TV licence requirements
- Thread starter ColeyS1
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
Rorschach":2e60ryid said:
There used to be a whole other thread about the BBC and it's biases. Best we don't go there again, but the BBC is not evenhanded, it is in the business of propaganda, and very sophisticated, clever propaganda it is, too. Left Vs right is irrelevant to that effort.
RogerS
Established Member
Rorschach":3drr0fpf said:
=D> Excellent. Couldn't have put that better myself.
Trevanion
Greatest Of All Time
I’ve had to move down to an ice cave in Antarctica to stop the vile, blood-sucking media corporations from dictating my life and force feeding me fake news! Not to mention all the beeb vans with their brain melting license detection technology, I should be ok until they come up with a way to mount the emitter to a dog sled :shock:
*Adjusts tinfoil hat for snugness*
*Adjusts tinfoil hat for snugness*
whiskywill
Established Member
Trainee neophyte":1sr9uxsv said:
I have 13 "red" letters and 2 "we'll send the boys round" letters although I have paid my license fee for many years by direct debit. Unfortunately nobody visited me.
Irish Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2019
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 4
The BBC has been taken over by minority groups. It is sadly no longer representative of the social and cultural make up of our country and is not fit for purpose.
Scrap the license fee and let them find another funding model.
Scrap the license fee and let them find another funding model.
RogerS
Established Member
Irish Rover":3adijfv1 said:
Curious to know which minority groups you think have taken the BBC over.
Irish Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2019
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 4
RogerS":1gj146lr said:
I think it's fairly obvious.
Let's put it this way. June Sarpong has been employed as "Creative Diversity Director" at the BBC on a handsome salary.
I resent being forced to contribute financially to that.
RogerS
Established Member
Irish Rover":13kb8bzp said:
I had to Google her. Then picked up on the term "Creative Diversity" aka megaloads of BS and I take your point totally. Bit like their stupid insistence of having at least one female participant on panel shows etc. Not that I am against female participants, just that....at the moment and in some genres...comedy for example...there aren't (a) that many and (b) not that many funny ones. Many are there just to tick the diversity box and that is IMO the wrong way to go about improving things. It makes a whole mockery of diversity etc. Same goes for 'positive discrimination'. People should be taken on their merit and not to tick some fatuous diversity target.
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
sammy.se":2uhh3ctp said:
Except it costs more.... the BBC that is.
Why ppl (and the BBC) go on about "not being able to make the content YOU love" - which is an actual BBC quote reported in The Times, utterly baffles me - do they think the general public don't notice award winning series like... oh lets see... Game of Thrones, Battlestar Galactica to name just two, (though GoT on it's own should prove the point) alongside all the others are produced NOT ON THE BBC's DIME? As for Eastenders - isn't it about time that was put to pasture?
So they have adverts, big deal, go make a coffee or tea or spend those 5 minutes actually interacting with the other members of the family if you can tear them away from thier mobile phones...... I also have to wonder just how many UK households don't have a cable box of some kind, and crucially are NOT ELIGABLE for the "over 65 free licence" - I would imagine they are in the minority by a significant margin.
If the BBC went to a "pay to view" system, maybe we would get less dross like the walking dead of Eastenders, and more of the stuff the BBC used to be famed for (and still is now and again).
It would also be helpful if ex-BBC employees drawing a pension didn't chip into the thread - or at the very least openly declare thier affiliations; as I'm led to beleive that's the situation of one vocal contributor in this thread.
RogerS
Established Member
rafezetter":1z1i04nl said:
Do you mean me ? Not sure why that should preclude me from commenting. After all it was in the early '70's and I left before the 1980's. It's only one of my work pensions and a not particularly large one at that as I didn't put in the years of service.
stuartpaul
Established Member
The BBC is unfortunately in the position as being seen by many as an 'exemplar' public sector employer and therefore has to be seen to jump through every pink and fluffy hoop known to man (and a few more that aren't).
There's always going to be people who don't like the output (picking on Eastenders is unfair, - it's a soft, slow moving, easy to hit target!) and that's not a fair, reasoned argument is it? Battlestar is in the same league in my opinion.
If the BBC moves to a voluntary fee paying setup it will be dead in the water before the end of this parliament which I think would suit a number of current political agendas. I think it would be sad to see it fail but it is going to be increasingly difficult to continue to justify the licence fee approach.
There's always going to be people who don't like the output (picking on Eastenders is unfair, - it's a soft, slow moving, easy to hit target!) and that's not a fair, reasoned argument is it? Battlestar is in the same league in my opinion.
If the BBC moves to a voluntary fee paying setup it will be dead in the water before the end of this parliament which I think would suit a number of current political agendas. I think it would be sad to see it fail but it is going to be increasingly difficult to continue to justify the licence fee approach.
Not sure what that has to do with it? Doesn't make opinions any less relevant.rafezetter":2wvuvr0g said:
RogerS
Established Member
If it went to subscription I suspect that you'd be surprised at just how much is no longer covered. A lot of sport, I suspect.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
Interesting subject. I listen to BBC Radio 4 a great deal, and some BBC TV. In years past I would never have objected to the licence fee but I do now.
There are two main reasons. The wokeness and obsession with diversity over quality are increasingly irritating. The BBC cling to a sense of entitlement and can be patronising in a "we know best" way. Their news website is beyond dull and is one of the few that does not allow public comment, which given that we are forced to pay, is inappropriate I feel.
Secondly the quality of content has declined. I am not interested in many sports, but when the BBC put bowls, darts and snooker on prime channels at or close to prime times I fear they are scraping the barrel. It is also laden with repetition and news broadcasts are very guilty of this and appear to ignore that fact that we have been in an internet age for some time.
There is a rising tide of discontent with the BBC and I think that the recent inflationary rise was a very stupid own goal. At the very least its time for management to be swept out along with a number of layers of unnecessary people doing pointless jobs to serve political correctness.
Viewing habits are changing radically. Even in TV we view most content now on apps. This includes Netflix, Apple TV and YouTube. I would be quite happy to have a cheaper Sky sub and wipe the BBC from it.
In fact I think I am motivating myself to use the BBC notification system they publish on their website, to opt out and be a non-user for 2 years.
There are two main reasons. The wokeness and obsession with diversity over quality are increasingly irritating. The BBC cling to a sense of entitlement and can be patronising in a "we know best" way. Their news website is beyond dull and is one of the few that does not allow public comment, which given that we are forced to pay, is inappropriate I feel.
Secondly the quality of content has declined. I am not interested in many sports, but when the BBC put bowls, darts and snooker on prime channels at or close to prime times I fear they are scraping the barrel. It is also laden with repetition and news broadcasts are very guilty of this and appear to ignore that fact that we have been in an internet age for some time.
There is a rising tide of discontent with the BBC and I think that the recent inflationary rise was a very stupid own goal. At the very least its time for management to be swept out along with a number of layers of unnecessary people doing pointless jobs to serve political correctness.
Viewing habits are changing radically. Even in TV we view most content now on apps. This includes Netflix, Apple TV and YouTube. I would be quite happy to have a cheaper Sky sub and wipe the BBC from it.
In fact I think I am motivating myself to use the BBC notification system they publish on their website, to opt out and be a non-user for 2 years.
Think how much they could save by not covering any football. :lol:
RogerS
Established Member
AJB Temple":f9juvvai said:
That is one of the best descriptions as to what is wrong with the BBC that I have seen. =D>
lurker
Le dullard de la commune
AJB Temple":6tfumj9n said:
Not disagreeing with that, but it is just you (and me).
My 93 year old father in law loved the bowls and snooker, as he was close to being house bound for the final three years there was not much to enjoy.
thetyreman
Established Member
the most recent doctor who is the perfect example of trying to please everybody, whilst pleasing nobody at the same time, it's for me the worst series they've ever created, and not because the doctor is female, it's the cast, the PC ness of it and the poor quality writing. The series before it with capaldi was one of the best so it's a real let down in my opinion.
Similar threads
