Marple Sixth Form College: ambitious to be an outstanding college within its community, and for its community.

Author Topic: BBC Discussion  (Read 16720 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2015, 10:46:16 PM »
So, according to your logic, sgk, anyone who does not believe in a compulsory poll tax to fund a national broadcasting organisation is a mouthpiece for the "rich and powerful". Funnily enough, I  don't have many of those in my immediate social circle......perhaps you might just acknowledge that people have the right to have a contrasting viewpoint.

But it's not a poll tax or anything like it. You have a perfect right not to pay the fee. Just don't use the service.

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2015, 07:16:36 PM »
So, according to your logic, sgk, anyone who does not believe in a compulsory poll tax to fund a national broadcasting organisation is a mouthpiece for the "rich and powerful". Funnily enough, I  don't have many of those in my immediate social circle......perhaps you might just acknowledge that people have the right to have a contrasting viewpoint.

sgk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2015, 05:26:23 PM »
Here goes, although feels like I'm just feeding the trolls.

If the BBC fails, who cares, it's just another media company but it will fail if they rely on the current funding arrangement. With a bit of thought, we can get the BBC for free.
What should the BBC aspire to becoming then, by taking a subscription only service ?  I've seen lots of Murdoch output, like this week's Fox News, and I wasn't right impressed.
ITV : Fox News commentator apologises after claiming Birmingham is a 'totally Muslim city where non-Muslims don't go'

To suggest if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated is rather silly. For a start, it's likely to get more income as subsribers will not avoid the tax as they do now. advertising would add to the income.
Nope.  They would lose their unique status and become just another media company.

Furthermore, as a worldwide broadcaster over the net / sat / cable, don't you think, managed like a real business, it would not increase revenue. Right now, the BBC is almost gifted around the world, as a private company it would bring in revenue, able to expand and return money in tax and the revenue privatisation.
Nope.  They already sell their content around the world, achieving over a billion pounds in revenue each year.  That keeps the license fee nice and cheap for us folks in blighty.
BBC Worldwide Annual Review 2013/2014

Perhaps Dave is so selfish, he'd rather have his entertainment subsidised for him by the poorest in society and forgo the additional money into the treasury (afet all, he wants other people to pay that too).
Nope.  But perhaps others are so selfish they would prefer to see the rich and powerful dictating what content appears on the screens, To the detriment and exclusion of the poorest in society.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2633
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2015, 03:19:07 PM »
But I'm not a fare dodger.  ;)

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2015, 02:23:56 PM »
On the contrary, if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.  And as Howard has pointed out:
I assume Bowden Guy would be happy to allow the BBC to be destroyed, or become changed beyond recognition.  Fair enough - he's entitled to his view.  But let's not pretend that it could survive such a change. It would be the end of public service broadcasting in the UK, and of one of the world's most distinguished and respected media organisations.

If the BBC fails, who cares, it's just another media company but it will fail if they rely on the current funding arrangement. With a bit of thought, we can get the BBC for free.

To suggest if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated is rather silly. For a start, it's likely to get more income as subsribers will not avoid the tax as they do now. advertising would add to the income.  Furthermore, as a worldwide broadcaster over the net / sat / cable, don't you think, managed like a real business, it would not increase revenue.

Right now, the BBC is almost gifted around the world, as a private company it would bring in revenue, able to expand and return money in tax and the revenue privatisation.

Perhaps Dave is so selfish, he'd rather have his entertainment subsidised for him by the poorest in society and forgo the additional money into the treasury (afet all, he wants other people to pay that too).


Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2633
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2015, 09:37:42 AM »
And your point is??

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2015, 09:23:14 PM »
Dave, perhaps you remember the vilification that Ray Honeyford suffered at the hands of the BBC, the Guardian and other parts of the media? He was a Bradford headteacher who warned, in the 1980s,  about the dangers of 'multiculturalism" and the likelihood that different ethnic groups would end up following complete separate existences. He was presented by almost all media organisations as a 'racist".

He was hounded out of his job yet, just 25 years later, a certain Trevor Phillips was  admitting that multiculturalism in Britain had utterly failed.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2633
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2015, 06:25:10 PM »
If the BBC is such a great organisation, loved by all, it will have no problem at all in raising funds via subscription or advertising.

On the contrary, if the BBC were to become a subscription service its income would be decimated, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.  And as Howard has pointed out:
Advertising on the BBC won't produce the revenue that people expect.... On the rare occasions when I watch something on a commercial channel I NEVER see the advertisements. I put on the PVR and then come back 15 minutes later so I can jump through the commercial break.

I assume Bowden Guy would be happy to allow the BBC to be destroyed, or become changed beyond recognition.  Fair enough - he's entitled to his view.  But let's not pretend that it could survive such a change. It would be the end of public service broadcasting in the UK, and of one of the world's most distinguished and respected media organisations.

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2015, 03:12:30 PM »
Over 150,000 people are criminalised each year because they do not buy a TV licence. Most of these people are, I suspect, from relatively poor backgrounds. Last year, around March  time, it was widely trailed, by the Coalition, that they were looking to convert non-payment if this poll tax to a civil matter. Another area where nothing has happened.

If the BBC is such a great organisation, loved by all, it will have no problem at all in raising funds via subscription or advertising. Time for a change. Perhaps our Parliamentary candidates would like to offer their view on this?

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2015, 12:43:21 PM »
Because it's a tiny amount for someone who's household income is mainly scrounged off the taxpayer. It's nice to have the choice as to what telly we'd like to see and choose what to pay for.

Oh ouch....... I'll send you a bank statment listing my income lol.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2015, 12:31:55 PM »
Its such a tiny annual amount I really don't understand why folks get so exercised about it added to which its an outstanding service.

Because it's a tiny amount for someone who's household income is mainly scrounged off the taxpayer. It's nice to have the choice as to what telly we'd like to see and choose what to pay for.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2015, 12:29:59 PM »
Indeed, or get a "smart" TV which has iPlayer built in.

I understand the colour TV license is £145.50 though, not £170.  Bargain!
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2

I beg your pardon, I hadn't realised it had gone up, in that case it's £192 of your hard earned. As it's a tax, I gross it up with PAYE and NI added back.

I think a 'smart' TV does need a licence, I can't afford  such an indulgence but it's great that we can avoid the TV tax.

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2015, 11:43:38 AM »
Its such a tiny annual amount I really don't understand why folks get so exercised about it added to which its an outstanding service.

sgk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2015, 10:56:15 AM »
Just to save a little money, you do not need a licence fee if you don;t watch or record TV as it's broadcast. I.e., if you watch everything on a remote service such as on demand, you do not need a licence. It's very easy to do this by using a PC connected to the TV saving £170 of your hard earned each year.

Indeed, or get a "smart" TV which has iPlayer built in.

I understand the colour TV license is £145.50 though, not £170.  Bargain!
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: BBC Discussion
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2015, 10:41:16 AM »
Just to save a little money, you do not need a licence fee if you don;t watch or record TV as it's broadcast. I.e., if you watch everything on a remote service such as on demand, you do not need a licence. It's very easy to do this by using a PC connected to the TV saving £170 of your hard earned each year.