Is it time for us to stop paying our BBC license fee

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

The issues are many. Whether its Mr. Rooke case over covering up 911, the favourably covered ''better together ''campaign. using every trick in the book to demonise the Independence campaign and lastly , the onesided coverage on another attack on Gaza, distorting what is happening and resorting to spin to make out its inevitable.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZBM-pkJPioThe spin meister behind Regevhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.htmlwhats your idea of the Saville Broadcasting corporation?

[JB 0]

The BBC lost all credibility years ago, typical self serving, biased and spends money like its going out of fashion, as long as its other peoples!

[mrs miggins 0]

but mrs browns boys.

....is $hit

[Herman 9,713]

No it''s worth it for the radio alone.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Herman wrote the following post at 30/07/2014 1:24 PM:

"No it''s worth it for the radio alone."

My argument is that I don''t listen to the radio, don''t need to access their website and only watch a few hours of their TV output every year. I have equipment capable of receiving TV signals so by law I have to shell out £145.50 for this ''privilege''. If I had the choice I would save myself a large portion of that by buying the Doctor Who DVD box-set every year instead.

Then there is the argument over the political bias of the Corporation and the various scandals that plague it. For once I agree with nevermind, a British Institution it may have been but it''s one that needs to be buried.

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]Herman wrote the following post at 30/07/2014 1:24 PM:

"No it''s worth it for the radio alone."

My argument is that I don''t listen to the radio, don''t need to access their website and only watch a few hours of their TV output every year. I have equipment capable of receiving TV signals so by law I have to shell out £145.50 for this ''privilege''. If I had the choice I would save myself a large portion of that by buying the Doctor Who DVD box-set every year instead.

Then there is the argument over the political bias of the Corporation and the various scandals that plague it. For once I agree with nevermind, a British Institution it may have been but it''s one that needs to be buried.[/quote]

Yeah, that''s a fair point. I tend not to watch much of their TV output as a lot of it is garbage (not as bad as ITV, but that''s a different matter.)What are the options other than the current ''tax''? A subscription like Sky? Which would probably cost the same as now, only you have a choice.Or a commercial service. Free to air still, but you just have to put up with ads?

[Joanna Grey 0]

The only realistic way to do it is going commercial.

From my personal point of view pay-per-view technology would be the way forward (for all the non-commercial channels) but the cost of tech needed to handle this would probably be prohibitive. It would also add the incentive to switch the box off more often thus saving energy and getting people away from the damn thing to do something else....like talk to each other.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Television has changed, away from monopolies controlled by major news outlets to small media organisations and online TV which are starting to fill the niche and who are not partial to news editors with attitudes. Long may it continue..

[hexem 0]

I am trying that Joanna.   Hard work as a widower...Went to see Boyhood with my similarly widowed neighbour.And a meal out before .She kindly gave me hug on the doorstep. I don''t really care for TV anymore. I watch it as I have to sit somewhere. hex

[Johnny Stump 1]

I''ve thought for a long time that BBC''s previously excellent news service is so dumbed down, trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no one and appearing lightweight. Newsround seemed heavyweight by comparison.

Agree with the one-sided Gaza coverage and that Mrs Brown''s Boys is shat.

There was a story, maybe a couple of years ago, about police searching for a Gang who had knifed and killed another young lad. They went on to say police were searching for a couple of men and gave detailed descriptions about what they were wearing etc. I had seen the news story on Sky so I knew this but the BBC did everything to avoid saying they were black, you would have thought that that may have helped the search a abit better.

[Shyster 0]

JB - "The BBC lost all credibility years ago, typical self serving, biased and spends money like its going out of fashion, as long as its other peoples!"

Just like the Labour Party then - fantastic at spending others hard earned.

The BBC, Guardian & Labour Party -- all the same thing.

[Joanna Grey 0]

It''s somewhat strange for someone like nevermind to criticise the BBC.

Without the BBC we would would not have Comic Relief, Sport Relief and Children in Need.

Just follow the paper trail from there....

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]Herman wrote the following post at 30/07/2014 1:24 PM:

"No it''s worth it for the radio alone."

My argument is that I don''t listen to the radio, don''t need to access their website and only watch a few hours of their TV output every year. I have equipment capable of receiving TV signals so by law I have to shell out £145.50 for this ''privilege''. If I had the choice I would save myself a large portion of that by buying the Doctor Who DVD box-set every year instead.

Then there is the argument over the political bias of the Corporation and the various scandals that plague it. For once I agree with nevermind, a British Institution it may have been but it''s one that needs to be buried.[/quote]

FYI The law has changed on this front you don''t need the license if you simply own equipment

[quote]

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they''re being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don''t need a licence if you don''t use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they''re being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12

[/quote]

[SHRIMPER 328]

The BBC world service is the most revered radio station in the world. Each week about half a billion people tune in. Long may the BBC continue.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Should be the first thing to be scrapped. Waste of my money.

[Herman 9,713]

"SHRIMPER"

The BBC world service is the most revered radio station in the world. Each week about half a billion people tune in. Long may the BBC continue.

Fantastic station. Really gives a good view and education of what is going on in the world, with very good journalists reporting from their own countries.

[Joanna Grey 0]

You are not it''s target audience though, unless you speak one of the 27 foreign languages it is translated into. I object to my license fee going to educate and entertain foreigners, let them pay for their own TV and radio.

[Herman 9,713]

I speak English. It is broadcast in English. I live on this planet and i want to hear what is going on on this planet. Therefore i am part of it''s target audience.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Herman wrote the following post at 06/08/2014 4:33 PM:

"I speak English. It is broadcast in English. I live on this planet and i want to hear what is going on on this planet. Therefore i am part of it''s target audience."

Really? You might think you are but the BBC don''t think so. This is from Rob Crilly of the Telegraph, who at the time of writing was working in Pakistan;

"Whenever I air my complaints to BBC executives (former and present), the response is the same. I – as a British expat from Tunbridge Wells living in Pakistan (Disgusted of Islamabad, perhaps) – am not the target audience."

[Larson E Whipsnade 0]

You have to be careful with full time troll and wind up man Johnanna. You would think from the quote at the end of his post that Rob Grilly was against the World Service....but....it actually comes from an article he wrote entitled " Don''t kill off the BBC World Service – it still puts the Great in Great Britain ". Read it here :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100280638/dont-kill-off-the-bbc-world-service-it-still-puts-the-great-in-great-britain/.

Another attempt to deceive scuppered.....still when you post under as many names as he does it''s no wonder he doesn''t know his anus from his elbow

[Herman 9,713]

Ta [Y]Did you read the comments?[:D][:$]

[SHRIMPER 328]

And, not sure if it is still the same, but the Foreign Office, and the Commonwealth Office used to fund the World Service, not the BBC.

[Joanna Grey 0]

It used to be funded by the Government but it now comes out of the license fee. Does not really matter as it''s still my money being frittered away either way.

[Herman 9,713]

Check out Ginja''s post if it upsets you.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Herman wrote the following post at 07/08/2014 6:34 AM:

"Check out Ginja''s post if it upsets you."

That directive does not differentiate between watching and recording live TV and watching and recording live BBC TV. Therefore I would have to give up watching and recording all live TV (the majority of which is not BBC output). That is something I am not prepared to do.

[Johnny Stump 1]

Oh dear God.... Celebrity gymnastics...is this an Alan partridge idea?

[JB 0]

Whatever my views on the BBC I would not want to lose the radio service, take for example talksport, some of it is so infantile its embarrassing.

[Johnny Stump 1]

Agree with that, and the adverts......jeez.

[Johnny Stump 1]

Ok, things are looking up. The lovely Katherine Downes on the BBC News sofa this morning.

[Herman 9,713]

Where''s Naga? That''s the only reason i watch the programme now.