets and looking at that.

      40p - what is that - per person per hour? Per day?

      The money the BBC gets from the licence is £3.7 billion per year.

      Now think of that going on cookery programs, dancing programs, and the media/political bubble's views on practically everything, particularly the rightness of collecting the licence fee.

      With £3.7 billion per year they could take on Hollywood....

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

          "I do not really see culture programs being provided by the commercial channels. There was the Southbank show i suppose - but that stopped many years ago."

          Sky Arts (1 and 2) started off with good intentions, but like most speciality commercial channels, very soon forget their name and why they are there and branch out into off-topic shows. Have you ever looked at MTV in recent years? The Horror Channel? SciFi? The Learning Channel (now TLC, letters actually mean nothing now)?

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

        "With £3.7 billion per year they could take on Hollywood...."

        Television only gets half of that. That 50.5% is then further split across news, drama, documentary and all the local stations around the country, not to mention BBC Scotland, which is a bit more than a "local" station. The BBC is a bit like the NHS, ie not a single monolithic organisation. But then neither is Hollywood for that matter.

      3. Mr Han

        Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

        Correct. I heat and light up my house for about £2 per day, it's still a rip off.

        1. d3vy Silver badge

          Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

          "Correct. I heat and light up my house for about £2 per day, it's still a rip off."

          Jesus, How?

          This is a serious question, how?

          1. d3vy Silver badge

            Re: 40p is a small price to pay to avoid US TV hell

            Im going to keep coming back and checking this for an answer - We were away for two weeks and racked up at least £1 a day with just the pilot light on the boiler, the fridge and standing charges.

            I honestly dont see how anyone living in the 21st century could just use £2 a day..

            I mean with the standing charges that I mentioned all I have to do is have a shower and cook a meal and we are already pushing the £2 that this guy claims he uses all day. This is without us heating or lighting the house.

            Sorry guy, but you're either super thrifty (and I NEED to know how to emulate it) or your talking out of your arse.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: The BBC Is OK.... Honest

      'If one looks at ITV - i like some of the programs on ITV, but we have X Factor/Britains Got Talent, permanently, repeated on Sunday. Bank Holiday programming is so much worse than 30 years ago.'

      I wouldn't disagree with that, but then the BBC retaliate with the dancing programme and that singing one with the chairs, so I'm not convinced they're doing any better.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The BBC Is OK.... Honest

        There's Blue Planet 2, which features the most brilliant photography ever seen in a nature documentary.

        I just wish it had subtitles continuously scrolling across the bottom

        Shut the fuck up and listen to the programme.....Do not pause the fucking broadcast for everybody else to go out the room and piffle with something that could bloody well wait....Shut the fuck up and listen to the programme.........

        1. 's water music Silver badge

          Re: The BBC Is OK.... Honest

          I'm generally a fan of the BBC and Blue Planet 2 certainly looks beautiful but I am close to giving up on it because it is so uninformative. It feels like it just jumps around the weekly theme whispering 'oooh, shiny' without ever telling me anything useful about what is being shown

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: The BBC Is OK.... Honest

          There's Blue Planet 2, which features the most brilliant photography ever seen in a nature documentary.

          I just wish it had subtitles continuously scrolling across the bottom

          What?!!

          Haven't you discovered the Audio Description setting on your TV/PVR?

      2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: that singing one with the chairs

        That went to ITV.

      3. MJI Silver badge

        Re: The BBC Is OK.... Honest

        Cohens gone, singing chairs gone.

        But now inflicted with some dire shite about rhyming done by some ex Strictly person.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The BBC Is OK.... Honest

      Compare number petitioning for TV licence abolition compared to number petitioning for re-instatement of Clarkson on Top Gear (prior to the details of the fracas coming out)

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It will go one day

    Once all these baby boomers and so on have shuffled off.. kids these days don't watch TV

  10. TheTick

    If you want to see the contempt our politicians hold for us then watch this debate or read the transcript. Nothing but a love-in for the BBC and the essential complaints of the petitioners not addressed in the slightest.

    Absolute piss-take.

    1. King Jack

      Absolute piss-take

      I bet the MPs get the TV licence on expenses. So they don't care. How about getting real people to debate the issue.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They should run a referendum

      After all, the will of the people and all that.

  11. Joe Harrison Silver badge

    Why don't we follow the US model, where state-funded propaganda stations have to declare themselves as such?

    1. Blergh

      State-funded vs Corporate-funded propaganda

      It's all propaganda no matter what the model.

      Personally I do probably align more with the BBC type biases than those from any of the other providers. However I do think the funding model and content delivery needs to be modernised. I always expected iPlayer to turn out more like what Netflix is now, but after 10+ years it just hasn't moved on all that much and is still just viewed as a catch-up service rather than a one-stop shop for all your viewing.

      1. John G Imrie Silver badge

        Re: State-funded vs Corporate-funded propaganda

        It never moved on because every time the BBC wanted to do anything with it that nice Mr Murdock and his friends at the Daily Mail went Ape Shit.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: State-funded vs Corporate-funded propaganda

        As far a "biases" at least the BBC has "no bias" written into it's constitution [we can argue what no bias means to different people].

        Compare that [especially during Brexit] to the likes of the Mail, Express or Sun which were biased to the point of rabid extremism.

        Or the likes of Fox News in the US which seems to be a mouth-piece for the ultra-right wing gun-toting arm of the Republican party.

  12. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

    To those that denigrate the BBC, you need to find out more about how instrumental the BBC are in bringing you technology before your criticise. They built the broadcast infrastructure. They were the vanguard of Digital Broadcasting. They are a massive archive and resource.

    Then onto what they aren't,.. pandering to advertisers (Look at the YouTube model, people make content and try to profit from it, only to have YT demonetise their efforts because the content doesn't score points according to some advertising SuckBot), and they aren't being directed by a powerful family with a media empire and an agenda.

  13. Dave Filesystem

    Many of the petition signatories will be paying £60+ for Sky.

    Losers.

    1. Fading Silver badge
      Holmes

      And hence......

      Are willing to pay for content. So why not go the subscription route?

      1. Just Enough

        Re: And hence......

        .. because the BBC is a public service and many people can't afford to pay £60 a month, never mind willing. But I suppose no-one cares about them.

        The BBC is also broadcast over the air. How do you build subscription charges onto that?

        1. technoise

          Re: And hence......

          Just Enough: The BBC is also broadcast over the air. How do you build subscription charges onto that?

          Satellite broadcasts come "over the air," as a digitally modulated RF signal - they are subscription based, why cannot terrestrial broadcasts do the same? TCP/IP comes "over the air" as 3G and 4G. The future appears to be digital streaming of one form or another.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      @ Dave Filesystem

      "Many of the petition signatories will be paying £60+ for Sky.

      Losers."

      So the ones who are willing to pay for the content they want to watch are losers? I agree. They also have to cough up for the BBC even if it provides nothing of interest to them and are of no benefit to them. In that way we certainly are losers.

      If the BBC didnt have the TV tax it would either vanish as a colossal failure or cut down to what people actually want to use. Their fear of the real world is justified.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: @ Dave Filesystem

        So the ones who are willing to pay for the content they want to watch are losers? I agree. They also have to cough up for the BBC even if it provides nothing of interest to them and are of no benefit to them. In that way we certainly are losers.

        Why do you claim that Sky subscribers don't watch the BBC? If some IoT virus were to go around which removed Freeview and Freesat channels from the their Sky box EPG, people might realise how little they're really getting for 60 quid or more.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @ Dave Filesystem

          @ Dan 55

          "Why do you claim that Sky subscribers don't watch the BBC?"

          Actually the question is why do you think they do? And if you assume they do then you would be happy for those channels to be charged separately as they would all obviously still pay to use the BBC (tv, radio, website, whatever). That people have to pay for the BBC as they pay for the content they obviously want (they had to subscribe for sky) does not mean they watch it, only that there is no way to watch the content they want without paying an additional competitor.

          "If some IoT virus were to go around which removed Freeview and Freesat channels from the their Sky box EPG, people might realise how little they're really getting for 60 quid or more."

          True. Just as the BBC vanishing off air might take a while to notice unless the other media kicked up a fuss.

          1. strum Silver badge

            Re: @ Dave Filesystem

            >the BBC vanishing off air might take a while to notice

            There'd be pitchforks in the street before breakfast.

        2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

          Re: @ Dave Filesystem

          "people might realise how little they're really getting for 60 quid or more."

          ... and have to watch 'Geordie Shore',.... <shudder>

      2. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        Re: @ Dave Filesystem

        If the BBC didnt have the TV tax it would either vanish as a colossal failure or cut down to what people actually want to use. Their fear of the real world is justified.

        Quite agree. And we should also abolish tax on fags and booze, and VAT on sugary foods and drinks. That's what people actually want.

        Also I don't want to use a Trident. Does that mean we should pay for WMDs on a subscription basis?

        Sometimes it is in the interest of society as a whole to do things which individuals may not fully appreciate. Public education is one of those things.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @ Dave Filesystem

          @ Pen-y-gors

          "Quite agree. And we should also abolish tax on fags and booze, and VAT on sugary foods and drinks. That's what people actually want."

          Interesting you see TV as a sin. Tobacco, booze and even the cries for sugar tax's are all tax's based on trying to change peoples behaviour by taxing a sin or vice. Of course it doesnt work completely which is why cigs are still smoked and have been subject to various regulatory attacks because apparently the freedom to make your own choices is bad. I do ask if freedom to do what people want is a bad thing (see your examples). Second hand smoke etc is a problem so places for smokers makes sense but the clamp down does seem to be a nannying issue. Also the idea of a minimum price on alcohol is not based on the real world, its just another way to fleece people. And of course sugar, the thing used throughout history that people want.

          "Also I don't want to use a Trident. Does that mean we should pay for WMDs on a subscription basis?"

          I am not sure if you think the BBC is as important as defending the country, or if you think the countries defence is as worthless as the BBC. Feel free to pick one.

          "Sometimes it is in the interest of society as a whole to do things which individuals may not fully appreciate. Public education is one of those things."

          Again you seem to misunderstand. We are ment to be discussing the BBC which you are now comparing with education (feel free to argue the education system is becoming as worthless as the BBC even though education is a public good). But pointing out that defence and education are good things paid from a central taxation does not translate to the BBC being so. Your gonna have to link those up if you want to have a real grounding for the BBC's value as a general taxation organisation.

          People can and do pay for actual TV content they deem worth their personal time and work hours. People have so much access to information cheaply that the BBC as a news outlet is just another provider (their amusing biases do require other sources to be anywhere near informed). So what is the value of the BBC? If it is dr who and strictly I have nothing against that and it is nothing to be ashamed of, but it isnt my thing and I have other things I do actually like and pay for.

          1. tiggity Silver badge

            Re: @ Dave Filesystem

            @codejunky

            I'm sure many people regard Trident as pretty useless in terms of defence other than when it's a situation of global thermonuclear war, when we are either f*****d or not depending what happens, but due to the huge arsenals of others our few (but expensive) weapons are almost irrelevant.

            Personally I reckon MOD should be renamed Ministry of War, like it used to be, as its more accurate (or based on last few decades, ministry of killing brown people & de stabilizing areas of the Middle East)

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: @ Dave Filesystem

              @ tiggity

              "You pay Sky, but still have to suffer adverts on Sky channels

              Please explain the value for money there?

              That always baffled me about Sky."

              This is a simple transaction. Sky offers what people want and people pay for it. Even with the downside of adverts it is not intrusive enough to be a problem. Even better than that sky gives you a way to skip the adverts by recording live TV. Can we imagine the same for the BBC? Tolerating it even with adverts and having to pay for it? I cant. When the BBC puts on its adverts its for more BBC crap I couldnt care less about vs various attempts to make me buy something I dont care about. At least the other channel has something worth watching.

              "I'm sure many people regard Trident as pretty useless in terms of defence other than when it's a situation of global thermonuclear war"

              I am sure some do. But that has nothing to do with the discussion with Pen-y-gors who seemed to be comparing the BBC to the defence of the country. As if the two were comparable.

              *As for trident it is a bit off topic but I can see the argument for it. What I am still waiting on is the argument for the BBC.

              1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: @ Dave Filesystem

                "Even better than that sky gives you a way to skip the adverts by recording live TV. Can we imagine the same for the BBC?"

                All of Freeview, Freesat, Virginmedia and Sky offer PVR boxes which can record live TV and all carry the BBC channels.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: @ Dave Filesystem

                  @ John Brown (no body)

                  "All of Freeview, Freesat, Virginmedia and Sky offer PVR boxes which can record live TV and all carry the BBC channels."

                  Yes the commercial items offer the ability to record and skip. What you quoted was selective but the important bits are highlighted below-

                  "This is a simple transaction. Sky offers what people want and people pay for it. Even with the downside of adverts it is not intrusive enough to be a problem. Even better than that sky gives you a way to skip the adverts by recording live TV. Can we imagine the same for the BBC?"

              2. MJI Silver badge

                Re: @ Dave Filesystem

                Last nights TV, watching via Freesat and a Humax HD PVR

                Channel idents then lots of dancers, got to end, delete.

                Then

                Channel idents, then best programme on TV, see titles to end, delete

                Didn't see a single advert, wife got her dancing show and we both got to see a very clever octopus.

          2. strum Silver badge

            Re: @ Dave Filesystem

            >I am not sure if you think the BBC is as important as defending the country

            As Enrico Fermi said (in another context) "making the country worth defending".

      3. tiggity Silver badge

        Re: @ Dave Filesystem

        You pay Sky, but still have to suffer adverts on Sky channels

        Please explain the value for money there?

        That always baffled me about Sky.

        At least when someone pays for Netflix it is ad free.

        Disclosure - Freeview only, PVR to record progs I want to watch and view them (often much) later, so, even on channels with ads don't see ads as skip through them.

    3. Jess

      Many of the petition signatories will be paying £60+ for Sky.

      And if they don't watch BBC why should they pay for it?

      Before the merger with BSB, Sky didn't need a licence. (Wasn't classified as a broadcaster due to the band used, that was fixed that when the merger happened.) I knew several people who subscribed and didn't have a licence (or a problem with the authorities).

  14. WibbleMe

    Its not the programs its the Elitist attitudes of the people that work there.

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Coat

      Its not the programs its the Elitist attitudes of the people that work there.

      Didn't get the job then?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Its not the programs its the Elitist attitudes of the people that work there.

        Irony that the icon you chose appears be a man standing behind a woman with his hand on her shoulder and a hand in her dress...I take you DID get the job then.

    2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

      Elitist ?

      Puh-lease. I just went to the 50th b'day party of a senior member of BBC staff. We went to the same rural Comprehensive school. Hardly Oxbridge.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The news channel is awful far left leaning propaganda and I would count myself as left leaning but the final straw for me was Strictly come dancing, I'm not sure about anyone else but I didn't expect to see people dancing.

    1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      news channel is awful far left leaning propaganda

      Have you seen RT? That's realpropaganda.

      My biggest whinge about BBC news is not that they don't understand what offering a fair and balanced view means, and what their duty is to their viewers. Balanced when discussing climate change does not mean giving equal time to a respected scientist and a loonie like Nigel Lawson. When it comes to politics they should tear into everyone, asking them really difficult questions, not giving them all an easy ride and letting them lie with a straight face - challenge them on everything.

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Brillo does quite a good job, although I'm very disappointed he didn't immolate Corbyn before the last election. The ammo was there and it was a disservice to the electorate that he didn't.

        In my view, the BBC's bias is as much about what it doesn't report at all. Take Brexit - I know there has been bad news, but good news is either not reported or reported as "despite brexit".

        The implication being from the BBC that brexit is bad and that it is surprising that anything good can happen while we're leaving. That isn't neutrality. It's well documented and outrageous.

        You are unlikely to hear the story on BBC news tonight about Corbyn's and Momentum's support for Slobodan Milosevic, which has been reported elsewhere this morning.

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          @disgusted

          The implication being from the BBC that brexit is bad

          Errrm...maybe that's because Brexit is bad?

          1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            That's not for the BBC to decide.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            just like the MPs

            looking to discuss something unrelated in a forum about the TV tax.

            I don't care about your opinion on brexit, the vote happened and if it was the other way round you'd be pretty dismissive of people *still going on about leaving. grow up and deal with it.

            1. strum Silver badge

              Re: just like the MPs

              > you'd be pretty dismissive of people *still going on about leaving.

              As I have been, for the last 40 years.

              >grow up and deal with it.

              As they didn't.

              Hypocrite!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        At least you know what you're getting with RT.

        Lets take some stories on the BBC right now,

        "The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing", according to an independent economic think tank." - More Brexit bollocks. I'm not an ostrich, my head isn't in the sand but this is just scare tactics.

        "Deep fat fryers may help form cooling clouds" - I'm not a climate change denier and I understand we do make a difference but trying to explain away global warming comes across as pure bullshit.

        "Rita Ora's egg freezing in early 20s 'a positive move,' doctors say" - I mean really who gives a shit?

        "Brexit scuppers UK's 2023 European Capital of Culture bids" - Who cares?

        Biased bullshit far left leaning crap, bbc news needs to be killed with fire.

        1. lorisarvendu

          The reason the BBC keeps reporting negative Brexit stories is because that's all there are. I've not heard anything positive about Brexit reported in any medium so far. Oh sure we have positive opinion about how this will be better and that will be improved, but very few independent reports about how things will have improved after 2019. All the reports I've heard so far are predictions of things getting worse, or where things actually have got worse. What's the BBC to do? Make up positive spin? That's the Government's job.

          1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Stop saying that the positive results of the falling pound is "despite brexit", for a start.

            I'm not saying don't report stuff, but for example have a read of the breakdown of Question Time panelists by leave/remain. They over overwhelmingly remain supporters/campaigners. It isn't a small margin, it's enormous.

            1. MJI Silver badge

              Remain/Leave

              So where are they going to find all of them?

              Permanent Michael Gove?

            2. tiggity Silver badge

              @ disgustedoftunbridgewells

              Many people would say falling pound is not a benefit

              e.g. holidays abroad more expensive if pound in your pocket only == 1 Euro.

              e.g. Imports cost more, inflation up, shopping costs up: Average "person on the street" sees falling pound effects as detrimental

              It's a benefit to those who export goods / services as they become cheaper compared to other countries.

              Its a benefit to an employer to have everyone paid as little as possible, it's not very beneficial for the employees.

              .. so, "benefit", depends on your viewpoint, majority viewpoint says falling pound is not good.

              Caveat "majority" does not always mean best viewpoint, see Brexit

          2. codejunky Silver badge

            @ lorisarvendu

            "The reason the BBC keeps reporting negative Brexit stories is because that's all there are"

            "All the reports I've heard so far are predictions of things getting worse"

            "What's the BBC to do? Make up positive spin? That's the Government's job."

            I think those lines sum up the problem pretty well. All you have heard are negative stories, all the BBC reports is negative and then you mention the governments job of spin yet the BBC and the gov are pretty much singing the same song.

            The interesting problem with not hearing any good news has been already explained by the 'despite' claims when things go well. Look at how terrible the pound dropping was, Carney and Osborne warning us all of the doom. Except as Mervyn king pointed out it has been the objective of the gov and BoE since 2008 because it is part of the recovery.

            The BBC doesnt need to put on a positive spin. They just have to remove the negative spin.

            1. strum Silver badge

              Re: @ lorisarvendu

              > yet the BBC and the gov are pretty much singing the same song.

              Good grief! What kind of tin ear do you have?

              The govt are doing everything they can (not much) to put a positive spin on Brexit. No-one's buying it, because there's no substance to it. All the substance points the other way - which the BBC has to report.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: @ lorisarvendu

              "I think those lines sum up the problem pretty well. All you have heard are negative stories, all the BBC reports is negative and then you mention the governments job of spin yet the BBC and the gov are pretty much singing the same song."

              And yet the print press segment who came out strongly for leave are also not reporting much in the way of positive outcomes fro Brexit either. As mentioned, lots of opinion pieces, but little actual factual reporting.

        2. lorisarvendu

          Google "bbc bias against labour".

          The New Statesman, the Indy, and the Guardian seem to agree the that BBC (and other media) have given Corbyn and the labour party a bad time.

          Now Google "bbc left-wing bias"

          The Daily Mail and the Express run with this one. Oh and the Independent...hang on...

          Basically if you think the BBC has a bias against your personal political leanings, you will find "evidence" (mainly in the tabloids and social media) to support your assertion...no matter what your political leanings actually are. In the same way as you will find evidence to support your view that the Moon Landings never happened, that JFK was killed by the Mob/CIA/FBI/Oswald, that the World is flat, and that the British Royal Family are all lizards.

        3. strum Silver badge

          >Lets take some stories on the BBC right now,

          I think you need to pay a little better attention.

          1. "The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008" - that story wasn't a Brexit story. It was a post-crash story.

          2. "Deep fat fryers may help form cooling clouds" - that story wasn't climate change story (it went out of its way to make that clear).

          3. "who gives a shit"/"Who cares?" - two things you don't care about amount to far left-leaning bias? You need an education, old chap.

    2. MJI Silver badge

      Bollocks

      My wife watches SCD, my boss and his wife watch SCD.

      Anyone notice that it is glossy well produced feel good TV much better than the shouty crap on ITV.

      News, funny really, I think they are quite neutral UK wise, as mentioned elsewhere giving screen time to some potty people, but are neutral within the sensible main stream.

      However internationally they are more biased, it is obvious they do not like the Orange Fuckwit.

      Then see things like Question Time, plenty of chances to let fools show themselves up.

      This Week can be quite funny and seeing ex politicians from various parties being able to discuss stuff sensibly.

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Bollocks

        SCD is excellent. I don't watch it myself, except for the results ( it's not worth going to the pub for an hour ), and I've watched the Saturday night programme when I've been ill, and it is really well made good quality entertainment.

        Not my cup of tea, but objectively it is very good.

        However not something we should be funding from a mandatory TV tax.

      2. Lars Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Bollocks

        "they are more biased.....they do not like the Orange Fuckwit.". Am I biased if I don't like dog shit on my shoes.

    3. rmason Silver badge

      Always a fair litmus paper for the BBC.

      those who are right wing think it shows left wing bias, those on the left think it shows right wing bias.

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        That's been said to death.

        However you should read the Guardian's comments section ( not too much, the stupid might rub off ).

        There, you will learn that the Guardian is a right wing newspaper. All of your misconceptions about it being a left wing newspaper will be revealed to be false.

        I'm not arguing the BBC is left wing as such - I'm arguing it's metropolitan liberal and as such anti-conservative more than pro-labour.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Coffee/keyboard

      I didn't expect to see people dancing

      heh, thanks for that.

  16. John Robson Silver badge

    I really don't see the issue..

    With having Sky/Vermin etc collect TV licence fee on behalf of subscribers and pass on those addresses and fees to the BBC.

    Makes it relatively easy to understand what's happening...

    I pay you for a TV service, and I get it.

    I don't pay you, I have to pay the BBC directly for that subset of service

    1. Just Enough

      Re: I really don't see the issue..

      You don't see the issue because, amazingly, you're not aware that many people don't subscribe to Sky, Virgin or BT.

      I get the BBC through this amazing device called an aerial. Consequently I pay nothing but a licence fee and no-one has any idea what programmes I watch, and which I don't. If the money is paid through subscribers instead, does that mean I get my BBC for free?

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: I really don't see the issue..

        Freeview & Freesat here.

        I did try Ondigital but the pay channels were rubbish apart from the airplane one, and dealing with one card two devices was a complete PITA.

        The boxes were also pretty poor compared to my IDTV, went digital for anamorphic widescreen.

        1. strum Silver badge

          Re: I really don't see the issue..

          >Freeview & Freesat here.

          >I did try Ondigital

          You do realise that Freeview is pretty much a rebadged OnDigital?

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: I really don't see the issue..

            Of course I do and I still mainly watch 1 2 4 and News 24

            I was offered Ondigital because I had a digital TV.

            I had a digital TV due to ghosting and wanting anamorphic widescreen

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I really don't see the issue..

        If the money is paid through subscribers instead, does that mean I get my BBC for free?

        Yeh, then you'll get the same 125k yobs with £200/mo Sly subscriptions signing a petition to put it back. Not wanting to waste their dole to, er, subsidise others.

      3. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: I really don't see the issue..

        "You don't see the issue because, amazingly, you're not aware that many people don't subscribe to Sky, Virgin or BT."

        Actually - I don't subscribe either - which is why I added the following line:

        "I don't pay you, I have to pay the BBC directly for that subset of service"

        I don't even bother with an aerial or dish at all.

        The very little TV that is worth watching is streamed from iPlayer (Blue Planet, Dr Who, some kids stuff) or 4OD/itvHub when appropriate.

        But it's not worth the effort to put an aerial up, or hook up either of the satellite dishes I have on the side of my house, and it's certainly not worth paying Vermin media again.

        I'm pretty sure I don't get good value from my license, but that's the way it is. I went for several years not having one, then they changed the rules, and for the sake of very little content I now get charged the full whack. I'd be happy with a PPV option frankly.

  17. AppealToReason

    Choice for the wealthy

    Pay-TV is just another way of dividing rich and poor - entertainment (?) for those that can afford it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Choice for the wealthy

      I bet if you looked at who actually has Sky, it won't be the rich, its the poorer...

  18. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

    BBC doesn't have a political party bias, it has a metropolitan liberal bias. That needs to be fixed. Not hiring most of its staff from the Graun would be a good start. Banning things like the BBC news's infamous "tory cuts" billboard.

    However the BBC license fee should be cut down from ~£150 to £50/year. One TV channel with a vastly reduced budget for entertainment, more news, more educational, more "things that the private sector won't do".

    Strictly, as much as it is loved, is not necessary to be paid for by a television tax. Neither is (well, was) Bake Off or Eastenders.

    If you want programmes like that you should have to subscribe. I'd pay more than I do now for the extra entertainment stuff. It's quite good. The fee would have to be more than the £100 shortfall I'm proposing as not everybody would subscribe. Fine. But we shouldn't be forced to pay for it *.

    * Before somebody says it, don't pay isn't an option. I subscribe to Sky Sports, therefore I need to pay for Eastenders. Bizarre, but true.

    Do we really need that many "comedy" panel shows stuffed with left wing comedians.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      What would be the alternative to a liberal metropolitan bias?

      Farage?

      But people forget that the programmes BBC often make would not get done by other channels.

      Strictly would become a shouty mess. Bake Off would get filled full of product placement and adverts.

      Eastenders, I'll give you that.

      But then the BBC allows programmes to find their feet, such as Only Fools and Horses.

      And never forget BBC Bristol Natural History Unit with David Attenborough.

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        There's a sizeable gap between BBC liberal and your far right caricature of Farage.

        You think that only BBC can do tasteful ( SCD )? The switch from BBC2 to BBC1 was the worst thing that ever happened to Bake Off. They tried to make it more Bake Off.

        Although you've already agreed with me on Eastenders, Corrie is less over the top. I can be in the same room as Corrie. I can't put up with the shouting and screaming in Eastenders - I literally have to leave the room. Another soap ( not sure which, Brookside? Emmerdale?, who knows? ) is apparently one of the big ones now too. Another non-BBC programme competing adequately with Eastenders.

        There are a hell of a lot more broadcasters now than there were when Only Fools first started. A new programme like that could flog itself around to BBC, ITV, C4, C5, Sky, UKTV Gold, Dave, Netflix, Amazon,

        and probably more. They're all commissioning programmes. On that basis I'd say the need for BBC to give the next Only Fools its chance is completely gone.

        I did say the BBC should do more education - Attenborough would be a big part of that.

        I think we should have a BBC funded from public taxation or a dedicated tax ( as now ). I just don't believe that it should be doing things that are perfectly well served by the private sector and demanding that we pay for it.

    2. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Do we really need that many "comedy" panel shows stuffed with left wing comedians.

      Strangely, there aren't many right wing comedians around, and the ones that were weren't actually funny, merely offensive. Could be because good comedy is often based on looking at reality and questioning it, and tends to involve quite bright people. Hence no kippers.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Strangely the BBC does nothing to encourage right-wing comedians.

        They have however worked to encourage female comedians and those from ethnic minorities, so you do have to wonder why there is this oversight.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Because it's a part of their penance for inflicting Boris Johnson on the nation week after week on HIGNFY.

        2. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Strangely the BBC does nothing to encourage right-wing comedians.

          Of course there were right-wing comedians.

          Went out of fashion during the 1980's. Partially from a tiredness of Mother-in-law jokes and other world views that were increasingly seen as unacceptable.

          Also New Wave Comedy.

          Python : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtuAtXQjn_k

          1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: Strangely the BBC does nothing to encourage right-wing comedians.

            The problem isn't a lack of right wing comedians, it's a lack of comedians that don't make a constant stream of jabs at the right and make their leftness part of their act.

            None of the top stand-ups do it, A: because why piss off half your audience, B: they are funnier than cheap anti-conservative jokes.

            The second rate comedians the BBC has on spend their time making cheap, lazy and unfunny jokes. See Russel Howard as a "fine" example of that.

            Most watchers of BBC panel shows are presumably either apolitical or left wing, perpetuating the view that it's acceptable for BBC panel shows to be firmly left wing.

            1. MJI Silver badge

              Re: Strangely the BBC does nothing to encourage right-wing comedians.

              If you are going to do political jokes there is plenty of material.

              Not just Boris, you have Abbot as well, and that England flag woman.

              I am all for equal opportunities piss taking.

    3. HmmmYes Silver badge

      Ah EastEnders - that great modern soap, showing the EastEnd as a load of races, all getting on, all employed (mostly), spekaing English, and going to the pub.

      Not a mosque or FGM'd girl in sight.

    4. strum Silver badge

      >Not hiring most of its staff from the Graun would be a good start.

      Odd that most of the recent Tory press officers have come from the Beeb...

    5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      I subscribe to Sky Sports, therefore I need to pay for Eastenders."

      On the other hand, to be allowed to sunscribe to Sky Sports, you first need to subscribe to another TV package which, no matter how basic, includes channels you probably never watch and so you are subsidising channels that others watch :-)

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        That's my choice. Also due to the competition laws, I can subscribe to Sky Sports through BT or Virgin without subscribing to Sky at all.

  19. MJI Silver badge

    Least worst

    Like democracy.

    No good method, but there is least worse.

    At least Cohen has been shifted on, I am sure he was a plant to ruin the BBC.

    As to programmes, they do them for everyone, except shouty crap for annoying people.

    Licence fee to me is worthwhile just for the output of the natural history unit, and they are also the only mainstream broadcaster left in the UK with unpolluted screens. As a logo hater this means I watch more BBC than all the others together.

    If BBC1 or 2 get on screen logos the direct debit will be cancelled immediately.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    About as expected then, the usual backslapping with a strong side order of cock sucking followed by more bullshit as to why the British Bullshit Corporation needs the money to pump out 90% mindless drivel and propaganda to the masses along with the rare diamond like Natural World..

  21. simmondp

    Please send all those who oppose the Licence Fee to spend a month in the USA - the TV is unwatchable due to the adverts.

    Even if you do not watch that much BBC output remember all other commercial broadcasters have to compete with the BBC for quality of output and not overloading it's viewers with adverts. In the US there is nothing on (linear) TV to compare against.

    And while we are at it, please remind me why to view Sky I have to pay an exorbitant fee AND put up with adverts?

    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      There is plenty of competition already without the BBC purposefully spending money demanded with menaces on programmes which directly compete with the private sector.

      It serves a useful purpose. Chasing ratings isn't it.

      1. strum Silver badge

        >It serves a useful purpose. Chasing ratings isn't it.

        The BBC has always known that if their rating fell, there'd be complaints about pandering to the intellectual elite - just as too much popular programming would bring calls for commercialisation.

        It's a balance - always has been.

    2. King Jack
      Facepalm

      please remind me why to view Sky I have to pay an exorbitant fee AND put up with adverts?

      Because Sky knows that idiots will pay. If people used their brains and voted with their wallets Sky would not do it. I find it strange that subscribers can't work that out for themselves.

  22. danbishop
    Trollface

    Yay grammar...

    Licence <-- noun

    License <-- verb

    I bought a licence from the licensing company who are authorised to license me.

    See also:

    Practice/Practise

    Advice/Advise

    :)

  23. DougS Silver badge

    BBC programming exports your culture around the world

    The BBC does more than provide you with programming. Some of that programming is exported all over the world, and your culture along with it.

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: BBC programming exports your culture around the world

      But look what that did to Dr Who....

      They started to get more interest from the U.S, which led to more storylines set there, next thing you know it is almost identical to US tv. No excuse for that, ITC knew how to do it.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anecdotally, I know a loads of folks overseas who leech iPlayer with VNP.

    It would seem to me that the BBC's focus should be to secure and monetise iPlayer; then the extra income generated could more than cover the loss of licensing fees generated through dwindling live TV usage.

    1. John G Imrie Silver badge

      There are two problems with that.

      1) Copyright holders are still doing regional licensing deals meaning that the BBC can't allow programs it doesn't make directly to be seen outside the UK.

      and

      2) Every time they try to get their own programs shown outside the UK. Sky TV keeps jumping up and down screaming about unfair competition.

  25. MisterHappy
    Happy

    Pay-Per-View?

    After reading a lot of the comments I am left wondering what people want, some are saying that Netflix is just as good, if not better (no mention of Amazon though). Some are talking about only paying for what you watch & using a subscription only model.

    All well and good but when I had Nexflix I paid a flat fee every month and could choose from their offerings, kind of like paying the TV license fee and choosing what broadcast TV I watch.

    As for Sky, again the amount of dross that you don't watch will outweigh what you do & there are probably 6 people watching 'Duck Dynasty' at 3am on Discovery+1 but everyone not watching is still paying if they have the basic package.

    I am not a huge fan of the BBC but I find that £11 for the few things I want to watch is still better value than the £40 (ish) I pay to Sky for a similar number.

    Pay as you go TV doesn't seem to be offerered by anyone BTW.

    And if you don't watch BBC, that's fine too, there is a process whereby you can inform the relevant people and not have to pay the license fee.

    1. King Jack
      Thumb Down

      Re: Pay-Per-View?

      Why should anyone be forced to tell somebody that they don't use their service? Do I tell Tesco or ASDA when I walk into Lidl? The BBC should face reality and make the Licence for their service alone. Just like other businesses out there. Put out a good product or service and customers will come. Extortion is illegal except where the licence in concerned. You should not have to pay not use something. For for the apologists out there. A TV service is not like the NHS, roads or schools. Life would continue without the BBC extortion racket.

      1. MisterHappy

        Re: Pay-Per-View?

        So if I stop using my car I don't have to tell anyone? It can sit on the drive with no insurance and I don't have to pay any vehicle excise duty? Why am I forced to tell the council when I move house?

        If you are going down that route, why do I pay for libraries I don't use, swimming pools I don't go to and many of the other council 'amenities' I have no interest in?

        It's £11 a month... and if it's 'The principle of the thing' then have a look at how much Channel 4 and, I think, ITV get from the licence fee because they also get a cut.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

  26. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    For gawds sake

    put the BBC on a subscription only service

    At least that way those of us who want to watch its output can pay for it, and those of us who dont, wont.

    And if they were serious about grabbing my money, they'd put as much of their archive on-line to watch as possible, instead of having to trawl pirate sites or youtube for low quality copies.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: For gawds sake

      "And if they were serious about grabbing my money, they'd put as much of their archive on-line to watch as possible, instead of having to trawl pirate sites or youtube for low quality copies."

      This is why Murdoch and Sky are pro-licence fee. They don't want the BBC to be able to do that and while they are state sponsored Murdoch can use the argument that the BBC is not allowed to compete with his and other commercial offerings other than in certain mandated ways.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    no agreement...

    People who are pro or against the tele liscense are not going to convince each other to change their view.

    For that reason i got rid of my TV, I dont agree with the license so i don't have the device.

    The problem for me is this extension to internet. iPlayer is geoblocked already to try and keep it for UK only viewers, but if they want liscence paying viewers only then you should have to put your liscense number in to watch it.

    I know this would mean Crapita would have to make some kind of functional joined up IT system, but maybe they could outsource it to a small inexperienced Indian company so that our taxes are really well spent helping other countries employment and economy.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've had 'em

    When I was a young working man, and pretty much every hour was given to earning a crust so I could afford my flat, I had cut back on all my costs and outgoings, such as the TV licence.

    I sent them back their letter, explaining I don't watch TV.

    One day, I got a knock at the door and two of them were there asking to see my TV. No problems, as it was all legit. They came in, checked the back of the telly for an aerial or cable to the wall socket of which there was none, as I'd got rid of it to avoid that trap.

    Then they went through every single channel - none of which had ever been tuned into the frequencies for any of the channels.

    Whilst they were doing this, they were asking about the PC setup I had in the living room as I had lots of machines running as servers and bits and bobs lying all over the place. One of the guys told me his sons PC had a virus which kept shutting his PC down after about a minute. I gave him written instructions on what to do and he ticked a box on his sheet and said I'd never hear from them again.

    Nice people!

    To this day, I've never watched live broadcast TV or any BBC streaming service which means I've saved somewhere over £2,300. When you look at it that way, that's not a small sum.

  29. jzl

    Radio 4

    I would pay the TV license just for Radio 4 alone. The fact that we get a world class broadcaster and news organisation attached is a bonus.

    When you consider how much Sky charge for 572 channels of utter garbage, the BBC is a wondrous thing.

  30. HmmmYes Silver badge

    Look at all the upvotes for 'BBC is great no ads, Fawlty towers was funny, David Atennborough..' posts.

    A lot of BBC workers must read the Register.

  31. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

    I came to this comments section

    just to read all the "la-di-da, I don't have a TV, I prefer flowers, poetry, horseback riding on the beach and pictures of unicorns" comments.

    I was not disappointed.

    1. unwarranted triumphalism

      Re: I came to this comments section

      You must have been, since there aren't any.

      But I suppose disappointment is a common feeling for you. As it is for everyone you meet.

  32. Daz555

    They can scrap the TV licence if they want - just pay for the BBC by other means. To be honest it would be fairer if the BBC was funded through standard taxation as this would mean the wealthy paid slightly more for the BBC than the poor.

    But of the taxes I pay, the funding of the BBC is one I completely approve of.

  33. Gra4662

    BBC rocks

    I watch Netflix and Amazon prime and for terrestrial TV BBC One, Two and Channel Four. Look at programs like Blue Planet 2, this would never had been made If it wasn’t for the BBC. I understand that not everyone wants to watch cuttlefish hypnotising crabs but some people do, it’s educational.

    Probably a poor reflection on my childhood and pots of 2P’s at Butlins that the only program I ever watch on ITV is Tipping Point......

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: BBC rocks

      I watch Netflix and Amazon prime...

      We should not forget that Prime's big asset of the moment is..... The Grand Tour

      Which as everyone knows is TopGear, without the BBC production constraints (in all their forms)...

      Without the BBC's multi-decade investment (in TopGear and Clarkson, May and Hammond), I doubt Amazon would have taken Clarkson et al on.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: BBC rocks

        Grand Tour

        More trouble caused by Cohens war against Clarkson and motoring TV

  34. Grease Monkey

    Sounds far too complicated anyway. The last I heard at least 20% of people have no home internet connection. Surely is reasonable to assume that not all of the 20% have Sky, but that most of those people still have a TV. So what happens there then? Some sort of complicated system where people with an internet connection or Sky pay their their ISP or Sky but those that don't still have to pay a licence fee?

    Why make the system much more complicated than it actually is?

    A simpler system would be to fund the BBC from the treasury (ie through taxes) and introduce a rebate system for those who don't need a TV licence. After all the number of people who don't need a licence is much smaller than those who do.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Rebate system ?

      I don't get a rebate fir the schools my taxes fund but which I don't use.

      Some things are simply funded for the good of society from society's kitty. Refunds don't come into it.

  35. Gerry 3
    Stop

    Stop falling for TVL's misinformation !

    There still seems to be a widespread belief in the TV Licensing propaganda that you have to tell them if you don't need a licence, and that you have to let them in to your home in order to prove your innocence.

    None of these myths is true. There is NO obligation whatsoever to communicate with TV Licensing or to let them in, except in the unlikely event that they have a valid search warrant.

    Of course, the threat-o-grams will get ever more menacing, but if you don't need a licence you can happily ignore them or pop them into an unstamped envelope and send them back unopened.

    But if the threats get tiresome, they can be stopped dead in their tracks (at least in England and Wales) simply by stating that they can't send the boys round because you have withdrawn their Implied Right of Access, and therefore that any further threats to do so will be dealt with under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I believe most, but not all, Britons DO understand that "public sector broadcasting" is a "good for all society". I've not seen the petition but it sounds like this was a debate on how it's funded not whether it should exist. So understanding the value, but thinking it is an inefficient funding method requiring it's own system and persecuting those without a TV with surveillance and demands they get a licence, the desire is to keep public sector broadcasting but do away with the obnoxious tax.

    And who on Earth is suggesting other broadcasters pay for it ?

    It's a public good, provides for those unable to afford other entertainment, and provides the world with British views, culture, etc.. The sensible and cheaper way to collect it's funding is clearly through general taxation.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Clearly the entire "TV Tax" situation needs a radical overhaul...

    It's no longer acceptable in this day and age to have people going around to peoples homes and enquiring if they have a TV set (or computer/tablet/smartphone etc) connected that can receive "live" broadcasts.

    And all the luvvies who are scared that the quality of programming will suffer clearly don't recognise that there are many alternative methods of ensuring that the BBC gets some funding.

    It can allow advertising (as it does on it's internet service to non UK viewers)

    It can go encrypted and people pay to watch specific packages, similar to how Sky and Virgin do it

    It can be funded from the Treasury (as long as the govt stay out of it)

    It can be funded by the Lottery (or "any" lottery) - buy a ticket and maybe win 1 months/1 years free subscription

    They can reduce the scandalous amount of money paid to celebs for fronting some of their programs...I'm sure there's lots of people who would be happy to stand in for some of these "presenters"....and I'm not sure many of them call themselves "journalists" as they used to..!!

    They could digitise all of their back catalogue and make it available as "pay per view" online - they were going to do this, but someone messed up and spent a lot of TV Licence money on some hare-brained scheme that was too difficult to implement.

    ...

    There are plenty of other options....just need someone to come up with a plan and actually implement it so that Crapita are cut out of providing their "services"...

  38. j4327496

    The model of the TV licence and the harassment it brings makes me despise the BBC. I refuse to watch anything on the BBC. The day they fall from Amazon Prime, Netflix, Youtube and simply the internet doing so well will be a wonderful day and a mark in history.

  39. j4327496

    Two thumbs down to my previous comment? Do people actually support people knocking on doors, harassment and pushing themselves into people's home and checking their personal belongings and equipment?

    I've watched almost no television in the last 3 years, especially the BBC, the last things I remember on the BBC were 24 and the Simpsons which is 10+ years ago now but pay the tax anyway just to avoid the 'fear of being prosecuted' and goons at my door trying to trip me up when I do own a TV but watch youtube and dvds and stuff. Shouldn't be like that or feel like that, wrong so wrong. Other people may like the BBC but I feel pressurised into paying for something I don't even use, only 40p a day, ok I'll send my brothers round your neighbourhood to collect from you all for a new car, you'll never use it but it's brilliant just like the British Bullying Company.

  40. Spanners Silver badge
    Flame

    I want the BBC to be independent again.

    Tony Bliar brought the BBC "under control" after they helped expose his lies in 2003. Since then they have been blatantly more positive about whoever was in government.

    (A good demonstration of this was how they have treated Brexit. They have treated the government and its friends as if they are the only ones with a rational argument.)

    We need to have this fixed. The BBC used to be famous for its accuracy and independence. While they are still miles ahead of Sky and what we hear of the US media, they are still far less than they were.

    Keep the licence fees, with appropriate exceptions and get it out of the hands of whoever misled the public most effectively last election. Entertainment is not their only function. They are supposed to educate and inform as well. It tends to only inform us of what the government wants us to know,

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019