After reading up on it, I've come to the conclusion that it's just a bunch of Bullshit. I really see no point in it other then as another tax on regulaer people.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Can someone explain to me the point of TV licensing?
For those of us who haven't read said document, what don't you like?
It just seems unnecessarily stupid.TheAussieReaper wrote:
For those of us who haven't read said document, what don't you like?
It pays for the BBC and, partly, Channel4.
The T.V license is a rip off, presenters like Johnathon ross get paid 8 million over 3 years of our license fee's, plus the programs on the BBC are total rubbish
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
What?! I'd rather pay. I hate adverts.rammunition wrote:
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
you are paying 2 million to f**king Graeme Norton over 2 years, 8MILLION to Johnathon ross over 3, £600,000 a year to Chris moyles.liquidat0r wrote:
What?! I'd rather pay. I hate adverts.rammunition wrote:
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
Are you happy to pay these peoples wages???
its a rip off, what shows do you watch on the BBC?
i only ever watch the footy as the quality of the programs are utter rubbish.
i would rather have adverts than pay these peoples wages
Last edited by rammunition (2008-06-15 02:41:57)
I'm happy with it, no adverts and news that's not either fully government or corporate controlled.
Plus Top Gear, obviously.
Plus Top Gear, obviously.
Well I pay mine with no issues. for all it costs. I would pay for it just to have BBC news remain relatively unbiased.
It pays for the radio stations which are generally good, bar radio 1, what a pile of bollox. Radio 2-4 ftw!
We get our local station Radio Ulster, Gerry Anderson and Talk back are worth the fee alone.
Long like the BBC. I don't want adverts. I don't want content edited or ignored to keep advertisers happy. I don't want this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7452264.stm to become a trend. Murdock ordering one of his Hench men to run for Parliament. He has his own agenda and his Sun newspaper and Sky News spouts hate filled backwards bollox to the impressionable masses. Media moguls in politics is so wrong, I don't even know were to begin.
It pays for the radio stations which are generally good, bar radio 1, what a pile of bollox. Radio 2-4 ftw!
We get our local station Radio Ulster, Gerry Anderson and Talk back are worth the fee alone.
Long like the BBC. I don't want adverts. I don't want content edited or ignored to keep advertisers happy. I don't want this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7452264.stm to become a trend. Murdock ordering one of his Hench men to run for Parliament. He has his own agenda and his Sun newspaper and Sky News spouts hate filled backwards bollox to the impressionable masses. Media moguls in politics is so wrong, I don't even know were to begin.
The BBC is a quality institution, the programmes in the BBC's portfolio are 100 times better that that dross over on ITV. I'm happy with TV licensing if it keeps the BBC the way it is.rammunition wrote:
The T.V license is a rip off, presenters like Johnathon ross get paid 8 million over 3 years of our license fee's, plus the programs on the BBC are total rubbish
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
Now that you mentioned the Murdoch "empire", BBC news is ok, but they could be covering more, the news site is pretty good with more.JahManRed wrote:
Well I pay mine with no issues. for all it costs. I would pay for it just to have BBC news remain relatively unbiased.
It pays for the radio stations which are generally good, bar radio 1, what a pile of bollox. Radio 2-4 ftw!
We get our local station Radio Ulster, Gerry Anderson and Talk back are worth the fee alone.
Long like the BBC. I don't want adverts. I don't want content edited or ignored to keep advertisers happy. I don't want this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7452264.stm to become a trend. Murdock ordering one of his Hench men to run for Parliament. He has his own agenda and his Sun newspaper and Sky News spouts hate filled backwards bollox to the impressionable masses. Media moguls in politics is so wrong, I don't even know were to begin.
Whats does rupert murdoch own, here is a link but not sure if its all correct
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 059AAPuNxL
to be honest, T.V as a whole has been going downhill, the quantity of programs are increasing but the quality is decreasing. The BBC can do far betterKILLSWITCH wrote:
The BBC is a quality institution, the programmes in the BBC's portfolio are 100 times better that that dross over on ITV. I'm happy with TV licensing if it keeps the BBC the way it is.rammunition wrote:
The T.V license is a rip off, presenters like Johnathon ross get paid 8 million over 3 years of our license fee's, plus the programs on the BBC are total rubbish
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
I'm happy with the BBC. I don't watch all the programs they produce because some just don't interest me but they do make quite a few quality programs and documentaries that really make my evenings after work. No adverts is a real bonus and I'm happy to pay to keep it running the way it is.
Between the BBC website and BBC news it's the only news source you need to watch really.
Between the BBC website and BBC news it's the only news source you need to watch really.
This thread makes no sense what so ever.
It can always do better. But you're right about the quality of programming in general getting gradually worse. I have found myself watching less and less TV these days, the only thing I watch is football, documentaries and the news. Maybe at 22 I'm just getting old.rammunition wrote:
to be honest, T.V as a whole has been going downhill, the quantity of programs are increasing but the quality is decreasing. The BBC can do far betterKILLSWITCH wrote:
The BBC is a quality institution, the programmes in the BBC's portfolio are 100 times better that that dross over on ITV. I'm happy with TV licensing if it keeps the BBC the way it is.rammunition wrote:
The T.V license is a rip off, presenters like Johnathon ross get paid 8 million over 3 years of our license fee's, plus the programs on the BBC are total rubbish
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
PureFodder wrote:
Top Gear, obviously.
ƒ³
I hate fucking adverts and would gladly pay it. Also you say all these people get paid stupid amounts. If they started funding themselves on adverts they would get paid just as much! It would have minimum effect on their wages!
Also BBC has good quality programs and documentaries that are very interesting. Channel 4 just shows people with disabilities like the "elephant man" and I think it is in some way cruel to him for showing his condition to the U.K.
Also BBC has good quality programs and documentaries that are very interesting. Channel 4 just shows people with disabilities like the "elephant man" and I think it is in some way cruel to him for showing his condition to the U.K.
I can't honestly think of a good program made by the BBC currently, also the impact on their wages isn't the point it's the fact that we, the license payers are paying them, I coulnd't care less if they make 8 million a year as long as I'm not one of the ones footing the bill.teek22 wrote:
I hate fucking adverts and would gladly pay it. Also you say all these people get paid stupid amounts. If they started funding themselves on adverts they would get paid just as much! It would have minimum effect on their wages!
Also BBC has good quality programs and documentaries that are very interesting. Channel 4 just shows people with disabilities like the "elephant man" and I think it is in some way cruel to him for showing his condition to the U.K.
I don't care, F1 is also coming to the BBC. Finally we'll be able to watch it without adverts. I mean for fuck sake, it's a continuous event you can't put adverts whilst it's going on. Although they really should pay their presenters and shit a little less money. Johnathon Ross getting like £2.2 million a year for doing what? One fucking Friday show or something, even then he doesn't do anything he just sits and talks with his fucked up accent.
He's one of the few shows they have that still gets half decent ratings, he could ask triple that and still get it because if they lose him they've got almost nothing left, plus he works on BBC radio, if BBC TV pisses him off they lose him on the radio too and yet again he's one of their highest rated shows on radio too.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
... Johnathon Ross getting like £2.2 million a year for doing what? One fucking Friday show or something, even then he doesn't do anything he just sits and talks with his fucked up accent.
Get this, in Ireland we pay a licensing fee and they still show adverts...what the fuck is that all about?liquidat0r wrote:
What?! I'd rather pay. I hate adverts.rammunition wrote:
Its time for the BBC to start fundin itself with adverts etc
Plus the licensing fee only goes to RTÉ1 and RTÉ2 (the state broadcasters), they give a little bit towards the Irish language channel TG4 but TV3, Channel 6 and the other private stations have to make do without. Not fair in my opinion and if you don't pay it you can get a fine and a court appearance.
You guys are lucky you have Johnathon Ross, at least he's funny sometimes. We have Pat Kenny, I'm convinced the entire license fee goes to him and him alone. This piss take version of Pat Kenny sums up what his shitty show is like...TheEternalPessimist wrote:
He's one of the few shows they have that still gets half decent ratings, he could ask triple that and still get it because if they lose him they've got almost nothing left, plus he works on BBC radio, if BBC TV pisses him off they lose him on the radio too and yet again he's one of their highest rated shows on radio too.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
... Johnathon Ross getting like £2.2 million a year for doing what? One fucking Friday show or something, even then he doesn't do anything he just sits and talks with his fucked up accent.
Here's Pat gettin what he deserves (on live TV!)...
Eh, between not paying and being able to watch BBC on occasion, I prefer the latter.
Granted, I have SKY, so I don't even know what channel BBC is on exactly - I always have to look for it Oo
Cable just means that instead of 1 good channel and 3 shit ones, you get 600 shit channels, and maybe 25 good ones.
-kon
Granted, I have SKY, so I don't even know what channel BBC is on exactly - I always have to look for it Oo
Cable just means that instead of 1 good channel and 3 shit ones, you get 600 shit channels, and maybe 25 good ones.
-kon
In its early days it was a good idea, user pays for a quality public service - when there were no alternatives.
You either pay and listen/watch, or you don't pay.
Now the BBC is largely entertainment and there are many alternatives it doesn't really make much sense.
Except it is great to be able to watch without commercials.
You either pay and listen/watch, or you don't pay.
Now the BBC is largely entertainment and there are many alternatives it doesn't really make much sense.
Except it is great to be able to watch without commercials.
Fuck Israel
If the tax pays for BBC then I'm all for it. Even if it was just for the office (British Version FTW).
In the United States its not a whole lot different. Public television is funded in part by taxes (the remainder is from underwriting by businesses and the annual panhandling marathon)
In the United States its not a whole lot different. Public television is funded in part by taxes (the remainder is from underwriting by businesses and the annual panhandling marathon)
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Can someone explain to me the point of TV licensing?